President Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007, in Ames, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
by Paul West
NEWTON, Iowa—They talk. You decide. That’s what Bill Clinton says about the conservative commentators who spend much of their airtime ripping his wife’ presidential candidacy.
“If the American people are going to let them elect a president, we’re in trouble,” Clinton said in a rope line interview during a campaign stop here.
“If you really look at it, that’s because they don’t want to run against her, because she’s been vetted by them and she passed, and she triumphed and the Republicans voted for her. She carried Republican New York. She’s doing well in Arkansas in the polls. She’s nine points ahead of Giuliani in polls in Florida.
“No wonder they’re jumping on her. That’s what they do. But America doesn’t want Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and the dividers to determine our president.”
Clinton said the real reason conservative radio and TV hosts are going after his wife is their belief that she’d be the toughest Democrat to defeat in November.
In 1992, “that’s what they did to me, remember?” Clinton said. “Because they didn’t want me in the general election. I get that.”
These days, the former president is trying the allay the fears of Democratic voters who worry that Hillary Clinton’s election would bring back the ugly partisanship of the 1990s.
The best way to defuse those concerns, he said, is to “talk about the victories of the ‘90s.”
Clinton maintained that the divisiveness of that era is not as great as some are making it out to be. It was exaggerated during that period, he said, by excessive partisanship in Washington and by some of the same conservative commentators. He also said that those divisions have reopened under President Bush's tenure.
Clinton said that, during his presidency, “the partisan divide in Washington and in the far right media was far greater than the partisan divide in Main Street America . . . “Two-thirds to 70 percent of (the public) had reached consensus on most of these things by 2000. We were moving this country in the right direction and then we got divided again.”
He cited his wife’s record in the Senate as an example of her ability to reach out and get things done by enlisting the support of Republicans.
“There’s no refighting the battles of the ‘90s there,” he said. “She’s done more work with Republicans . . . She and John McCain took Republicans around the world to talk about climate change. She and Bill Frist (then the Republican Senate leader) sponsored the electronic medical records (legislation). She and Lindsey Graham have done lots of stuff, and he was a House (impeachment) manager.”
At campaign stops, Clinton makes the case that his wife has been working for change all her life. It's an attempt to answer Sen. Barack Obama's claim that his candidacy offers Democrats the best opportunity to avoid refighting the political battles of the 1990s.
Clinton said in the interview that “the main thing is: Who is going to be the best change agent? And if you look at her record in getting things done in the Senate, the fact (is) that (Republican lawmakers) obviously really like and respect her.”
The voters, he added, are looking forward, not back.
“There’s no appetite and nobody is going to refight the battles of the ‘90s,” said Clinton. “In 2006, the American people said that.”
Paul West is the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau chief.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Oh God, someone is offering a choice. We know how much the Republicans dislike CHOICE IN AMERICA.
The Republican Blue Dogs, and Ken Starr, and Former President George Bush wish he would just get a tan and declare himself Black.
WE HEAR THE VOICES, AND THE VOICES SAY NO CHOICE, NO PROCHOICE, NO NO NEVER NEVER UH UH UHHHH. WE ARE THE MASTER RACE AND WE DECIDE WHO IS WHOM AND WHOM IS WHO IN AMERICA.
ALL ABOARD! VOS IST LOS
Posted by: Roger Morris | December 11, 2007 12:29 PM
What a riot! Now BJ Clintoon is talking of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Yes, Hills is having problems because conservative talk radio is on her case. Go back to Monica, Bill.
Posted by: John D | December 11, 2007 12:52 PM
Sorry, Bill, but the real reasons these Republican talking heads hate your wife is she's a successful woman and is a Democrat. They've been spewing hatred at her since 1992 for those same reasons.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Bill's rant reminds me of when in 1994 that Bill Clinton complained about the 3 hours a day that Rush Limbaugh gets a day on the radio. He is sounding like a whiner again.
Roger Morris,
Republicans like choice - choice in education, choice in retirment funding, choice in health care,... It's the choice of taking a life is where Republicans draw the line.
Paul,
What success has Hillary had w/o using her husbands name and connections?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 1:56 PM
B.J. "The best way to defuse those concers is to talk about the victories of the 90's."
Ok? Like in 1996 when Sudan offered you bin laden, but you refused because you 'didn't have enough evidence to indict him and then two years later you sent $70,000,000 worth of cruise missiles to 'get him', on one year old intelligence... and killed a Camel.
Thanks,but no thanks B.J. You had no victories, only failure after failure.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 11, 2007 1:56 PM
I would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh than Slick Willie.
New York is not Republican it is a socialist state run by Mike Bloomberg liberal from hell.
Bill Clinton thinks we are stupid enough to give his wife a 4 to 8 year run when he pulled off so much corruption you can't remember it all.
Impeached and disbarred comes to mind! Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | December 11, 2007 3:36 PM
Terry:
Those things you mentioned - Republicans want choice IF you have the money to spend on those things. If not, too bad.
Paulo:
At least Clinton tried to get Bin Laden - much more than you can say about your current President.
Johnny D:
One name for you - Richard Mellon Scaife. The guy who bankrolled all of those so-called "investigations" into Bill and Hillary Clinton. I suggest you read "Blinded by the Right" by a guy who was part of that conspiracy.
Posted by: BobinATL | December 11, 2007 3:55 PM
Paula, Jane D and Sherry White, you girls are to funny!!! Bed wetters!!!
Posted by: paulo or paula | December 11, 2007 4:32 PM
What success has Hillary had w/o using her husbands name and connections?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 1:56 PM
My goodness, how utterly sexist.
HRC served on the House Watergate impeachment staff, was faculty in a law school, was a partner at a major law firm, was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation. All that was BEFORE her husband became Governor of Arkansas.
She continued to practice law as a Partner at the Rose law firm while her husband was in office, in addition to holding a great many public service positions and served on a number of Corporate Boards of Directors.
Not to mention the small matter of her being a United States Senator these past 6 years.
Yet sexist Terry can't imagine that any WOMAN could get those postitions without her husband's influence.
Terry, it's the 21st century. Try and claw you narrow little mind into at least the second half of the 20th century, ok?
Women are equal to men. Being married to a successful man does not negate a woman's success.
Posted by: Lisa | December 11, 2007 4:37 PM
It just kills the the whining Repupies that Clintoon was the most successful President in 50 years.
He was also intelligent,something we haven't seen since he left office.
Get over it kids,you're party produces stupid Prez.
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 11, 2007 5:40 PM
What success has Hillary had w/o using her husbands name and connections?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 1:56 PM
A lot more success than our current President managed to achieve even with his father's name and connections. W failed in most of the jobs his Daddy got him. Do you think he would have gotten anywhere if he wasn't George H. W. Bush's son?
How about Mitt Romney, his father was a Auto company CEO, Governor, and former Republican Presidential contender. What succes has he had without his fathers name and connections?
Heck, while we're at it, John McCain. Son and Grandson of Admirals in the US navy, and married into a Busch beer fortune, think that might have helped him get to where he's at?
Why don't you ask those questions Terry?
Posted by: Luke | December 11, 2007 6:39 PM
Bobin,
You would have the money to spend on those things if you weren't tax to death.
Lisa,
She was partner at the Rose Law Firm while her husband while Arkansas Attorney General. Same w/Legal Service Corp.
I have no problem w/oman achieving high positions based upon their efforts. Unfortantely, this one did not.
Do you think she would be Senator from New York if her husband wasn't president?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 6:47 PM
Republicans spew nothing but hate because they can't stand that one of the greatest presidents ever was Democrat, Bill Clinton. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have the pathetic, small minded audience he has if he didn't lie about the Clintons every day.
Posted by: RomanB | December 11, 2007 7:57 PM
[quote]
What success has Hillary had w/o using her husbands name and connections?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 1:56 PM
[/quote]
What success has Dubya had without using his daddy's name and political connections his whole life? Can you name just ONE THING that Dubya has accomplished on his own without help from daddy or daddy's friends?
Posted by: BC | December 11, 2007 8:31 PM
BC, Bush43 wouldn't be where he is today if it wasn't for Bush41. No arguement.
Sort of like Kennedy clan - if not for JFK, Jesse Jackson Jr. - if not for the rev, Blago - if not for daddy-in-law, Lipinski - if not for daddy, Daley - if not for daddy, etc...
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 9:22 PM
Do you think she would be Senator from New York if her husband wasn't president?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 6:47 PM
Quite possibly yes. If you knew anything of Hillary Clinton's history, which I'm sure you have bothered to do with her being a woman and all, you'd know that if anything, being related to a politician put brakes on her career rather than advancing it. I think that it's entirely possible that if she'd have married someone else Hillary Rodham could have been challenging Bill Clinton for the nomination in 1992.
But you assume simply because she's a woman,. that any success must be due to her husband. You have no actual proof of any allegation you make, you just that he many accomplishments are really due to a man. Women can't possibly be evaluated as having worth as anything other than a wife, right Terry?
Posted by: Lisa | December 11, 2007 10:07 PM
"Do you think she would be Senator from New York if her husband wasn't president?
Posted by: Terry | December 11, 2007 6:47 PM"
And do you think that abortion-gone-wrong George W. Bush would be anything but a part-time employee at some 7-11 if it weren't for his father and grandfather? He's been nothing but a failure left to himself, and then daddy came along and bailed him out again and again.
Hillary made something of herself, and that something is a tough fighter and a survivor.
The person little W would have made of himself would have been nothing but a drug addict and a rummy.
Posted by: Op109 | December 11, 2007 10:37 PM
Do you think she would be Senator from New York if her husband wasn't president?
_______________________________
John Podhoretz, son of the Godfather of the Neo-conservative movement Norman Podhoretz (now serving as foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giuliani), has stepped into his father’s position as Editor in Chief of The Commentary, the neo-conservative publication.
_____________________________
Do you think Jason Podhoretz would get HIS job because he is a genius? Nope, because he is the son of a failed neo-con. More do as I say, not as I do from the loony reichwingers!
Posted by: RNCBS | December 11, 2007 11:31 PM
To say that conservative talk show hosts dislike Hillary because they are afraid of her in a general election, or because she is a successful woman (anybody hear of Elizabeth Dole? Condoleeza Rice?) is ridiculous. Show of hands; who here thinks they'd like a man who had her political bent? You there in the back? Oh, sorry, the restroom is over there...
They dislike her because she hides behind her own skirts when the pressure is on. They dislike her because the almost worshipful national press gives her a free ride on her past record, despite there being enough manure in it to fertilize the Sahara. They dislike her because her ear is so close to the ground at all times that her face has road rash. They dislike her because she is dislikable.
Posted by: mprs47 | December 12, 2007 12:11 AM
Back in 99 when Bill Clinton's
term was ending and the two contenders to replace him went to court some people wished that the constitution be amended to keep Bill for another term. The former president has always spoken of the great mind in Hillary, and if he supports her wholeheartedly, (of which I don't doubt), there is nothing to stop HRC from becoming elected president in '08.
Posted by: Gezahegn | December 12, 2007 2:55 AM
Lisa,
I have no problem with women holding high positions in gov't or industry. My question is would Hillary be the Senator from New York (or any other state) if she wasn't the wife of Bill. I say know. Is she intellgent? Sure. But her polarizing personality is not suited for politics. She is living off of Bill's name, just as other family members (as the not so complete list above has shown) have done.
Posted by: Terry | December 12, 2007 7:12 PM
Terry- How many times on this board have you questioned whether any of those men would have gotten where they did withou their family connections? Why do you save that questioning only for the woman?
Posted by: Lisa | December 12, 2007 10:17 PM
Lisa,
Your right - the next time any of teh following are mentioned on this board, I will mention that they wouldn't be there if a family member hadn't blzed the trail before:
Kennedy clan, Jesse Jackson Jr., Blago, Lipinski, Daley.
I try and do better.
Posted by: Terry | December 13, 2007 7:20 PM