Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

How Much Does Hillary Losing to Obama in ’08 Still Sting for Bill?

September 21st, 2013 - 1:44 pm

A lot. That’s the subtext I’m taking away from this quote from Bill Clinton’s interview with Obama sycophant Fareed Zakaria on CNN, aside from the boilerplate leftwing bitching (from a guy who ran to the right, on several issues, of George H.W. Bush in ’92, no less):

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: You’re not worried about the Democratic Party?

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. We’ve got a lot of good people in the Party. We’ve got a lot of good ideas.

But I think you’ve got to give it the Republicans. They have a much more reliable media base. And they just say no. They know what they want. They want power to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, take government down except for what they like. And they can fill the atmosphere with a lot of static.

When you’re trying to get something done, it requires a much more deft strategy because you have to explain what you’re trying to do, and it’s a little tougher for us.

In the fall of 2006, Bill told John F. Harris, then with the Washington Post, now with Politico, that “There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies — and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.”

So it must have really stung a year and a half later when those old media organizations he and his wife viewed as “de facto allies” turned around and accused the Clintons of racism* in order to advance the Democrat candidate they much preferred over Hillary.

And could very possibly devour the Clintons once again if a fresh face who’s “clean and neat,” to coin a Biden-esque phrase, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views,” ”an exotic who says nothing,” to coin a couple of others, shows up to take on someone who carries as much baggage to exploit as Hillary does.

* Which was nothing compared to the drubbing that Hillary received in some of the fever swamp regions of the leftwing media back then.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Love this comment: "because you have to explain what you’re trying to do, and it’s a little tougher for us."

Translation: "We're taking the country where they don't want to go. Do you know how hard it is to cover that up?"
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
They want power to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, take government down except for what they like. And they can fill the atmosphere with a lot of static.

Well, that's better than the Democrat lust for power to command and control the personal and corporate lives of citizens through the cliques of their 'progressive' elites who know oh-so-much more and are oh-so-much smarter than mere Americans. As for filling the atmosphere with static, no organs the Republicans have are a speck in the eye of the combined leftist NYT, WaPo, LAT, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, Kos, Huffpo, Hollywood and the AAUP. Not to mention all Hillary's friends among the Muslim Brotherhood.

Poor little Bill, he's such a victim...
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
How deranged does a Clinton have to be to think that the media supports Republicans? Just yesterday I read an article about how part-time workers are going to love Obamacare because it offers better insurance. Not a single mention that full time workers in the hundreds of thousands are being pushed to part time because of Obamacare, just a straight faced article about how lucky people will be if they work part time under Obamacare.
The media will anything and everything to support a Leftist, and the further Left the better. Which is why Obama was more loved than Hillary.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Love this comment: "because you have to explain what you’re trying to do, and it’s a little tougher for us."

Translation: "We're taking the country where they don't want to go. Do you know how hard it is to cover that up?"
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
While the left side of the Democratic Party would love to spurn Hillary again in 2016, the Democratic Party's presidential playbook has been set in that the hierarchy plans to dig up a candidate from every one of the party's special interest groups then can find and (in their mind) run them in eight-year intervals through the middle of the century, while working with the media to endow each new face with the God-like powers they promoted for Obama in 2008.

The problem is while they would love to run a Latino, an Asian, an LGBTmember, or whatever other special interest group they can find or create, they haven't prepped anyone yet the way they did with Obama in the 2004 DNC convention (San Antonio Mayor Joaquin Castro was showcased at last year's DNC convention as a quick response to Ted Cruz's Texas Senate primary win, but both Castro and his twin brother -- who won election to one of the state's new House seats in 2012 -- are checkmated from advancing higher at the state level at least until 2018).

So Hillary's the only option for the playbook in 2016. But after what happened in 2008, if she does run and get the nomination, you can be sure there will be a wholesale purge of the Obama types from the levers of power within the party as part of payback time, as soon as Hill and Bill decide it won't hurt them in the general election.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I respectfully disagree; I think that the machine intends Elizabeth Warren as the New Obama: a nominally-progressive, pseudo-minority Senator, credentialed rather educated, beholden to the Boston machine as Hussein is to Chicago machine.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
The hard left never forgives or forgets a transgression, so they still haven't forgiven Hillary for either her Iraq war votes a decade ago or for she and Bill failing to hold the line on the liberal agenda after the Republicans won Congress in 1994 in the wake of the HillaryCare debacle.

But Warren has as much charisma as your Internet modem -- and while a lot of Obama's charisma was media-created, Axelrod picked him specifically because he was both a blank slate with no easily-traceable liberal history and more importantly, his non-aggressive persona did not remind voters of Al or Jessie, which would have kept Obama not only out of the White House, but would have given Hillary the nomination in 2008.

Warren is a flaccid noodle on the stump, has not just a liberal record to trace, but a hypocritical one that was exposed for the world to see last year. Combine those two with the reality that the 2016 Democratic nominee will have to run on Obama's record and Liz's age (barely younger than Hillary) and I can't see her being anything more than a regional "Stop Hillary" hope of the Democratic left, who might do OK in neighboring New Hampshire but would falter badly outside of her home region.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
Me thinks you have nailed it, AK!
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All