So Bill Clinton gave Romney debate advice when facing President Obama in 2012. That is very wrong

[still_one]

"In September 2012, when Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, spoke at the annual Clinton Global Initiative gathering in New York, Mr. Clinton gave him advice backstage about how to appear in command when facing off against Mr. Obama in their coming debates."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/us/politics/to-avert-repeat-of-2008-clinton-team-hopes-to-keep-bill-at-his-best.html

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Man of Ego!

[leftofcool]

2. So?

He probably told Romney "lotsa luck buddy!"

[still_one]

4. no he didn't, he told him how to take charge of the debate, but that isn't the point is it? What

hell is a Democrat giving helpful advice to a republican in order to beat a Democrat? This wasn't given in 2008 when his wife was running, this was done in 2012

[leftofcool]

29. And you read all this crap in the NYT so I suppose you believed their story on the emails too?

I would also assume you were in the back room with Romney and Clinton so you would know what exactly was said?

[Agschmid]

37. Bahhhhh.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I'm not surprised.

The 2008 race primary race was pretty nasty, and I'm sure a lot of the ill-will carried forward, despite President Obama giving Ms Clinton a plum of a consolation prize for losing.

[joeybee12]

13. Well, if Obama had been able to put aside his ego, it should have been VP...

And then we never would have heard of Sarah Palin...Mclame only chose her because Obama didn't pick Hilary.

[Major Hogwash]

44. Which was worse, the 2004 primary or the 2008 primary?

I think the 2008 primary was much worse because Hillary waited until the DNC to release her delegates.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

48. I think 2008 gave those who had other issues

(sexism, racism) more room to throw those issues out in public and so it was more vicious overall. I think the delegate issue was simply more about keeping room to deal for power. Would HRC have been offered SoS if she'd caved early and simply released her delegates early? Not entirely sure. But the delegates move was all political, while other things that went on earlier in the race on the parts of various voters and surrogates weren't always about the politics.

[Major Hogwash]

52. Hillary argued that the delegates selected through the caucus method should not be held . . .

. . to vote for the candidate who won the caucus, in those states that use caucuses to select their delegates to the DNC.
Bill even ran out on to the public stage and said that caucuses were biased because only Democratic activists attended caucuses.

Idaho uses a caucus to select our delegates to the DNC, not a primary.
Idaho Democrats selected Senator Obama to be their national Presidential candidate in our state party's caucus, so he won all of the delegates from Idaho to go to the DNC because Idaho is a "winner take all" state.

In 2008, when Hillary was consistently losing in those states that use the caucus method to select their DNC delegates, she whined that they should be let go of any pledge to vote for the eventual winner of the caucus.

When Hillary started losing the 2008 primary, she wanted to change the rules concerning the delegates' pledges when they attended the DNC.

There was a very good article in Time magazine 2 weeks ago about how the Clintons play by their own rulez.

I agree that 2008 was more vicious than 2004.
I think that was because Senator Kerry had already wrapped up the nomination by March 13, 2004.
By winning so many primaries and caucuses in a row, he had won a clear majority of the delegates that would attend the DNC.
The 2004 primary was notable for the fact that the race for the eventual Presidential candidate was over faster than any other race for a Presidential candidate in the history of the Democratic party!!

[MADem]

5. Unsourced comment from the "Hillary - friendly" (that was sarcasm) NYT?

Yeah, sure, whatever.

His advice was probably something along the lines of "Act like you have a pole up your ass and be bombastic--that'll make you look Presidential!!"

Any advice he gave him, if he took it, was most assuredly to Obama's advantage.

I've got to wonder how low NYT will go?

[still_one]

16. Do you remember when Hillary said in 2008 mccain has a lifetime of experience while Obama just has a

speech?

"Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." Clinton was referring to Obama's anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-says-she-and-mccain-offer-experience-obama-offers-speeches/


Comparing her against Obama was fair game, but saying that mccain is more qualified during that campaign than Obama is garbage, and demonstrates the nastiness of the Clinton's during that time.

In fact history has proven that assertion regarding mccain wrong. McCain would have been a disaster. He is a war lover, and would have created a policy of endless wars.

Yes, maybe the NYTimes made up that story, but I doubt it. Lanny Davis, another winner from the Clinton camp said some of the most vile things against President Obama, even when the election was over, and the same thing with Panetta, blasting Obama On His Leadership, and Blaming Him For State Of Iraq And Syria.

If they decide to relive 2008, and think they will succeed by trashing the Obama administration they a sorely miscalculating, and will alienate Democrats just like they did in 2008.

It would serve their interests instead of dissing the Obama administration, which ironically contains a lot of the same advisors Clinton has, to focus instead on what Hillary has to offer, and contrast herself to the republicans, and not a Democratic administration.

[MADem]

24. Oh, fachrissake. Do you remember when Obama nominated Clinton to be his SECSTATE?

I think it's Hill-arious how the politicians can behave like adults and "get over it" after a rough primary contest ends, but their fans (and I say fans rather than supporters, because a supporter goes WITH the person they support) can't.

Hillary "got over it" and supported Obama. I took my lead from her.


Obama quite obviously "got over it" as well, as he nominated her as his SECSTATE.

Why people insist upon creating this "Hammer and Tongs" environment between Democrats who have been on the same frigging team for the past seven years is beyond me.



Fuck the NYT with their breathless non-scandal email story, their Jayson Blairs and Judy Millers, and their "salacious" non-story bullshit. Fuck them and their un-attributed quotes from SPOUSES like that shit is supposed to matter.

They've already made it clear where they've made their bed--they are no longer the "paper of record" and haven't been for some time. They're dancing with the ones what brung 'em, and those people don't want Democrats in the White House.

[still_one]

27. I wasn't talking about Hillary, I was talking about Bill Clinton. All Bill Clinton, has to do is

come out and say the article is false

[MADem]

60. Should he respond to every lie printed about him? He'd be at it all day and night.

And we know damn well that no one would have given a shit about what he had to say (or not say) to anyone were it not for his wife's possible entrance into the Presidential fray.

So let's not be clever here, either. Trying to get to a politician by smearing their spouse--even if that spouse is a public figure-- is not anyone's finest hour.

I didn't think it was classy when Mrs. Sanders was raked over the coals on this board yesterday, and I said as much.

[Scootaloo]

51. I've noticed Clinton supporters seem VERY forgetful about 2008

[bigtree]

6. that accusation by the author has no attribution

...no quote, no evidence of any kind to back it up.

Smells like bullshit.

[still_one]

17. Then all Bill Clinton has to do is come out and correct "the error"

[MADem]

30. Is Bill Clinton running for President, again? Was the 22nd Amendment repealed while we slept?

Bill Clinton is an old man with heart disease. He's a private citizen--he doesn't "have to" do anything. When assholes talk entirely vague shit about a person, it's more effective to not dignify their rumor-mongering with a response.

More to the point, why people are fixating on shit that may--or may NOT have-- happened in the past, like it matters, is curious. When they latch on to an unattributed "throwaway" comment in a larger article, and pound on it like a judge with a gavel in night court, hoping to rile the masses, I have to wonder if there's not a bit of hopeful "guilt-shit by association" shenanigans at play.

What's most interesting, though, is how just a few people are digging, years and decades, into the past, trying to find something to fling at Clinton The Woman, even if all they can dig up is some snarky, unsourced and entirely non-specific comments by Clinton the Man.

It smacks of desperation.

If he (who is not running) said it, Obama quite evidently got over it--seeing as it didn't prevent him from hiring that guy's wife as his SecState.

[Agschmid]

36. No he doesn't. Wouldn't do him a damn bit of good...

But you know that already.

[bigtree]

46. right

...then he can come on to DU and deny all of the rest of the bullshit that flies around here as fact...as if.

[Politicalboi]

7. It worked so well

"Proceed Governor".

[Cali_Democrat]

8. It looks to me like Bill actually PUNKED Romney.

Romney wasn't in command at all.

Please proceed, governor.

[Savannahmann]

11. I'm sorry, but your opinion wasn't shared by the majority.

The first Debate was considered a Romney win by vast majorities. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/

The first Debate basically tied the race, forcing Obama to take the race he'd been leading handily more seriously, and leading to a much narrower win in 2012 than in 2008.http://www.gallup.com/poll/157907/romney-narrows-vote-gap-historic-debate-win.aspx

In fact, President Obama got four million fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008. While Romney got a million more votes than McCain.

It's a shame the rest of the nation didn't view it your way. But I don't think it's a laughing matter.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. I was referring to the second debate

When he told the governor to proceed and Romney ended up looking like a fucking moron.

Obama set him up brilliantly.

I didn't watch the first debate.

Romney ended up losing in an electoral landslide. Romney won only one swing state (NC) and Obama won the rest.

I'm sorry if that bothered you.

[leftofcool]

31. I would think so too!

Amazing how many people actually believe that Bill gave Romney advice on how to win against Obama. But the NYT says it so it must be true. NOT!

[Mike Nelson]

9. Romney looked stupid...

Thank you, Presidents Clinton and Obama!

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Willard really stunk the place up,

reverse psychology? Nah!! ???

[Savannahmann]

12. Are we talking about the same first debate?

The one two thirds of the people said Romney won? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/

Denver, Colorado (CNN) – Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.

[bigtree]

47. Romney looked like a fool and Obama did just fine in the first debate

...and no evidence at all that those polls taken represented actual votes. This is bullshit analysis based on conventional wisdom and other hubris.

[Savannahmann]

53. OK, polls then were meaningless.

But polls now are all that matter. I understand completely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025115191

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025168715

Some of us don't delete threads that don't sit well in history. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025104499

Polling should be considered in perspective, and for some reason you are unwilling to grant that at the time that poll was taken, the general feeling was that Obama had lost the first debate.

Even the Obama campaign said that Romney won the first debate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021468420

But what the hell do they know right?

We're doomed to repeat the failures of the past, and lose the election aren't we?

[bigtree]

55. won the first debate?

...tell me, what did Romney win? What? Your admiration for his debating skills?

Yes, the polls were as meaningless as the whining and gnashing of fingers on keyboards from posters here.

President Obama lost WHAT in that debate?

President Obama speaks to 30,000 in Madison, WI

[bvar22]

50. Some here have blissful, selective memories, walking on pink clouds.

They never help in a dogfight.

[HereSince1628]

14. Well let's try this old saw...but such advice wouldn't be illegal.

I don't think anyone questions that Bill Clinton is entitled to freedom of speech.

Apparently something about free-speech can still be viewed as unsatisfactory...

[still_one]

18. No, not illegal, but it questions his judgement, and Democratic loyalty for sure

[HereSince1628]

20. Yes. And yet...

the it wasn't illegal argument is the most popular defense of the email flap on DU

"It's not illegal" really isn't very satisfying very often.

[still_one]

21. Not sure if that comparison is a good one. However, disparaging comments from Lanny Davis, Leon

Panetta, and others from the Clinton camp on the Obama administration is comparable in my view

[leftofcool]

32. Are you serious? Do you know how many times Bill campaigned for Obama?

[Agschmid]

35. Yah but that one time backstage really swung the election...

[MADem]

61. Shhhhh...stop interjecting "facts" and "making sense"--it ruins the mongering the NYT has been

engaged in, non-stop, of late. Judy Miller's paper of record, at it again! Surprise, surprise!

[treestar]

15. I thought it was president Obama who

Dropped the ball. I remember the media frenzy and the one here.

[still_one]

19. sure he performed badly in the first debate, but that wasn't the premise of the allegation that Bill

Clinton found a need to suggest to Romney how to deal with Obama in the debate.

Is it true? I don't know, but I do know if it isn't, all Bill Clinton needs to do is say that it is not correct.

[msanthrope]

22. Yeah.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021476084

[still_one]

28. but that wasn't the point of the article, or have anything to do with the alleged action of Bill

Clinton

[Agschmid]

34. Tell me why what Bill Clinton did matters...

And then tell me how it impacts 2016.

Then I might care, otherwise this is a stupid OP.

[treestar]

54. I had watched it on CSPAN without commentary

and didn't get what the fuss was all about. It was similar for other people who had done that. Amazing how the pundits get people to think their way. Even the BOG thought he had done badly.

[woo me with science]

25. Party loyalty is for proles.

We misunderstand politics and our politicians in 2014 when we assume their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy.

In oligarchy, the goal is using the two parties you own in whichever way best furthers the corporate agenda. enhances the power and profit, of the oligarchy.

DCCC email campaign: "Accept defeat"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025736826

Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.

[mylye2222]

26. Not surprised. And not the first time...

Remember 2004 ......

[Agschmid]

40. When you have facts and not just another...

cryptic claim let us know.

[Agschmid]

33. This is a stupid OP.

[B Calm]

38. Unsourced comment from the GOP. . .

[mylye2222]

39. K&R. Be carefull. I was juried earlier for having posted about

this and also because I reminded previous unloyal Clintons actions.

[Agschmid]

41. When you post bullshit you risk getting a hide.

Apparently you, just like the Clintons, are a bit "imperfect".

[840high]

57. Don't stop.

[Agschmid]

58. Please don't encourage those who post baseless speculation.

[DonCoquixote]

42. sad

but not surprising.

[gwheezie]

43. President Rmoney should thank bill

Maybe bill can give Jeb advice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Snort./NT

[Oilwellian]

45. It wouldn't be the first time he conspires with Repubs

[karynnj]

56. Patrick Healy has a history of just making stuff up about Democrats

Not to mention writing in a style better suited to the National Enquirer. When Clinton prepared for the 2008 run, he wrote an article that was - more than anything -- questioning the Clinton's marriage.

Before you think he only attacks the relationship of the Clinton's, he questioned John and Teresa Kerry's marriage in 2004!

Here is a DU thread from the past with the NYTimes link - which is pretty bad -- and the media matters link. (From DU2 - JK group) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x88209