Posted by D. Cupples | In an article titled Bill Clinton Avoids Attacks on Obama, the Dallas Morning News reports that Bill Clinton, while stumping for Hillary in Texas yesterday, made efforts to not slam Obama and even to say a few nice things about Hillary's opponent.
For example, Bill mentioned that he, himself, had campaigned for Obama during Obama's 2004 run for U.S. Senate. Bill admitted that he's backing Hillary but added "If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice" (meaning Obama).
Some media outlets failed to report those positive comments and managed to find an "attack" in what Bill had said. Take ABC News, for example.
According to reporter Sara Amos' transcription, Clinton said the following:
"'There are two competing moods in America today,' Clinton said. 'People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before.'
"'The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that "No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore." Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you.'" (ABC)
I've read those statements a few times. Considering the all-important context of Obama's campaign messages and slogans, I still can't see an attack on Obama. ABC's Jake Tapper leapt to Obama's defense, stating:
"For the record, in the 1990s, Obama was a civil rights attorney, community organizer, and was in the Illinois state senate.
"Presumably, by 'any of the good things that happened' in the 1990s, Clinton is referring to the things he did as president...."
Not "presumably," Mr. Tapper. The federal government was precisely the context in which Bill Clinton was speaking. Why? Because Hillary and Obama are running for president, which is a federal office.
Undisputed fact: Obama did not serve the federal government in the '90s. Thus, he couldn't have been part of the decision making that led to accomplishments within the federal government during the '90s. The flip side is that the '90s weren't perfect, so Obama was not part of the bad things, either (though Bill didn't actually say that while campaigning for Obama's opponent).
As an active, policy-oriented First Lady, Hillary was in the trenches, trying to get things done on the federal level. Like her or not, that experience counts for something -- which was Bill Clinton's point yesterday.
Where's the "attack" in that?
Obama, himself, chose to pit his theme of "change" directly against Hillary's "experience" -- as though the two concepts are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Someone with experience can bring about change, and someone favoring change can have experience.
Obama's (or the media's) change-versus-experience argument is as extreme as it is vague, and it does imply that all things Hillary (federal government, '90s) should be thrown out as our nation struggles to reverse the havoc that the Bush Administration has created over the last seven years.
In response to Bill Clinton's so-called "attack," Obama's spokesperson said:
"It appears that the man who once told us 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow' has changed his tune and is now singing 'Yesterday' everywhere he goes."
Admittedly, it's a clever-sounding sentence, but it fails to address substance.
Even despite the Clinton Administration's flaws, we were far better off (than we are now) during those many "yesterdays" under Bill Clinton -- even somewhat better off than now under Bush-I and Reagan, for that matter. Some people argue that America was better off under Nixon -- Watergate warts and all.
Yes, our nation's current position is that terrible: economy, war, gas prices, international relations.... Turning things around will be extremely difficult for any president. That's the context in which Hillary's campaign continues to highlight her federal-level experience.
Obama (perhaps understandably) has pushed the baby-out-with-the-bathwater theme of "change" as a way of countering Hillary's claims about her greater federal-level experience. As an aside, how substantively different could Obama's visions be from Hillary's, given that his Senate voting record since 2005 is very similar to Hillary's?
The risk Obama took by adopting that tactic is that Clinton's campaign would counter by turning the spotlight back to the differences between Obama's and Hillary's experience in federal government.
That's what Bill Clinton did yesterday in Texas -- and pretty gently, at that. How many campaigners have admitted to having supported (in the past) their current favorite candidate's opponent?
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions:
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* NY Times Erred: Super-Delegate Not Leaving Clinton for Obama?
* Is the Media Biased Toward Barack or Against Hillary?
* Polls Show Clinton Leading in TX & OH: Will Pundits Spotlight it?
Don't think that Obama's getting a pass from Jake Tapper at Hill's expense: check out this link from him also:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/is-obama-using.html
Posted by: jennifer hagstrom | February 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Hi Jen,
There is one big difference: Tapper jumped in and defended Obama against the non-attack that I blogged about.
Re: the piece you linked to, Tapper quoted other bloggers and didn't directly comment on what Obama had said.
Posted by: D. Cupples | February 17, 2008 at 07:45 PM