Posted on 01/28/2008 2:57:00 PM PST by vietvet67
In his Los Angeles Times column Saturday the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait wrote:
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people—friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read—kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons. The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational.
After taking some obligatory digs at conservatives, Chait adds:
But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.
So conservatives “might” have had a point about the Clintons’ character? The Clintons “seem” to have a feeling of entitlement to power? I should say so. What conservatives saw in the Clintons wasn’t based on any remarkable and hard-to-discern insights. After all, the Clintons' character problems were not being hidden from public view; they were, in fact, out there for all to see, often flashing in bright neon lights. Yet people like Chait were, for political and ideological reasons, blinded to the ruthlessness and corruption of the Clinton Machine. Now that the Clintons are using their tactics on an inspiring liberal figure like Barack Obama, the scales are suddenly falling from their eyes. We are now seeing the zeal of the recent converts in action.
Better late than never, I suppose.
One former Clinton supporter whom I do not know e-mailed me about a recent piece I’d written on the Clintons and said this:
allow me to apologize on behalf of all other liberals concerning the Clintons, though I doubt I'll be the only one. They really are the soulless, cynical spinmeisters that many on the Right made them out to be… Speaking only for myself, I never actually thought there were purely political motives for conservatives to detest the Clintons that much. The visceral hatred directed at them always seemed sincere enough to me, just hard to understand because apparently so excessive. But now that I'm on the opposite side of them in a campaign for the first time (as an Obama supporter), I know what it feels like to wake up each morning and face ever new depths of shamelessness from the Macbeth Family. Now I may actually catch myself going back to Impeachment Trial evidence for the sake of Schadenfreude. I'm starting to regret not having enjoyed it at the time.
This note is typical of others I have received, and the list of liberals turning against Bill and Hillary Clinton is noteworthy. A partial list includes Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Leahy; former Clinton Administration cabinet member Robert Reich; former Clinton lawyer Greg Craig (whom Bill Clinton asked to lead the defense team the White House assembled for his impeachment battle); liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz; liberal columnists E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Frank Rich, William Greider, Bob Herbert, Joe Klein, and now Chait; Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, who described Bill Clinton as America’s “first black president”; and others.
Does any of this matter? It might in several respects. The first is if Hillary and especially Bill Clinton crossed a line leading up to the South Carolina primary, which turned an expected Obama victory into a blowout; and if so, whether that translates to other states. It’s possible that we have reached a national, and not just state-wide, anti-Clinton tipping point for many liberals and Democrats. If that’s the case—and I’m not sure it is–then there will be an immediate price to the Clinton attacks against Obama.
Second, even if Hillary Clinton does win the nomination, the bitterness of the contest may have done irreparable harm to relations with African-Americans. Many blacks will not forget what the Clintons have done against Obama—and they might not forgive them, either. That won’t be true of all African-Americans—but it may be true of enough to make a difference.
Third, we will see if we’re at the stage in American politics when people eschew the brass-knuckle tactics utilized and perfected by the Clintons in the 1990's. Senator Obama is staking his candidacy on the proposition that the country, including Democrats, are tired and fed up with scorched-earth political tactics—and are willing to exact a price at those who employ them.
A final observation on what is unfolding in the crack-up between the Clintons and many leading liberals: one of the reasons the moral image of the Democratic Party was helped over the decades was its stand on civil rights and its commitment to the cause of equal justice. The anti-segregation stand of leading Democrats during the 1960's was, for many people, an unconflicted moral good (though it’s worth noting that many Southern Democrats supported segregation at the time). The Clintons, in distorting the record and playing the race card against the first African-American with a real chance at becoming president, are becoming the embodiment of what many Democrats thought they stood against. That, I think, explains part of the animus we are seeing against them—and why more will follow.
Hillary Clinton may yet win the nomination. But if she does it will have come at a huge cost.
Is there a limit to how much evil even a Democrat can tolerate?
if hillary loses the nomination, that would be seen as a repudiation of a clinton record that many democrats were quite proud of. They wouldn’t have any example to point to. That would be a big loss for democrats
I predict Bill will screw it up big time.
There’s only so much America can tolerate.
A beautiful sight to behold. I haven't had this much fun since the Supreme Court refused to let Gore steal the election.
The only damper on my fun is the lack of anybody on the Republican slate to get excited about.
The clintons (and kerry and algore) have demonstrated that the limit is WAY more than it should be.
Hillary is learning belatedly what Gore learned years ago.
Bill is toxic.
OH NO! Fascist Benito Hillary Clinton going down in flames.
We should start hitting them up on smaller government, lower taxation and the big lie called "global warming".
I can dream, can't I?
Guess that makes us conservatives correct and right on all these years!
The Clintons took a poll and decided there were enough Mexicans to drive the bus and decided to make blacks ride in the back.
But then, we really don't need such a squad if the Republicans simply expose, expose, expose the history of the Clinton RICO organization.
Doug From Upland is a great example of this, but he seems to have trouble getting traction. Will ANYONE from the Drive-By-Media not only look at the FACTS but have the will to actually talk about them. Forget about what is sequestered at the Clinton Lie-brary and Massage Parlor, the facts are in the public domain.
Secondly, will ANY candidate (including Obama) dare to discuss the Clinton scandals on the campaign trail?
Don't look for McCain to use ANY of these facts or tactics if he becomes the Rep candidate - he's just "too cute by half" with Hillary. Rudy is too vulnerable on the scandal front, and Willard doesn't seem to have the stomach for it.
Where are the new "Rat F*uckers"?
If Hillary is the candidate, the definition of the RICO laws will have to be rewritten. If Barry is the candidate, MANY Reps will switch over and vote for him.
Great article by Peter Wehner and great thread by FReepers! BTTT!
Rose, I’m with you - I think history will be kind to President Bush.
The Clintons are probably shocked. They haven't done dick to Obama. All they've done is make a few snide comments. Wait until the Democrats find out that the Clintons have the super delegates lined up, and that Hillary is going to figure out a way to get the Michigan and Florida votes to count. Anybody think Hillary was behind having them NOT count in the first place so she wouldn't have any competition, and would have two large states to bring in as a backup plan if things got hairy? The Dems haven't seen half of the Clintons unleashed on Obama yet.
The only reason they’re waking up is because they think they may have another horse to ride with Obama. If Hillary’s the only horse, they’ll get back on and ride her.
My sentiments exactly.
Fantastic line! It frames their motivations quite nicely.
If this guy’s observations are accurate, something good is happening for the country right now. If the ‘Toons, and their ruthless politics of personal destruction, can be crushed, and truthful ideas can then be debated, that will be progress.
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.