Posted on 09/09/2012 6:43:23 PM PDT by presidio9
Onetime Republican presidential primary contender Newt Gingrich said that former President Bill Clinton’s rousing defense of President Obama last week was an implicit indictment of Obama’s record, a new attack Republicans are making to blunt any momentum that Clinton’s backing might give Obama.
The Clinton speech at the Democratic National Convention was “eerily anti-Obama, if you just listen to the subtext,” the former House speaker said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning.
He added: “Here's Clinton saying, ‘I reformed welfare because I worked with Republicans; you didn't, Mr. Obama.' He didn't say it that way, but think about it: 'I had the longest period of economic growth in history; you didn't, Mr. Obama. I got to four balanced budgets by working with Republicans; you didn't, Mr. Obama.’”
The comments follow recent efforts by GOP candidate Mitt Romney to use the economic success of the Clinton years as a counterpoint to the lackluster job growth during Obama’s tenure. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Romney said Clinton “really did elevate the Democrat convention in a lot of ways and, frankly, the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred.”
The Romney campaign has also launched ads that say Clinton is backing Obama because the former president is “a good soldier.”
The ad then scrolls back to Clinton’s comments during the 2008 Democratic primary, when Obama ran against the president’s wife, Hillary Clinton. Said Clinton then of Obama, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Though Gingrich was a bitter political opponent of Clinton’s when he served as speaker,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, if you can believe some of the chatter, the Clintons would like Obama to lose this year, so that Hillary would be running against an incumbent Republican in Romney in 2016.
The reasoning is that, if Obama is re-elected, more and more voters will be turned off by Democrats, and that the country will trend Republican in 2016. And, Hillary or any Democrat would be running in 2016 having to defend eight years of Obama.
The reason I watched Clinton’s speech was to see how he would undermine 0 while appearing to praise him. In addition to Newt’s good points, Clinton gave hefty praise to Hillary’s State Department, and he indulged in a policy wonkathon that unnecessarily extended the speech and left 0 cooling his heels backstage for 15-20 minutes.
The easiest way to blunt Clinton’s “support” for Obama is to use his words (during the 2008 primary) and during other times against Obama. For example, “He isn’t fit to carry our bags.” Throw together an ad and air it in every battleground.
I didn’t watch Clinton, I listened to him and I agree.
I believe Clintons message to the Rat faithful that they will remember, was: “I know Bill Clinton. Barack Hussain Obama is no Bill Clinton!”
Odumbo is sunk.
Hillary Clinton will be 68 years old in 2016 after she was a heavy favorite in 2008 and lost the nomination to an unknown and inexperienced challenger. Always expect the Clintons to play EVERY possible angle:
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." -HRC May 22, 2008
But her time is past. I welcome the stark contrast of this thoroughly unlikeable old woman against Mitt Romney, who will presumably have a positive economic record to point to. That being said, Israel WILL attack Iran at some point in the next four years. Russia WILL side with Iran. Look for the press to criticize every response Romeny makes to this escalation, teeing it up for Hillary to reintroduce herself as a foreign policy superstar. You better believe she made sure she was front and center for that famous WH Situation Room photo the night the Navy Seals used George Bush's intelligence to kill Osama bin Laden.
It's a tactic called "Damning with Faint Praise". (The Irish are skilled at it BTW.)
Wishing don’t make it so Newt.
Not just for 2016, but Clinton wants control of the D party back, and he’ll get it. He left every delegate wishing Bill Clinton was their nominee, not the inept Obama and national joke Biden.
I agree. Zipper-Boy Clinton gave his Convention Speech in a bid to take over the Democrat Party, ASAP!
The "average obamanoid" will not decide this race. Like an earlier poster, I read and listened to Clinton's speech but did not watch it, and I agree with Newt. Clinton damned Obama with faint praise.
It was one of the greatest insults to have the previous President Clintoon try to get people to vote for Obama on Clintoon’s record while Obama sat in the corner sucking his thumb not knowing what to do. Even worse: Peanuthead Carter chimed in as well! Ouch! So much for the empty chair standing up for himself!
Romney refused Palin because she was bringing the Tea Party with her and she would have been to competitive with Ryan, but the rats brought Clinton in and he basically did the best speech.
An ex-POTUS that was disgraced upsets Obama, and that was my overall impression, the very fact that its Bill Clinton speaks all in itself.
So I would say that actually Clinton will in the final analysis brought more ruin than gain upon Obama, which isn’t such a bad thing.
Sounds to mke like you are so head over heels with Governor Palin that you go out of your way not only looking for slights against her, but also hypotheticals of how she could still come in on her white snow machine and save the day. Allow me to break it to you: The Democrat Convention was all about stirring up THEIR base. They have looked at the math, given up on swing voters, and decided that the best way for them to win is to repeat or even build on the record turnout they got in 2008. If you listen to their talking heads, they are all repeating the same thing right now: There are no swing voters anymore. I don't know whether they believe that or not, but that is their story, and they are sticking to in.
The Republican convention, meanwhile, was about wooing swing voters. Sure, there was some red meat, and the Ryan nomination was an early Christmas present to the Tea Party. But, at the end of the day, if the thought of four more years of Obama doesn't get the base riled up, even a Palin nomination wouldn't have had enough of an effect to put Red back in the winner's column. The RNC strategy is to get a repeat of 2010. We'll see who's right. I like Palin, but Romney was right to tell her to stay away. Her approval rating is 20%, and she has a 60% negative. Again, the thinking is that those of us in the 20% were going to jump at the chance to vote against Obama. And it is correct.
If they cant beat Obama this year, why do you think they stand a chance against Hillary in 2016?
If Republicans dont win this year, then Hillary will be close to be undefeatable in 2016, she has far more support than Obama does and she will peel off a sizeable number of white voters.
I agree with your analysis BUT ...
“The RNC strategy is to get a repeat of 2010.”
Can I suggest the obvious:
IF YOU WANT A REPEAT OF 2010, DO WHAT WAS DONE THERE!
They SHOULD have brought in the Tea Party energy, and other than the Rand Paul slot, Ted Cruz and maybe Rubio, they didnt have much. It wouldn’t have hurt to have Palin there, maybe not in prime time, but sometime.
More importantly, bring the themes, messages and policies from 2010 to bear. We won in 2010 because of Obamacare. They needed to make the case again as to why its bad and wrong for America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.