You are hereForums / 2012 Presidential Election / Bill Clinton Joins Pro-Romney Chorus on Obama Attacks on Romney's Bain Record
Bill Clinton Joins Pro-Romney Chorus on Obama Attacks on Romney's Bain Record
Maybe deep down in his heart, Clinton is just another racist cracker who won't accept leadership from an African-American -- up to and including the President of the United States. Does he disagree w/Obama's ads? Fine. Can't his displeasure be registered by phone, confidential intermediary? Anything? But on CNN?
I thought this was an Onion satire at first.
Maybe this is tantamount to the official kickoff to HILLARY IN 2016. Defeat Obama so Hillary can take on President Romney.
This is unbelievable.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bill-clinton-criticizes-obama-bain-attacks-praises-romney-141022725.html
I don't think the Obama campaign is saying private equity plays no productive role in society. They're saying that a guy like Mitt Romney is so out of touch with the struggles of average American, and therefore isn't what the country needs right now in a president.
Clinton is right-- the work that Romney did is a net positive for society, but that doesn't mean we want someone like Romney in the White House.
Actually, what Clinton is saying is
"Obama as long as I am alive, you are in the passenger seat.. so buckle up and keep your hands off the radio dial, son.We're playin' my station, if you catch my drift.
Yes you have the title of President, but if you think that means you get to set the message and strategy for your re-election without my approval, then clearly you are inhaling.
Barack, my boy. You see I can make some big money now: board chairmanships, corporate consulting, keynote lectures at international business conventions (Good Lord, kid, I am never going back to those college lectures...Booooorrrrring... and you couldn't buy a Monica Lewinsky designer handbag for what they pay.)
So the thing is, Barackababy, I am finally in tight with the super white. And that means I gotta smile shake it for the corporazzi. So when you come down hard on homies, I gotta come back at you. You understand... it may be uptown and upscale, but basically it's all street.
Here's a twenty ... go bring me back a tall latte from Starbucks. Keep the change. And do give my best to Michelle. Word out, Bro."
Maybe Bill should see what Romney's fellow Republicans were saying about Bain just a few short months ago:
I posted a reply to John Martin that received a notice that it was being reviewed by the administrators. Did I neglect to pass muster? In brief, whether Clinton is right or wrong on Romney and Bain is not relevant. That he has chosen to publicly undercut the President's chosen campaign strategy in public (crowing that Romney has a "sterling" record in business) is outright sabotage of his own party and the party's leader.
Maybe Bill has a grudge he's nursing, or a Hilliary 2016 campaign to worry about, or maybe just isn't comfortable with the fact that Barack is in charge. (I was snarky about it, but there were no obscenities and no personal insults to anyone on this board. (I made insulting remarks about ex Pres Bill C, but he is not only a public figure but a certifiable jerk so I am clean there).
The public gutting of Obama's campaign message by Booker, Randell, and Clinton is outright disloyalty to know apparent purpose other than to protect their cozy relationships with corporate America.
Now... if someone would be so kind... may I please have this posted?
Sorry about that, Tom. Sometimes the site flags things that shouldn't be.
Should be all fixed now.
Thanks, John. I know I am not always sweetness and light, but it's good to know I am still within bounds -- if, at times, only marginally. I do appreciate the response very much.
The Clinton ties to the corporate world/Wall Street were one of my big reasons for preferring Obama over Hillary. But I agree with John that he was just saying Romney was a good businessman, which Team Obama never argued against. What they argued against is that
a) The purpose of Bain was to create jobs (it was NOT. It was to make a profit for investors)
b) The Bain experience would help him be a good president (if anything, it further distanced him from feeling our pain and being in touch with average Americans.)
I think in the same interview Clinton stated that Obama's policies would be much better for America than Romney's. Ofcourse, the press chooses not to make that the headline and Clinton should know better just like when he was heard on a mic telling Paul Ryan to "keep it up" in selling the Ryan Plan, that it "would be a good start."
If Bill Clinton knows what is good for him, he would be supporting Obama 100% because another Obama win will be the ticket for Hillary in 2016 if she wants to run. In the end, I still feel Bill Clinton will do more good than harm, despite his tendency to look like he is supporting the wrong side and all his gaffes. Think about his popularity and influence, especially with the white blue collar male vote that President Obama struggles with. Hopefully, he will get his act together when it really counts.
Let's see if his presence in Wisconsin this week will help Barrett and lead to a Walker recall. I don't think anyone will have the power to outperform all those Pro-Walker ads and Koch money but if anyone could help, it's Clinton. Crossing my fingers!
And Gov. McDonnell pulled a "Clinton" this week, admitting that President Obama's stimulus really helped Virginia. A rarity for a Republican to be off message, but I'll take it!
Glad Clinton is back on message: From TPM-
There was no worries about Bill Clinton going off President Obama’s campaign message at a joint fundraiser in New York Monday night. From the official White House pool report:
Pool missed the first quotes from President Clinton, who praised POTUS and said that "the alternative would be in my opinion calamitous for our country and the world".
Clinton was widely perceived as veering from Obama's attack message on Romney's record as an executive when he recently said Romney had a "sterling" career at Bain Capital.
" Clinton was widely perceived as veering from Obama's attack message on Romney's record as an executive when he recently said Romney had a "sterling" career at Bain Capital."
He was widely perceived as veering from Obama's attack message because that is precisely what he did... and then some.
I hope, as Kelly observes, that someone whispered to Clinton that unless he would like his legacy to be a) by his disloyalty to the Democratic President he secured the election of Mitt Romney in 2012 and b) while in office played unwrap the lollipop with a 24 year old intern, he might want to consider just reading the playbook and playing his position. Go Team!
Tom-A little off topic for this thread but I thought you'd like and agree with the sentiments in this. When I first read it, I wondered if it had been written by YOU! I'm forever the optimist so I am not feeling as "doom and gloom" as the writer eludes to and I truly feel that President Obama had no choice but to compromise on some of the major areas such as the stimulus (thus it wasn't big enough) and health care (blue dogs made sure there was no public option) and extending the Bush tax cuts temporarily (I truly feel the repeal of DADT hinged on him doing so to gain the minimum support needed to pass it.) But I do wonder how different things would have been if Pres. Obama-or any Democrat-governed more like that cowboy "my way or the highway" Bush where dissent was shamed and good propaganda swayed public opinion enough to force Congress into voting WITH the President. I guess I can still dream of such a day. And I do agree with the writer that Democrats allowed Republicans to make Bush-the least popular president in our time-disappear. Not joining Romney and Bush at the hip is borderline incompetence in a close election. That may prove to be a fatal mistake.
" Not joining Romney and Bush at the hip is borderline incompetence in a close election. That may prove to be a fatal mistake"
You flatter me by even hinting that I wrote it and, frankly, I can forgive Obama 1 out of 2 on stimulus bailout (Auto industry, total success; banking/finance industry -- took the Bush pimps at their word) and a few other things.
His attack on the dumber than dumb messaging (including letting Bush and Cheney 'walk off' the scene) is of course my mantra. So I am generally with him in his criticism of Democrats as political battlers.
I am not sure how much “anti-Obama” Clinton is but I hope he puts his feelings to the side and support President Obama wholeheartedly in this election process. He has made some missteps in mentioning that Romney’s connection with Bain was a good thing but I don’t think that comment is enough to derail President Obama. I know the Republican pundits view any comments that the Democrats makes contrary to the president as an “all or nothing” issue, meaning that if another Democrat says something not in sync with the Democratic leadership, then they are against President Obama. Surely Cory, Governor Rendell, and some of the other democrats who made opposing comments from the President aren’t Anti Obama: they just feel free to articulate their feelings in a free society without being reprimanded. I am sure they will be supporting the President in the fall.
The issue with the Democratic Party is that they don’t always move in full unison with their message as the Republicans does. The Democrats are not shunned, humiliated or denounced for having varying views from the Democratic leadership; this is both good and bad for the Democrats. It is not good during this election process for too many Democrats to be expressing opposing views from the Democratic Leadership. In addition, the democrats have been bad at being a strong unified force; there have always been “in fighting” among the Democrats which has cost them great harm. I do see some improvement but not enough. I think the Democrats are realizing that they need to stop being antagonizing towards each other. They are not in complete Unison yet but I hope it gets better (not holding my breath lol). In summary, the Democrats have poor timing with their messaging lol
I find myself agreeing with you more and more, "darling." One of us should be worried :-).
I do take issue with you about Booker and Rendell being free citizens expressing their opinions. They ain't llike you and I. They are professional, partisan spokespersons and message makers. Booker AGREED to be a surrogate for the President. He should have said "no" behind closed doors rather than agree to go on TV on behalf of the President... and then snake him.
Rendell is a party leader, spokesperson, and strategist. He has been on Obama's case about this Bain stuff for two weeks. Something is up there. This isn't just a need to be freely expressive.
What really nauseates me about all three of these guys (including Clinton) is that conservatives across the country are attacking voting access and voting rights of minorities, and these clowns are fiercely defending what? The offended sensibilities of high-end venture capitalists! Give me a break.
If these guys had gone on television and criticized Obama and the DOJ for being slow go-to-no go on heading off state and local voter suppression legislation, I could make a case for slapping the boss around in public -- because at least something big is at stake.
It's pretty obvious that Clinton, Booker, and Rendell all got phone calls from big player "friends" of theirs who told them, I assume in that "CEO" grandiose 'take charge' manner, "I don't care how you do it but make this problem go away."
"Nothing personal, Mr. President. We're just doing our jobs here."
"conservatives across the country are attacking voting access and voting rights of minorities"
I've never understood how simply requiring a photo i.d. to vote is suddenly attacking the voting rights of minorities.
"I've never understood how simply requiring a photo i.d. to vote is suddenly attacking the voting rights of minorities."
Let's start with the simple fact that the current waves of state attacks on voters' rights and access, particularly that of urban residents and the poor, includes last-minute efforts to purge voting lists, curbs on long-standing early voting laws (for no reason other than it makes it easier for people to vote), and criminalization of voter-registration drives (for years, the most effective means of registering first-time voters. And, oh yes, ID requirements. So, yes, you certainly don't understand that.
Let's continue with the fact that ID requirements, especially for people who do not have or want a driver's license (you know... like urban residents and people who can't afford cars) can be made ANYTHING but simple: elaborate paper work, ridiculous documentation (i.e, like Arizona requiring Obama to produce an ORIGINAL birth certificate when most people cannot actually obtain an ORIGINAL birth certificate), requiring either online application (there are a lot of impoverished and elderly people who do not have computer access or know-how) or in-person registration at remote locations with restricted hours. So, it's pretty clear you don't understand that, either.
Let's finish off with the intriguing juxtaposition of two truisms:
1. Conservatives believe government should take no action to interfere with private
citizens rights without demonstration of a compelling (or sometimes even with demonstration of a compelling) need requiriing it.
2. Multiple examinations of voter records in multiple states have shown MINISCULE cases of voter fraud and no substantial evidence or indication of significant undetected voter fraud (the whole W. Bush era firing of GOP appointed attorneys general for their unwillingness to pursue bogus voter fraud prosecutions speaks to this point).
Therefore, the compelling need for government to intervene to protect against an all but non existent problem of voter fraud is the compelling need to harrass and intimidate Democratic base voters from voting. And I know you understand THAT.
Tom my gut feeling tells me ( I could be wrong lol) that President Clinton is really not against President Obama. My perception is that he is just not buying into the “Obama hype” lol--- President Clinton has been there and done that as President and he understands all the hype behind the presidency. However, I do think it was dangerous for him to comment in Romney’s favor. Maybe the “BIG DOGS” who support Clinton did tell him to shut this anti--Bain message down??--- If it is true, it is so sad that money has infiltrated the political system so deeply. Now as far as Governor Rendell, I can’t figure out why he is so hard on President Obama for going after Romney on the Bain message. Now Gov. Rendell appears to have taken a stronger stance against the President!! IDK why?? --Possibly the power players are pushing him to push back on President Obama on this issue??
Well we know that Cory Booker receives big money from corporate America to rebuild New Jersey and to support his campaign efforts, so possibly this could be Cory’s motivation for speaking openly about Bain not being the “enemy”. If it is true what you said about the ”CEO” ( bullies) telling all three guys to shut this anti--Bain message down , then why would they say it quietly verses openly? Isn’t that the objective to push back on this anti-- Bain message directly and not quietly??--- I do believe that both Gov. Rendell and Cory Booker were looking out for their own personal interest when they spoke about Bain. It does not look good for the democrats as a whole when they have to go behind and clean up someone’s gaffe or deliberate opposing views; it chips away at the democrats’ credibility when one of their own takes opposing views from the central message of the democratic leadership. Of course this makes the democrats more vulnerable for attack when this happens. Just for clarity, the Democratic Party has a practice of disagreeing with each other openly; I was not referring to Rendell or Booker being average citizens exercising their free speech but I meant that the Party in general does not penalized each other for not being under complete control of the Democratic Party. Again this could be both bad and good!!
I'm sorry, but I have never been a fan of either of the Clintons. I will concede that Hillary seems to be doing a great job at State, but I'll never be convinced that the Clintons don't have their own agenda, and I think the President would do well to distance himself a bit. I also wish he would stop surrounding himself with so many Clinton folks in the White House. The only person I think he should try to get is Robert Reich, who makes a lot of sense to me; some of the others, not so much.
I really like Robert Reich too!! But how does President Obama distance himself from one of the most powerful Democrat in Washington?? Wouldn’t it be counterproductive??—President Obama appointed Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State; therefore, he is stuck with Bill Clinton for the moment!! Lol --I do think that Bill Clinton is Luke warm towards the President; I am not convinced that Bill Clinton is a staunch supporter of the President but he does waver back and forth with his comments and support towards the President. We can only hope that he goes out and vigorously support the President and not act Luke warm. I don’t quite get the reasons why Clinton would say contradictory statements about the economic policy regarding the Democratic Leadership; maybe it’s due to the “Big boys” pressuring him who knows?? I wish Clinton was not in the picture but now that he is there, I hope he does President Obama some justice. When Clinton opens his mouth, the Republicans act as if he is the current President and his words should be taken with some endorsement of their plans.
It is weird how the Republicans can take Clinton’s comments when it favors their ideology but ignore Clinton’s message when it doesn’t fit into their ideology. Either Clinton has credence or not!!--- The real danger is that the republicans have convinced the American voters that the Government is the enemy and therefore needs to be reined in. They have sent out the message over and over that Government is overspending, destroying the future by increasing the debt and intruding into citizens personal lives!! They have successfully persuaded the American people that people will live a Utopia life if only Government is reduced to none and void!! What Corporate America wants is a Libertarian State and an unchecked capitalistic system that favors them.
The lie that the republicans are selling the American people about personal freedom, less Government intrusion and reducing the debt by slashing systems that are too expensive to maintain is hogwash. The fact that the Koch brothers and several multimillionaires and Billionaires are pouring money into the GOP campaign speaks to a more sinister plan than just reducing the budget!! Lol what the “good ole boys” want is a nation which is Military strong so they can sit on their Bully pulpit against the rest of the world, Corporate America can continue on the path of greed at any means necessary (even if that means outsourcing all the jobs to other nation to make money), and the America people continue to pay higher taxes to keep the 1% supplied with Billions of dollars. So much for jobs creation! Lol where were these so call job creators when the economy was tanking?? Remember when the CEO of the auto industry came to congress in his corporate jet begging for a bailout?? I am not against the bailout but what we saw how the 1% was looking for the 99% to get them out of their dilemma even though it is hurting the average American!!
The Republicans have instilled enough fear into the average American that too much spending is being done and it is costing America its future!!! Of course they have the advantage of selling people this lie because they are playing into peoples’ fears, bias and lack of knowledge!! The republicans are very clever at selling the American people a pipe dream by playing on their desire for an America with “values”. They are telling the American people that the American values are being compromised when a leader tries to level the playing field with the rest of the world!! They call it “apologizing for American”. They send the message that Americans are unpatriotic if they need assistance from the Government. Americans are labeled as “entitled”. They have masterfully persuaded the American people to vote against their own interest!! Lol Because of “The Powers That Be” desire to continue to gamble in the free market, they will exploit the American people’s fears, prejudices and patriotism to remain in complete control with no restraint!! The American people want to have a sense of patriotism, “American values” and independence; therefore, these attributes leaves Americans vulnerable to being manipulated and challenged!! we should all want a nation that exercises Fiscal responsibility but if we don't invest back into the system, we will get nothing out of the system!! also we want to maintain our Democracy by havng a strong middle Class voice!!