Clintons agree on Lieberman's re-election campaign, but NBC's Mitchell sees "split"
SUMMARY: Even though former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have both said they support Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary election and will also support whichever Democrat wins the primary -- Lieberman or Ned Lamont -- in the general election, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell argued that there is "somewhat of a split" between the Clintons' views on Lieberman's re-election campaign.
On the July 23 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, NBC News' chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell argued that there is "somewhat of a split" between former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) concerning Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (D-CT) re-election campaign. Mitchell said: "[H]e's arguing that Democrats ought to keep their eye on the ball, but she is busy positioning herself, constantly positioning herself." In fact, the Clintons have said they support Lieberman's primary election and will also support whichever Democrat wins the primary -- Lieberman or Ned Lamont -- in the general election. Co-panelist Joe Klein, a Time magazine columnist, noted that this was Sen. Clinton's position but did not note that it was also President Clinton's. Mitchell made her remarks after NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory, guest-hosting the program, asked her: "[I]s this a Bill-and-Hillary split on this? You were at this speech that Bill Clinton gave this week where he said it's crazy as Democrats to be fighting with each other over a war we didn't start."
From the July 23 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
GREGORY: Andrea, is this a Bill-and-Hillary split on this? You were at this speech that Bill Clinton gave this week where he said it's crazy as Democrats to be fighting with each other over a war we didn't start.
MITCHELL: And he's arguing that Democrats ought to keep their eye on the ball, but she is busy positioning herself, constantly positioning herself. So, there is somewhat of a split there. It's so interesting also to see the Bill Clinton-Joe Lieberman relationship because, don't forget, it was Joe Lieberman who really was critical on moral, religious grounds of Bill Clinton's infidelity.
GREGORY: And Chrystia, look ahead. If Lieberman loses, what does it mean for Hillary? Does it hurt her?
CHRYSTIA FREELAND (Financial Times U.S. managing editor): I think that it makes Hillary's position on the war much more complicated, as it is for all Democrats. They have to, on the one hand, show they're tough on security but, on the other hand, not be giving those big kisses to [President] Bush.
GREGORY: David, isn't this also one of the early fights on what the Democratic [Party] wants to be when it runs next time?
DAVID IGNATIUS (Washington Post columnist): Certainly on national security policy, this is the heart of the matter, and you could argue that, you know, as the party moves to the left now in this primary season, it moves away from positions that will be winning in general elections. I think if Lieberman could find a way to reposition himself, especially after this week of war in Lebanon, as somebody who feels strongly about terrorism, who is committed to a tough line on terrorism, he'd have a lot easier time with the Iraq issue.
MITCHELL: What he shouldn't say is, "I voted for it before I voted against it." That wouldn't work.
KLEIN: We should point out, though, that I think that Hillary is supporting Lieberman in the primaries. She's just said that she wouldn't support him if he ran as an independent.
GREGORY: OK, we'll leave it there.
Splitting hairs.
So if Bill and Hillary don't mimic each other EXACTLY, it's a "split" in opinion.
This is your brain on talking points. Any questions?
no matter what she believes, no matter what she does, no matter what she says, she's only doing it because of her lust for power.
Good point!
"McCain is attempting to position himself..."
or
"Jeb Bush is attempting to position himself..."
etc., etc.
That's because the likes of Tweety Pie Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and, especially, Joe Klein are owned lock, stock and barrel by The Right-Wing Smear/Propaganda/Brainwashing Machine.
AND it only stands to reason that as DEMOCRATS they [Bill & Hill] will support whomever WINS the primary.
This is Andrea Mitchell TRYING to conjure up controversy where there is none.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"i voted for it before i voted against it". so did every republican. it was two different bills to provide funding for the troops. the democrats wanted to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy. the republicans said, as always, let's put it on the credit card.
monchie wrote:
McCain is attempting to position himself..."
---
You may not hear it in the elite press, but one of the main criticisms of McCain from the right is that he constantly tries to position himself. (Whether that is true or not, is another discussion.)
I don't know about Jeb, besides his obvious relation, usually Governors, unless running, are not asked for their "position" in international relations.
that gets hammered in the press for doing what every politician does when planning a run for higher office, is Hillary. There are a number of canidates on both sides who are "positioning" themselves to run in 08. The Press is constantly berating Hillary as if this is something unique and negative about her. I will admit that she very careful in the public eye and position herself to the best advantage. That is what you do when you are in politics. It is nothing new. What I have a problem with is the implication that she is this evil power hungary B**** because she is doing what everyone has done in modern politics. It almost reminds me of the "slick Willie" comments in 92. They protrayed Bill as somehow sleezy because he was a gifted politician. I think the problem that the Republicans have with the Clintons is that they exhault all the techniques that they have utilized better than them. Pure and simple. If it almost funny to see the pot calling the kettle black. If the Clintons were Republicans They would been placed in hero worship right witht the Reagans.
Dottie,
You are correct that Hillary has a big bull's eye on her back. She cannot escape the glare of being the first first-lady running for prez. That puts her alone in that category. That has it's plusses and minuses.
I do agree that Bill is perhaps, one of the best politicians of all time. However his moniker was given him for his notorious sexual escapades and his ability to weasel his way out by lying.
As such Hillary's ascent is only as a result of riding Bill's coattails. Even if one argues she is a competent Senator, she is inexorably tied to Bill... for better or for worse.
The disagreement I have with you, is your assertion that if the Clinton's were GOP, they'd be lionized by conservatives. I think they would have been driven from power, similar to Nixon. From the way they attacked Thomas during his confirmation hearings for his alleged harrassment, I believe liberal press would not have crucified the GOP-Clinton's with full blessing of the conservatives.
I meant to say in the last sentence:
I believe liberal press would have crucified the GOP-Clinton's with full blessing of the conservatives.
(I left in the word "would NOT have". Sorry for the confusion.
"I think they would have been driven from power, similar to Nixon."
Over what? For lying about oral sex he would have been purged from the party, but Bush starting a war based on cherry-picked evidence, employing a man who revealed classified information about a CIA agent, and running several spying operations whose legality is questionable at best without informing Congress is all hunky-dory?
And the liberal media crucified Thomas? They didn't pay any attention to "monicagate" "haircutgate" "filegate" "whitewater" at all? Give me a break. The media hammered Clinton from the start, and you know it.
And everytime the media points out something about Bush, they don't get the "full blessing" from the conservatives. To suggest it would be that way if Clinton was a republican is beyond naive, going full-steam into dishonesty.
was not "driven from power". he resigned because he was about to be impeached by the house, and the senate republican leadership, including barry goldwater, told him that he had at most twenty votes on his side. and this all happened because he commited crimes. he was heard on the tapes saying it wouldn't be a problem to get a million dollars to buy the silence of the watergate burglars. he used the fbi and irs to go after the people on his "enemies list". your analogy falls flatter than a pancake.
What dream world have you been living in?
From the way they attacked Thomas during his confirmation hearings for his alleged harrassment,
You have got to be kidding!!!! Did you even pay attention to the those hearings. What I seen coming from the conervatives was the biggest bunch of hypocrispy I had ever seen. Just weeks before I heard conservatives after conservatives whine about how Women had "turned thier backs on thier fellow sisters" to support Clinton. We were smart enough to see that Jones had more holes in her story than could be believed. Yet when we allowed Anita HIll to tell her story we were out to riun a good man. Hill was trash by conservatives deposte that fact that her story had a heck of a lot more credibilty than Jones. You brought up Thomas. but your point only prooves mine. Because he was a conservative flunky his Alleged harrassment was washed under the carpet of conservative attacks on the Anita Hill. The man made it to the Supreme court without a valid hearing of wheather or not he was guilty of a crime that should have made him unfit to serve on it. Yet the only thing that has ever been prooven on Clinton is CONSENTIAL affairs yet he is still labled with the sexaul harressment charges. Yet Conservatives are quick to defend Thomas. It was Hill that was humilated during the confiramtion hearing
while the righty talking heads constantly point out any opposition to Bush's policies as this " deep-seated, personal hatred of Bush", their hatred of Clinton is glaring.
Why? what happened while he was in office(besides messing with an intern)?
solid economy
military actions that were competently done
Gov't not nosing into the lives of average Americans.
All the things the GOP runs on as their platform, but can't execute for the life of them.
and "slick willie" did is as an aside, like, "oh, by the way, while being a full-time Dem President, I threw in those things you tell everyone we are against"
They gotta hate that!
HBL wrote that he thinks Righty talking heads hated Bush for things other than his scandals.
I disagree on a couple of points.
I don't think those on the right 'hated' Clinton. They thought he should be removed from office, but that was because he is a scoundrel and cheapened the office and also was patently dishonest. (You can argue if you want, I'm just saying why I think those on the right regarded Bill.)
Contrary to your belief, conservatives don't hate presidents who, (with the help of a GOP controlled congress), create a "solid economy", "military actions that were competently done", and "Gov't not nosing into the lives of average Americans.".
It can be argued that Somolia wasn't competently done, and the bombings in Kosovo stayed pretty much under the radar. Your assertion that Republicans hated Clinton for "not nosing into lives" is patently silly. It just doesn't make sense.
You wrote: "All the things the GOP runs on as their platform, but can't execute for the life of them."
Again you are mistaken. Isn't the economy working just fine right now? Isn't unemployment down and jobs up? Isn't the economy growing? Your assertion that the GOP cannot execute a "prosperous economy" is just a lefty talking point not based in reality.
(I'll agree with you that spending is way to high.)
I don't get your last comment, so we'll let it go here.
I can't spell to save my life. The second to the last line should read "(I'll agree with you that spending is way too high.)"
I'm sure there are more. My apologies.
This economy has received, and continues to receive, stimulus from the Fed Govt exceeding the sum of ALL the stimulus supplied in the previous history of the nation - even the years of the other dunce, Raygun. Yet, the need to distort the benefits by fudging the employment numbers continues, the poverty rate increases daily, and even the Fed Reserve is considering the possibility of national bankruptcy. Only that top 1% have benefitted from Bungle's policies - oh, and a few (paid?) shills for his policies, notable by inane/insane posts in Media Matters. Whatever you got for this nonsense was inadequate, since you were required to expose yourself in public.
while you're always polite, and I've already noted you have a sense of humor (for a conservative), I think to call my opinion of the Republicans and the economy "silly", or a lefty talking point, then agree that spending is way too high is a little silly. If I ran up 5 or 6 grand a month on my credit cards, my personal "economy" would look pretty good for a while.
The economy is hard to call, short-term, even for the experts, so maybe you're right and it's doing great. I'm going to be cautiously optimistic between now and my retirement a few decades away(knock on wood) :O By the way, the GDP reflects more of Corporate America that us working people, in case that's the good news you're watching.
As for the suggestion that the right didn't hate Clinton, only wanted him out of office (for the good of the country, no doubt, Har!), I guess you prove that by how he's never mentioned by the Conservative talkers, and when a bad word is said about him. it's always policy-based, and not personal.(mucho sarcasm)
Cheapening the office-- as boneheaded as the Lewinsky thing was,it was only work-related because BC spent a lot more time at the white house than his brush-clearing pretend-rancher GOP successor.It's actually amazing, statistically, how many things Bush has done wrong on the job, considering the limited time he spends at work.
I'll concede that there are no "competent wars", they're all a mess. That's just my personal belief that a superpower going to war is like a bouncer getting into a bar fight. You're bad at your job.Try to avoid spending 300 billion on one you haven't thought out ahead of time.
I think you missed my point on the reasons the right hates Clinton; You argued that they don't hate the things he did (good economy, Gov out of our lives), which I never said. The right pretends to love these things, they just don't deliver. My point was that they hate him for doing what they promise, but can't accomplish,and getting a hummer or two in his spare time.
That's what the last comment was. Imagine you've been trying to play basketball your whole life and can't sink a free throw, and some guy who's never seen a hoop walks onto your court and dumps 3 in a row.
And if you come back to this thread, you can't tell me you didn't laugh at at least one of my points. Har!
Big deal, my wife and I split here and there. Makes for better government in my household. Called diplomacy, maybe even " Jeffersonian democracy ".
...before I voted against it. That wouldn't work."
Haha, Andrea made a funny. She so funny!
from my view
HBL wrote that he thinks Righty talking heads hated Bush for things other than his scandals.
I disagree on a couple of points.
I don't think those on the right 'hated' Clinton. They thought he should be removed from office, but that was because he is a scoundrel and cheapened the office and also was patently dishonest. (You can argue if you want, I'm just saying why I think those on the right regarded Bill.)
Contrary to your belief, conservatives don't hate presidents who, (with the help of a GOP controlled congress), create a "solid economy", "military actions that were competently done", and "Gov't not nosing into the lives of average Americans.".
It can be argued that Somolia wasn't competently done, and the bombings in Kosovo stayed pretty much under the radar. Your assertion that Republicans hated Clinton for "not nosing into lives" is patently silly. It just doesn't make sense.
You wrote: "All the things the GOP runs on as their platform, but can't execute for the life of them."
Again you are mistaken. Isn't the economy working just fine right now? Isn't unemployment down and jobs up? Isn't the economy growing? Your assertion that the GOP cannot execute a "prosperous economy" is just a lefty talking point not based in reality.
(I'll agree with you that spending is way to high.)
I don't get your last comment, so we'll let it go here.
- anotheramerican / Monday July 24, 2006 04:01:57 PM EST - Reply to this comment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you're consistent in your cluelessness, uggie. I' ll give ya that much.
Actually, it can't be argued that Somalia wasn't competently done. Not by anyone who supports this completely corrupt and utterly incompetent administration, anyhow.
First of all, Clinton inherited Somalia from George the first but when 3 helicoptors were shot down and 18 soldiers were killed, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin had the decency to resign.
I'm sure rummy will have the same decency when the US death toll in Iraq reaches 18.
The wacks didn't hate Clinton, eh? That's just plain delusional. To claim that "Clinton cheapened the office" while this illegitimate schmuck gets caught in one lie after another is further evidence of your clear break with reality.
Clinton got the economy turned around in spite of the republican congress. His deficit reduction package passed without a single republican vote. The repos didn't have a thing to do with it.
The Dow had a big rally today. Swell. Even with the rally and every tax cut he asked for as well as Greenspan operating out of the White House, eschewing all pretense of impartiality, the Dow is up less than 500 points in the over five and a half years this schmuck has been on the throne. That doesn't even rate as flat.
Face it, the repos have screwed up the economy, taken the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit, got us into a quagmire it's going to take a long time to get us out of and made us - and the World at large - less safe than we were when he seized power.
Who' s running Congress now? Who's in the White House? Who controls the Courts? Is the deficit bigger or smaller than the day shrub seized power?
That's what I thought.
This is your mess, uggie, and the Dems are gonna have to clean it up just like we did after the Depression, Watergate and Vietnam, Iran-Contra and the first bush deficit-just like we ways do.
The pro-War Clinton's backing the pro-War Lieberman for pro-war purposes...great. Real liberals they...pro-War liberals. Tell me again, Mr Media Corporation Man, tell me again about the liberal Clintons...when Bill hangs with Daddy Bush lately and Hillary gets booed for supporting the Crusades. C'mon, tell me there's a difference...then try to sell me a diet coke made from antifreeze (thanks to Rumsfeld, who got aspartame passed politically over the objections of the FDA at the time).
Just watch, if and when Lieberman loses, al bushira, the weekly standard and the rest of the right wing noise machine will blame it on the Clintons.
...is that these supposedly informed "hosts" ask ridiculously stupid and worthless questions that you'd think they should know the answers to (if they did one iota of research for the show), then fail to challenge the answers they get.
If a reporter's job is to get at the truth, how in the hell can they stand to not do their jobs day in and day out?!?
This is such a stretch in terms of looking for media bias. It is significant that Ms. Clinton did not go to CT to endorse Lieberman yet her husband did. As much as I dislike Klein, Mitchell, et al., your supposed point is weak at best on this one.