On the east and west coasts today, two liberal columnists unleashed a torrent of vitriol at Hillary and Bill Clinton. At the Los Angeles Times, contributing editor Jonathan Chait [a past master of political hatred] asked Is the right right on the Clintons? Consider these blistering excerpts [emphasis added]:
- 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.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓ - 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.
- they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
- I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain.
- [C]riticism [by the Clintons] isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.
- Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought.
- It made me wonder: Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the Clintons' essential nature?
- [T]he conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character.
On the East Coast, it was New York Times columnist Bob Herbert's turn to unload on the Clinton couple. Excerpts:
- The [Charleston, SC] mayor’s thoughtful, respectful, generous assessment of the field echoed the tone that had prevailed until recently in the Democratic primary campaign. That welcome tone has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.
- Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.
- The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working.
- [I]t’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
- It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
- What kind of people are the Clintons?
Chait surmised that at the end of the day, "most of us will probably vote for her because the alternative is likely to be worse." But he also ominously asks, "what happens if she's embroiled in another scandal? Will liberals rally behind her, or will they remember the Democratic primary?"
What an amazing phenomenom. Has there every been a front-runner, a party's presumptive standard bearer, so feared and loathed by leading opinion makers in her own party as is Hillary Clinton? Whatever happened to that conventional wisdom about Democrats, in contrast with Republicans, being delighted with their field? Will Democrats actually nominate a woman about whom they have such fundamental misgivings?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I dunno ...
January 26, 2008 - 19:18 ET by drillanwrI'm starting to get that paranoid feeling with all of this ...
Anyone else wondering if the MSM is just toughening up Hillary and Co. for the BIG race in the general election?
I mean, do we REALLY think BHO will get the DNC nod on this in the end?
I'd rather see her crash and burn in a general election
January 26, 2008 - 21:53 ET by HippopaulimusThe way I see it is, the Dems have been ignoring and pooh-poohing Hill's negative numbers for years. Then, a few weeks back, that report came out that basically said she would lose against almost anyone she faced in the general election. So, now they're scrambling to make sure Barack Obama Bin Ladin gets the nomination.
Look at what the MSM is saying. It's not the type of things you just put aside and ignore after the primaries. They now want Hillbilly down and out. None of these "incidents" are any different from the BS these two have been pulling for their entire careers. Yet, suddenly it's a problem... suddenly the Right is "right"... suddenly they're fed up with the greatest president ever, and the world's smartest woman... (I can't even write that without rolling my eyes :p )
The time to "toughen-up" Hillary would have been the end of last year. Now, in the middle of picking your nominee, you don't rock the boat...unless you've changed your agenda.....
Respectfully, I disagree.
January 26, 2008 - 23:31 ET by heldmywI would much rather have the Democrat Party shut down the Cankles & Clenis Show prior to the general election.
A repudiation by 'their own' will put them out of business permanently. A validation in the general election will allow sobbing, finger-pointing, red-faced huffery and dark intimations of "the vast right-wing conspiracy" that is meat and drink to the noise machines of the DUmmies, Kostards and PuffHo's.
Their defeat by a Republican would be a form of martyrdom, obviously compassed by Rovian machinations, since they are 'obviously' better (being Lefties). Us poor Conservatives MUST have Diebolded, Halliburtoned or Blackwatered the vote!
MUST have!
No. Obama wiping them in the primaries will put "paid" to the long-overdue Clinton Circus.
But Please Lord, one way or another, make them go away!
OK
January 28, 2008 - 00:57 ET by HippopaulimusYes Heldmyw, I totally agree that what you wrote would be their reaction to a loss in a general election. But, the new Republican President could always smile and say it was just "a mandate from the people"... : )
I, also, would love to see these two continue to crash and burn, and just be gone. Especially with the Dems. flushing Billary to the sewers themselves. But, I actually feel, if Obama gets the nomination he will be the next President. And that, to me, is just a completly disturbing concept.
So, given the choice between having Shrillary whining over a loss, or a socialist/commie/muslim (in hiding) president, I'll take a Republican President... And, we can kick the clintoons to the curb a little later rather than sooner. (alas, the lesser of two evils...)
True lies
January 26, 2008 - 19:18 ET by ThisnThatThis is why Hillary has been under wraps for the past 6+ years -- when she opens her mouth, she exposes her true nature. As for Bill -- it's what we've known for a long, long time.
But I don't like the undertones in this article, even though it's good that the Clintons are getting blasted. This person automatically assumes that Clinton was a better president than Reagan, and says so with the presumption that it's the truth, no questions need to be asked. And, the comment: "Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him [Clinton]" completely ignores the Dim's joy and glee at such a trap set for Scooter Libby. What a double standard! So let's not get too carried away by these comments -- they don't show any change so far as rationality is concerned.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
But he also ominously asks,
January 26, 2008 - 19:30 ET by MidAmericaBut he also ominously asks, "what happens if she's embroiled in another scandal?
There's not another candidate of either party that we can envision getting themselves into a scandal because they will purposely try to get away with something they know is wrong. Only the clinton's are presumed sleazy and slippery. No wonder the dems are getting heartburn.
I think part of the reason
January 26, 2008 - 19:43 ET by balboaI think part of the reason for this backlash is that the major media outlets have been hyping up both the "Clinton eruptions" and the "nasty debate fights" so much that, sure, people suddenly are tired of hearing about Bill yapping and Hill bickering.
You mean.....
January 26, 2008 - 19:46 ET by ThisnThatHillary bitching, don't you? {people suddenly are tired of hearing about Bill yapping and Hill bickering}
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
From the highlights of the
January 26, 2008 - 19:51 ET by balboaFrom the highlights of the last debate I saw, I thought it looked like good back and forth with Obama.
Actually ...
January 26, 2008 - 19:57 ET by drillanwrI can't seem to get enough popcorn ... heh!
Back and forth with Obama
January 26, 2008 - 20:14 ET by ThisnThatYou mean like her accusing Obama of associating with the Chicago slumlord, and then finding out that she and Bill also was cozy with the same slumlord? You call that "good back and forth"? I call her actions slimy and typical Clinton.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Whatever happened to the
January 26, 2008 - 20:34 ET by motherbeltWhatever happened to the Clintons' decrying the "politics of personal destruction"?
Oh, I forgot, they only rail against that when it's headed toward them...
Like I said, I only saw
January 26, 2008 - 21:10 ET by balboaLike I said, I only saw highlights.
"Could the Wingnuts Have
January 26, 2008 - 20:18 ET by motherbelt"Could the Wingnuts Have Been Right About the Clintons?"
Jon Chait wonders if the bloom is off the rose....
Also, "Outisde the Beltway" has a list of Clinton dirty tricks.
He assumes the Republican nominee will be McCain:
They’ll rally around her, of course, just as most conservatives will rally around McCain.
And in the end, he springs the money quote:
All of this will be forgiven and forgotten once the general election campaign gets going, in an eyeblink.
Clinton dirty tricks
January 26, 2008 - 20:23 ET by ThisnThatI'm wondering -- if Obama wins the black vote, is Hillary going to go back to the Constitution and demand black votes counting as 3/5?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Wouldn't surprise me a bit
January 26, 2008 - 20:32 ET by motherbeltWouldn't surprise me a bit what they will come up with. Just like Gore in Florida int 2000, they will try to have the rules changed, to their advantage. They will argue that even though those states knowingly broke the rules, it is not fair for the people to be penalized by not having their delegates seated. Just like "Count all the votes!!" we will hear chants of "Seat all the delegates!!"
They are shameless, and therefore nothing is beneath them.
But as Chait says, I believe once she is the nominee, they will all bite the bullet and support her.
Acorn's tactics
January 26, 2008 - 20:56 ET by ThisnThatACORN has become a major factor in voter fraud abuse; even when they get caught, they simply apologize, pay a small fine, and continue on. I'm sure Soros is behind them, so whatever the fine is, it's ok.
My concern this election is that ACORN will grab illegals and hand out voting cards; or vote for them "in absentia". Then they will get caught in, oh, maybe 10% of the cases; claim "citizen rights"; confuse, obsfugate, and delay; and get most of the Dim legislatures to look the other way, eventually, thereby increasing the Dim candidate vote. Could be enough to tip the close elections.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Ponder This One
January 26, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Del DolemonteOne of the posters over at Captain's Quarters today suggested that if Hillary is elected co-President, she and Bill will somehow try some legal maneuvering to overturn Slick's 1998 impeachment.
Now, I don't know if such a thing is possible, as I am not a Constitutional lawyer. Anyone with more knowledge than I have care to check in on this possibility?
Seems to me that President Hillary could "pardon" Bubbah, or issue a Presidential Proclamation making his impeachment null and void, or maybe stack the Supreme Court with Democrat lackeys. Any thoughts?
Supreme Court
January 26, 2008 - 22:04 ET by ThisnThatIt wouldn't surprise me if Clinton has dirt on the Supremes, and tries to use it to force them out so they can nominate their own. And the polite Senate Repubs will go along with any choice.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Is Chait a KGB operative?
January 26, 2008 - 20:59 ET by needle“[Jon Chait] assumes the Republican
nominee will be McCain:
They’ll rally around her, of course, just as most conservatives will
rally around McCain.”
WHAT?!?
One wonders if Chait was ever a KGB operative considering
the way he spins out his disinformation.
Separately, consider the following recent bits from <a href=
“http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2627429620080126”>here</a>
"Governor Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal
similar to what the Democrats are seeking, which would have led to a victory by
al-Qaeda in my view," McCain told a rally…
The way McCain can up with this distortion of the truth, and
Romney’s demand for an apology are explained in the next few paragraphs of the
Reuters news piece.
No wonder the MSM loves McCain: he appears to be a first
cousin of Hillary.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Speaking of McCain, Vice
January 26, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Gary P JacksonSpeaking of McCain, Vice President Lindsey Graham is on Fox right now crowing about the Florida Governor's endorsement of McCain. Don't know how bad that will hurt Romney, but somebody needs pull their head out of their butts. We cannot end up with McCain as our nominee. It would guarantee a Hillary Clinton Presidency, because I'm pretty sure many Republicans would sit on their hands rather that vote for this guy.
Luke warm Republican or Liberal Democrat
January 26, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Kuso JijiUnless someone of real substance emerges as an Independent candidate, the American voter is forced yet again to decide between the lesser of two evils in the general election.
With no real strong conservative in the race, the only choice for Republicans is to pick a candidate that can win the general election. That is of course if Republicans are not at the point where they are prepared to roll the dice and let the Democrats have total control of the government for the next four years.
McCain, if he can win back the trust of conservatives, has a much better chance in the general election than Romney.
Baka
January 27, 2008 - 05:35 ET by Heiki(Pronounced Bahkah, meaning STUPID in Japanese) The biggest potential problem this cycle is with the GOP voters who absolutely, positively could not, under any circumstances vote for someone like John McCain and would knowingly allow BHO or HRC four years (or more!) to run amok instead. I've heard the slow-slide into socialism arguments of these folks and it doesn't hold water with me, where they decry the current slate of GOP candidates as not being conservative enough. ANY Republican candidate would be preferable to the greased pole toward socialism that the Dem slate would place us on. We as a country can recover from a term or two of a ''RINO'' much more easily than from the damage that one of these chucklehead Dems could inflict during their prospective tenure.
Kinda reminds you of Dick Morris...
January 26, 2008 - 20:20 ET by directorblueLong-time Clinton adviser is a perfect example of this effect. His latest column describes the time (in 1990, during the Arkansas Gubernatorial runs) when he was physically assaulted by Bill.
Will Democrats actually
January 26, 2008 - 20:58 ET by zhombreWill Democrats actually nominate a woman about whom they have such fundamental misgivings? Yes. The rationality of contemporary liberalism long ago went down the drain. Like good Stepford Dems most will support the nominee because the thought of Republicans in power evokes the Pavlovian gag reflex.
"What kind of people are the
January 26, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Sonny Lykos"What kind of people are the Clintons?"
Give me a break. They know exactly what kind of people they are. They are the same as those writing about them.
I don't trust the media and their pundits like the two above. I think they are scheming something, maybe for when Hillary becomes the candidate during the general election.
1960's flashback and 1990's spoiled brats
January 26, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Lame CherryOne has to understand the "modern" Democratic voter are just like the doped up kids of 1960 rejecting the nipple of mommy and daddy. Democrats fed off the of the greed of the Clinton 90's, but now have a hangover and flashback in hating the good times.
Now the spoiled brats see old geezer pervert Bill as the sex fiend with his hand on little girls knees and Hill as the bitch who laughs in her Stepford Wives costume pretending she doesn't see a thing as she leaves the kids to be raised by Sesame Street and stolen vodka.
Bill was the national daddy for Democrats and in their real lives they loathe that fatherless child for leaving them for a good life while giving them a good time when he showed up, but LEAVING THEM HOSTAGE TO HILLARY who broke up the good times.
Democrats view the Clinton's in broken home psychopathy. Bill and Hillary were the parents they trotted out when they were pretty for the holidays........now though just like Terri Schiavo they expect the geezers to retire to Boca and not show up again........some nice 100 dollar Christmas cards are all the kiddies want though as they have moved up now to the sexy black fetish down the street, as Boston Legal showed last week, "Dems all want an Obama baby in their white bodies as that is the new sexy".
The Obama girl was Madison Avenue marketing. They knew the audience and that Dems have kicked the redneck Clintons to the curb.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Better Late than Never
January 26, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Kuso JijiHow much harm has been done to the country due to mainstream media negligence?
All this was known about the Clintons since the 1980's. It took three decades for the LAT and NYT to finally start asking journalistic questions?
Pardon me for not being the least bit giddy about this turnaround. The MSM is only reacting this way because they have come to the conclusion the old battle ax will not win in the general election.
They have turned on the Clintons for one reason....
January 26, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Missouri Conservative...they want to win in November, and they realize that Hillary will not be able to do it. They also see that she will do anything to gain the nomination. So, what they are staring at is a woman who they know in their hearts CANNOT win, yet she is pursuing a scorched earth strategy to gain the nomination of her party, which will lead to a Democrat defeat in November, and a civil war within the party in the process. I, for one, hope that she wins the primary. This thing is so fun to watch.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
What kind of people are the
January 26, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Jack BauerWhat kind of people are the Clintons?
That's easy. They are that most odious of ists... that is: opportunists.
They will take any opportunity, step on anyone, say anything that plays to their advantage.
Good grief, they even pretend a "fidelity" in a marriage that appears to be based on infidelity.
Every Beltway journalist has known that for a very long time, that long predated Lewinsky. But they just didn't think it was the right of the voters to know.
Stunning.
January 26, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Scout FinchWe've been saying this for twelve years!
The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
The Clintons are only interested in their own vested power. It's all about them. Can ya hear me now, Democrats?
And now...
January 27, 2008 - 00:42 ET by dervishanother rat leaves the ship.
If Frank Rich won't clack for you any more, you're in trouble. (But yeah, if Billary wins the primary Rich will forget he ever wrote any of that.)
The Clinton's have always
January 27, 2008 - 12:19 ET by dscottThe Clinton's have always counted on a divide and conquer strategy, hence the polarization and divisive campaign style. The Dems are growing weary of the Clinton's divisive tactics against their own. It's one thing to play dirty politics against the Repubs, after all the ends justify the means, but against a fellow Dem? Unseemly and Unacceptable! Hillary's basic appeal is vote for me, I'm a woman (like the Mondale/Feraro ticket); Obama's basic appeal is vote for me, I'm a Dem. Hillary has calculated that she will get most of the female vote, whether black, white, Repub or Independent on top of the rest of the males who will through guilt. Obama has calculated he will get most of the black vote, most of the Northern Liberals (white guilt vote), and most of the youth vote including many females.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
...and all these talking
January 27, 2008 - 14:31 ET by bigtimer...and all these talking heads were saying that the republicans were in chaos...
ROFL!
It just amazes me the sudden wake-up call form the leftists when it is their so-called beloved own that are using and eating them up to chew and spit out when the two'fer are done using them...
Priceless all of it...and they are just now asking what kind of people are the Clintons...and maybe the conservatives were right about Bill Clintoon...
....well duh....
"Maybe not right to set up
January 28, 2008 - 00:00 ET by MikeB"Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him..."
I beg your pardon? Exactly how did the Vast Right Wing Majority set up a perjury trap? It was not conservatives who filed a law suit against the Rapist in Chief. It was neither Republicans or conservatives who wrote, passed, and signed into law the laws that defined sexual harrassment and allowed the remedies the complainant was seeking in her lawsuit...it was liberal Democrats who pushed those laws. How did conservatives trick or force the Great Stainmaker into lying under oath? He did that all by himself.
In answer to your question, "were conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along", the answer is a resounding "Yes!" You on the left just didn't want to hear it, and you wouldn't believe it even when your noses were rubbed in it.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
A "perjury trap"? Yeah, the
January 28, 2008 - 11:52 ET by motherbeltA "perjury trap"? Yeah, the perjury trap of placing him under oath and asking him questions. LOL