NPR Asks Bill Clinton: Obama's Seen As Liberal, 'How'd That Happen'?
Bill Clinton appeared on Tuesday morning on NBC and MSNBC to promote his latest book, and neither asked the man – who paid an $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones and surrendered his law license for false testimony – to comment. The same pattern happened on National Public Radio. Morning Edition anchor Steve Inskeep gave Clinton more than seven minutes of air time to his thoughts on Obama and the economy, but no harassment inquiries.
This question was jaw-dropping in its ignorance. “Your administration was known politically for seeking to reposition the Democratic Party, not get stuck as being defined as tax-and-spend liberals,” Inskeep proclaimed. “President Obama also was seen as trying to take the party in a new [moderate] direction, but ended telling an interviewer last year that he had been tagged as another tax-and-spend liberal. How'd that happen to him?”
Only inside the liberal media bubble can it seem puzzling how Democrats can be tagged as tax-and-spend liberals. Clinton said it was because right-wingers were good at labeling:
CLINTON: Same way it happened to me. They're good, the other guys. I mean, the Republicans are good. They're good at this. They're good at labeling you. And what I would say to you is I think he has presented balanced plans. If you look at this jobs plan, which I talk about in real detail in the book, several of the ideas, including the payroll tax cuts, in the president's plan, were first proposed by Republicans who now oppose them, probably just because he's for them. The president plainly has bent over backwards to try to cooperate with them, and still wants to. And I think that's the right position. He plainly is not willing to give up some things he believes in, and I think that's the right position.
Inskeep was willing to suggest criticism of Obama’s economic record was allowable, at least by former Democratic presidents. This was a hardball at Obama (if he were present), but obviously a softball to Clinton:
INSKEEP: Well, let me ask you about one of the substantive proposals that you make. You spend quite a number of pages talking about ways to fix the mortgage mess in this country. What does it say that almost three years into this administration, during the entire time, which, of course, the mortgage problem has been known, that you're still having to make proposals about it?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure that in the beginning everyone knew that once the banks were bailed out there still wouldn't be any resumption of regular lending, in the beginning...
Finish the thought in your head: “but by now, Obama looks pretty lame.” There was a pregnant pause after this question:
INSKEEP: Do you think this is a well-managed White House?
CLINTON: [Pause] Seems to me it is. I mean, I don't know why it wouldn't be.
INSKEEP: Well, here's one reason that I bring that up. Ron Suskind had a much-publicized book which quoted a number of members of the administration critiquing the management of the White House, and a number of them were former Clinton administration officials who said it's not as good as it was then.
CLINTON: Well, look, I just can't comment on it, 'cause I know that everybody's got different perspectives and they come at it from different ways.
But of course, Clinton could comment on it...to suggest he had the best decision-making process ever:
CLINTON: You know, Bob Rubin once told me that he thought we had the best decision-making process he'd ever been involved in. At the same time, I was being killed in the press because people said I was too involved in the weeds and I stayed too long in meetings and we all - my position was we had for that time an unprecedented economic problem and we were taking a risky strategy trying to address it in a different way. And also because we were going to have to make big budget cuts, I wanted to know what the practical impact on real people of every one of those budget cuts was. Rubin thought it was a great decision-making process.
INSKEEP: Your Treasury secretary.
CLINTON: Yeah. When he was there - he was then the national economic adviser. But the conventional wisdom in Washington was it was too free-form, too free-flowing, you know. So I've been criticized -- and therefore I just don't know enough about it to say anything other than I said.
Last month, the NPR website reposted a New Republic piece by Sean Wilentz on "How Bill Clinton Saved Liberalism." How fascinating: he apparently did that while the media kept energetically insisting he was a centrist.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
all Obama has done is tax and
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 4:30pm.
all Obama has done is tax and spend...so the label fits. her question is rather stupid, I'd think. His actions speak louder than his words.
If it walks like a duck, and
Submitted by robert108 on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 4:33pm.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.
SO
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 4:35pm.
The NPR types wonder why they're seen as morons
Tell it to the Tea Party, Slick
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 4:38pm.
CLINTON: Same way it happened to me. They're good, the other guys. I mean, the Republicans are good. They're good at this. They're good at labeling you."
Let's see. Average American citizens speak out against the abuses of Big Government and they get labeled as
- racists
- crazy old white men
- dangerous gun nuts
- Nazis
- anti-government militiamen
- destructive
The main difference between the labels that Democrats throw around and those of Republicans is that the Democratic labels on Republicans get repeated and re-emphasized by the MSM.
Or if you are a minority conservative...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:39pm.
...you are labeled with terms so horrific I won't mention one here, but you all know what they are. Of course, it is the Democrats, liberals and their apologists that do the labeling and then deny their bigotry.
you owe me a keyboard cleanup
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 5:41pm.
That headline was priceless, "How'd that happen?" indeed.
ROFLMAO
I just can't believe Clinton wasn't asked to comment on a matter
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 5:53pm.
which occurred 15-20+ years ago and was hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. [The NYT archives contain over 5000 items on the Clinton/Jones scandal, the Washington Post over 1500 articles. But, geez, NPR didn't bring it up again. The horror!
Jer
→ I don't remember, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 5:56pm.
Are you referring to the rumors of Bill Clinton fathering a child by another woman?
Darn it...reply misposted below, Cool.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 6:40pm.
Jer
If Stalin was POTUS, NPR
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 6:27pm.
If Stalin was POTUS, NPR would be asking the same question. To them, all liberals are moderates.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Hehe!
Submitted by Kansasgirl on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:16pm.
I hope this doesn't get me banned, but here goes.
The only time O has bent over for anything wasn't for the benefit of America.
No worries, Kansas...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:35pm.
There is virtually nothing you can post about Obama which will get you banned from NB, with the possible exception of "excessive praise". ;-)
Jer
Thanks
Submitted by Kansasgirl on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 12:39am.
Good to know Jer.
No, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 6:39pm.
I thought that since Mr. Graham specifically referred to Paula Jones, and I specifically referred to Paula Jones, it would be reasonably clear that my post was referring to Paula Jones.
But I'm not surprised at your tossing in the laughable tabloid rumor [presumably] about Clinton's alleged 'black love child', including the publication of a ridiculous photo of a toddler which was touched up to look like a miniature, dark-skinned Clinton. It was hilarious. Do you still have a copy?
Jer
Obama is worse than any
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:03pm.
Obama is worse than any liberal. He is a traitor to this Nation.
Not a traitor
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:12pm.
To be a traitor, he would have to be an American, and this manchild is about the most anti-American person this country's seen since Benedict Arnold.
No, he's an implanted enemy to this Nation, what with the well-known(sarc) information there is about his background in school and etc.
-Jon
If that is true, jon...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:26pm.
then Congress has not only the right but the unqualified constitutional DUTY to impeach Obama, remove him from office, and then make every effort to have him prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. And I trust you are imploring your representative and senator to do precisely that. Otherwise, they are abdicating their responsibility and you are neglecting yours.
Jer
(deleted)
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 8:49pm.
x
The reason that he is worse than any other liberal is...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 1:41pm.
because he has more power than any other liberal.
There is no doubt that this particular president is the most unpatriotic president that we have ever had.
As far as the damage he has done to this country goes, he is the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, Viet Nam, 9/11 and Katrina all rolled up in one.
We have survived those disasters and if he can be defeated in 2012, we will survive him.
Trillion Dollar deficits as far as the eye can see!
Submitted by Fredy on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 7:05pm.
That is what Obama promised to the American people. I guess Bill Clinton was on vacation during all of the budget fights.
I wondef if Bill even realizes that the Senate is about to cross the thousand day mark since their last budget?
Clinton - " It's my housing bubble - I have plenty to offer."
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 8:34pm.
I can't resist putting my own spin - the correct spin - on this exchange.
(;~/ gary
Curiously,
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:31am.
there are no liberals in the US of A.
Seizing a private company is pretty close to not being a moderate in my book. I hadn't made up my mind Obama before the government takeover of the car companies. I knew the so-called "stimulus" was bad, basic government spending and a ruse to funnel billions of dollars into union coffers. But we'd seen dishonest plays and union cronyism from liberals before.
Yeah, he was proposing socialized medicine, but Clinton had done that before. Then he seized the car companies. That was something I hadn't seen before! In the middle of a stock market rut, he had just invalidated the security of bonds, which is the harsh weather investment alternative to stocks. And they wondered why people just weren't investing anymore ("lousy FATCATS!!").
Just who listens to NPR anyway except professionals...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 3:04am.
like NewsBusters whose job it is to keep track of what they are up to?
I can't think of a more boring waste of time. I'd much rather listen to Laura, Rush and Sean.
Days that will last in infamy
Submitted by monsterman on Fri, 11/11/2011 - 2:06pm.
There was 9/11 and Nov 2008, both times we were attacked by terrorists, only the last one has lasted for 3 years, please end this attack in 2012.