About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Balz repeated false claim that Bill Clinton attacked Democrats in recent speech

November 08, 2007 12:56 pm ET
image

40 Comments

In a November 8 report, Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton attacked Democratic presidential candidates for "swift-boating" his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), in the context of her response during the Democratic presidential debate to questions from debate moderator Tim Russert about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. In fact, in his speech, Bill Clinton criticized Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks, as Media Matters for America noted.

Specifically, regarding the back-and-forth on Spitzer's driver's license proposal, President Clinton said:

BILL CLINTON: I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses." So, we'll then let the Republicans run an ad saying, "All the Democrats are against the rule of law."

I don't -- look, I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. Illegal immigration needs to be discussed, and it's fine for Hillary and all these other guys to be asked about Governor Spitzer's plan -- but not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.

From Balz's November 8 Post report:

Obama also criticized Bill Clinton's comments to a Las Vegas union crowd on Monday, when the former president compared the attacks on his wife by Democratic opponents Obama, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) to the television commercials aired against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race and to GOP ads targeting then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) in 2002.

The former president's comments drew widespread, though private, reactions from strategists in rival campaigns, who argued that he had dramatically exaggerated the criticism his wife had received and had stretched credulity with his Swift-boat analogy. A senior Clinton aide was quoted as saying that the former president's remarks were not helpful to his wife's candidacy and that he was not speaking for the campaign.

Another official later tried to distance the campaign from the suggestion that officials were trying to distance the candidate from her husband.

From Bill Clinton's speech:

CLINTON: [T]he point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President [Al] Gore was too stiff. When they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator [John] Kerry [D-MA].

When there was an ad that defeated [former Sen.] Max Cleland [D] in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam. And a guy that had several deferments ran an ad with Max Cleland's picture with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, because he dared to vote against the president's version of the Homeland Security bill.

Most Americans still don't know the truth. The president was against the Homeland Security bill for eight and a half months. And [former White House senior adviser] Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 elections unless the American people were scared about terror again. So, they decided to be for a bill they'd opposed -- and they put a poison pill in it.

That bill was designed by the president to take the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees that had no access to secure information, no access to secure technology, no business being treated like CIA agents. Look, we need to be able to fire CIA agents without going through a long process in the public, right? But we don't need to treat secretaries at FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] that way. I mean, the whole thing was a scam.

So Max Cleland said, "I didn't go to Vietnam and leave one arm and two legs to come home and hold my job by stripping the job rights from 170,000 good, hard-working Americans. I won't do it. So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Why am I saying this?

Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses." So, we'll then let the Republicans run an ad saying, "All the Democrats are against the rule of law."

I don't -- look, I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. Illegal immigration needs to be discussed, and it's fine for Hillary and all these other guys to be asked about Governor Spitzer's plan -- but not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.

So, do I hope you'll vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America and good for the world. But, more than that, I came here to tell you today: Don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you and to your children -- and to the future of America.

Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them. Thank you.

A November 7 New York Times article reported, "Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, said Mr. Clinton had not been referring to Democratic candidates' criticisms of his wife but to Republicans' criticism of her debate performance." Yet, in recent days, several media outlets described Bill Clinton's comments as an attack on Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 1:16 pm ET)
         

      Of course Bill was being Hillary's surrogate attack dog against her Democratic primary rivals - he and the others can parse their way around it, as they usually do, but there is no point in him going after the Republicans specifically at this point considering if Hillary doesn't get through round 1, there are no Republicans to worry about.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (November 08, 2007 1:32 pm ET)
           

        Talk about spinning...

        Bill Clinton says to his audience: "Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them."

        Yeah, TOMMY, sounds like he's really chewing the asses off his fellow party members.

        I'd say "Nice try", but it wasn't.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 1:35 pm ET)
             

          Yes, our best days - if you nominate and elect Hillary.

          And what is so wrong if Bill was aiming at other Democrats, so what?  They have to during the primaries, this is nothing new.

          And please don't sit there and tell me that the Clintons are above these sort of attacks, because that would be ridiculous. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (November 08, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
               

            Tommy, I agree with you and I think it is just plain silly to think that Bill Clinton did not give this speech for the Democratic candidates  to hear. After all look how he went after Paul Tsongas in 92. It is ridiculous not to think the Clintons play nice to fellow Democrats, they are politicains they want to win.  Silly so damm silly.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
                 

              Of course he did Sue, you're right.  Hillary didn't have to go after the other Democrats when she had a commanding lead, the frontrunner stays above it, as do their surrogates. 

              But as soon as the polls reflected a little dip in her support, the swipes back begin - it always does. Bill and Hillary are no worse, or no better than anyone else at it.

              To act as if they are above it is absurd. 

              Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (November 08, 2007 1:56 pm ET)
               

            "Above these sort of attacks", you've got to be kidding me. The Clintons have had every type of attack come their way. Who thinks they are above this "type" of attack?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:03 pm ET)
                 

              You're right.  The Clintons have had to fight against unfair attacks for years, and I applaud their resiliency.  But they know how to hit back as well.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by princeofwheels (November 08, 2007 2:39 pm ET)
                   

                And they should..but this one is a little iffy. But it makes good fodder for the CANNONS on the RIGHT of them and the CANNONS on the LEFT of them etc.etc.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:45 pm ET)
                     

                  And the "iffy" ness is exactly the point when going after members of your own party, especially when you are still the frontrunner.......the candidate usually stays above this sort of thing, and lets their "dogs" do the dirtier work - which is Bill's role here, and he did it masterfully.  Giving two different impressions, blasting all enemies but none of the "iffy" ones specifically, so when questioned it can't be nailed down.  

                  It's not such a bad thing, and I wouldn't expect anything less from a brilliant poltical team as Bill and Hillary.  They have no peers. 

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 1:37 pm ET)
           

        If he's attacking other Dems he sure takes a funny angle at attacking them in pointing out the Republican smear campaigns of the last two Presidential election cycles. It's also a weird way of attacking Democrats by criticizing the moderator's questions.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (November 08, 2007 1:42 pm ET)
             

          Nothing nails a fellow Democrat to the cross like attacking a media head and the Republicans.  Yep, cold, calculating Bill knew exactly what he was doing. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
               

            Yeah, all we hear from the right is that Dems blame everyone but themselves, except for when the right sees political advantage in it for them to invoke the circular firing squad meme.

            But then again we shouldn't expect consistency from the win at all costs GOP.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
             

          Do you deny that Dodd and Edwards went after her following her illegal immigration answer flrp-flop?  They did, and Bill was getting his own digs in at the same time......politics is very calculating.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
               

            Bill was getting in some digs, alright. He was gettin' after the loony rightwing smear thugs. But I challenge you to point to any specific attacks aimed at the other Dems on stage that night.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 1:54 pm ET)
                 

              I have no idea what your challenge has to do with anything?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 1:59 pm ET)
                   

                Well, since this posting is about false accusations of Bill Clinton attacking Democrats in response to the debate (an assertion you agree with), I think it's not so far fetched to ask you to show us all where Bill Clinton attacked the other candidates on the stage that night.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 1:54 pm ET)
                 

              And by specifics, I mean from Bill.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:01 pm ET)
                   

                Round, Don't be so naive.  Politics is very subtle and just because it doesn't hit you in the face hardly means it's not there.  

                Make no mistake, Bill was out there giving the other Democrats fair warning that if they attack Hillary they will pay the price.  Do you expect him to name names, of course not.  But her rivals know exactly what he meant - whether they care or not is another matter.......but it's the way the Clintons operate. 

                She is under two months away from a tightening Democratic primary season, why in the world would Bill look past that hard fought contest and aim at Republicans?  It makes no sense, he may want the media to be confused, but he knew exactly what he was doing.  If she doesn't win the primary, and pulling out the stops to do it, any Republican bashing is needless. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 2:14 pm ET)
                     

                  Republican bashing is needless. Not. Politics is all about the contrast in worldviews and it is of the utmost importance to point out where the differences are stark.

                  As for the subtlety argument being made it doesn't stand up. Media are saying Bill Clinton was speaking directly to the other candidates. He wasn't. He was not even making subtle referrences, he was pointing out the underhanded campaign tactics of Republican smear thugs and their media stenographers.

                  Yeah, Bill can be subtle but when the opposition gives you such a gaping moral weakness to exploit; direct exposure is the best course to pursue. That's what he did. He focused attention away from Hillary and put it on Republican moral relativism.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:20 pm ET)
                       

                    I guess the issue is you view this as a negative against Bill and Hillary, where I see as standard operating primary season politics - and not so negative in the scheme of political campaigning.

                    So Bill got a few digs in at those who took issue with her flip flop answer on a very "complicated issue".......Dodd and Edwards certainly did, and Bill criticized it, it isn't hard to follow here where his arrows were aimed.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
                         

                      On the contrary, I see this as very smart politics out of the Clintons. Shift the focus from Hillary to the rudderless Republicans. Nice, neat and effective.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:34 pm ET)
                           

                        And how does that differentiate her from the other Democrats and make them want to vote for her?  It doesn't, and that is the point.  Sure, she constantly criticizes Bush and has basically ignored the other candidates up until now when she has seen a drop in her numbers.  So, as any good political machine does, the surrogates go out, in this case her husband, and do a little biting of their own.....as I said standard procedure in politics.

                        I don't fault Bill for it at all, he was just being what his role dictates, and will do it very ably. 

                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by magnolialover (November 08, 2007 2:39 pm ET)
                         

                      He didn't criticize the other candidates though in this speech. He didn't mention anyone by name. Didn't mention the democratic candidates in general, he was talking about the republicans. Is this one of those things where we have to say, "Well, he meant to say this, but really said this instead". I mean, come on, the man didn't denigrate any of the democratic candidates in this speech, and to claim that he did subtley is, well, spinning and making things up.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (November 08, 2007 2:50 pm ET)
                           

                        Mag, Of course he wouldn't mention them by name specifically, that would be ridiculous for the frontrunner, or their minions, to do that at this point.  But between the lines that is exactly what he was doing.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by roundhouse (November 08, 2007 2:57 pm ET)
                             

                          So, when Rudi is keeps repeating socialized medicine, he's secretly attacking Mitt Romney?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jeter2 (November 08, 2007 3:08 pm ET)
                               

                            Of course he is. And he's aiming it at the Dems as well.

                            Hillary's Dem rivals are the ones that went after her after she danced around a non-answer. The media picked it up, & of course the Right loves it & has joined in. Welcome to Politics 101.

                            For Clinton to even imply "swiftboating" in this instance is a phony charge, Hills was "piled on" by Dems for talking out of both sides of her mouth. This is so slick on Bill's part to blame the Right, but doesn't fool those of us who have a long memory of how Billary works.

                            It's always somebody else's fault is their motto!

                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (November 08, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
                             

                          Yeah he attacked Democrats by not attacking them and attacking Republican smear campaigns instead.

                          The man is brilliant.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (November 08, 2007 4:56 pm ET)
                               

                            I'm seeing the logic here.

                            W went after Osama by attacking Iraq.

                            Clinton went after Democrats by attacking Republican smear campaigns.

                            That's sublime in its brilliance.

                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by darkmass (November 08, 2007 6:48 pm ET)
                             

                          "Mag, Of course he wouldn't mention them by name specifically, that would be ridiculous for the frontrunner, or their minions, to do that at this point.  But between the lines that is exactly what he was doing." - Tommy

                          Tommy, but since only conservatives seem able to read between those subtle lines, wouldn't you agree that his effort was a bit wasted?  The minion want to dumb down his approach.

                          Report Abuse
    • Author by justicetruthus8276 (November 08, 2007 1:42 pm ET)
         

      Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:

       

      When I first heard that Bill C. "attacked" the Dems, I imagined that he said something really awful and hateful like, "The Democrat Candidates are as honest and truthful as I am!"

      Now THAT would be an ugly attack!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 08, 2007 1:43 pm ET)
           

        It all makes sense now.

        Lord JTUS checks his facts by using his imagination.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (November 08, 2007 1:59 pm ET)
           

        "as I AM"...ypu speaking about yourself not Bill Clinton

        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (November 08, 2007 3:38 pm ET)
           

        Check please!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (November 08, 2007 10:04 pm ET)
           

        There is no such thing as a Democrat candidate. That would be a DemocratIC candidate. Since you are too ignorant to know the name of the largest political party in America, why should we waste our time reading your posts other than to make fun of your stupidity?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 08, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
         

      I agree that Bill didn't refer directly or indirectly to the Dem candidates. Why waste the bandwidth for this article though? It's not as though there's any question that Hillary's rivals have been in full-attack mode.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (November 08, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
         

      "you are"   OOPS

      Report Abuse
    • Author by olivelawyers (November 09, 2007 4:04 pm ET)
         

      I keep reading his Clinton's words and getting madder. I'm beginning to believe there is no ethical delineation between handlers and "reporters" when it comes to spitting out soundbites that rarely bear any semblance to the facts from which they are purportedly extracted. Not only the media, but the other candidates jumped on this. Senator Clinton has enough to try to justify with regard to her terrible position on trade policy and her votes on Iraq and Iran without having to contend with other candidates parroting lies spoonfed by either malicious or incompetent staff members.

       

      With regard to Russert's role in this situation, has anyone seen the Fact Check article at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_high-stepping.html ? It took them until today to correct a serious, erroneous allegation of conduct by the Clintons regarding supposedly their own personal records, which was asserted by Russert in the debate, but at least they did correct it. What do you think the chances are that Russert will? I though MM might look into this but they have not.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by olivelawyers (November 09, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
           

        Well, I thought they had not followed up on that after I sent the tip, but just saw it along the right margin of the home page. Cool. My bad.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.