Predicting the Bill Clinton Backlash
Last week on this site and over at DailyKos, I expressed my disappointment in the "attack dog" role that former President Bill Clinton had assumed in his wife Hillary's campaign. In making his leadership role among Democrats and esteemed position among most Americans subservient to Hillary's nomination, I argued, Bill Clinton had put his legacy at risk:
Perhaps the only development more disappointing than the injection of racial politics into the Democratic primary process has been the descent of Bill Clinton into attack dog politics. It seems that with each passing day, the still very popular former President sacrifices his good name - and the huge reservoir of good will he enjoys among the American people - in the service of his wife Hillary's presidential campaign. Sadly, while Bill Clinton's unseemly and undignified barbs may batter Barack Obama's standing, they also inflict lasting damage to his own.
But what seemed like a lonely place six days ago (judging by the opprobrium in some of the comments) now increasingly looks like the consensus position. Newsweek claimed Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel told the former President to "pipe down." Representative Jim Clyburn told Clinton to "chill" over the weekend. Now, the highest profile Democrat in South Carolina and a key member of Nancy Pelosi's leadership team said, it "may be true" that Bill Clinton had sullied his reputation, adding, "What you say may hurt the other guy but it also may hurt you." And today, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich lamented:
"Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife's campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party."
Ben Smith at the Politico may well be right that Bill Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama aren't hurting Hillary in South Carolina. (The breaking news that the Clinton camp is pulling a negative ad in the Palmetto State may suggest otherwise.) But the risk of damage to his own exalted position among Democrats - and most American - is very real.
Note: I don't have a dog in the fight between Clinton and Obama, and would support whichever candidate (John Edwards included) garners the nomination. By way of full disclosure, I assisted Robert Reich's campaign for governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
UPDATE: In the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne details a 1991 WaPo reporters' meeting where then-candidate Bill Clinton praised Ronald Reagan's role in the Cold War, among other things. Noting that "If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander," Dionne then asks, "Why should either Clinton attack Obama for facing some of the truths that both of them taught their party so long ago?" Even Hillary is apparently getting the message about the burgeoning backlash against Bill. Appearing on the CBS Early Show, Senator Clinton said of her husband, "He said several times yesterday that maybe he got a little bit carried away."
|
Yes, there is definitely a backlash in the Democratic base. I was on the fence between Hillary and Obama, but the Billary's race-baiting tactics and blatant distortions of Obama's record made me sick. They are willing to fracture the unity and strength of the Democratic party going into the general elections.
Independents and most Republicans won't vote for Hillary but now, I bet they turned off a large number of Dems as well.
Posted by Jeanne in California on January 26, 2008 11:49 PM