Growing Rift Between Clinton and Obama?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

As if the Obama administration doesn’t have its hands full with other balloon-poppers, it appears that Hillary (and, of course, Bill) Clinton are playing by their own rules in defiance of Obama:

[i]WASHINGTON â?? In a slap at President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton will headline a fundraiser for a New York congresswoman challenging White House-backed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand in the state’s Democratic primary.

Clinton has not endorsed in the race, but his efforts to help Rep. Carolyn Maloney could be seen as a snub to Gillibrand and the Obama White House. Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Clinton, said he will be attending a July 20 fundraiser in New York.

The White House has played an active role in clearing the field for Gillibrand, who was appointed earlier this year to fill the seat vacated when Obama tapped Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his secretary of state. Obama asked Rep. Steve Israel not to challenge Gillibrand, a request he honored. Just days ago, Vice President Joe Biden called Maloney to discuss the race, a clear sign that the White House didn’t want a primary fight next year.

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told reporters last week that the White House would help Gillibrand’s re-election bid.

McKenna disputed any suggestions that Clinton is taking sides in the race, and said Clinton’s attendance at past or future fundraisers should not be perceived as an endorsement.

“We agreed to this event some time ago as a way of saying ‘thank you’ to Congresswoman Maloney for her efforts on his wife’s behalf last year,” McKenna said.

Bill Clinton also did a fundraising event for Gillibrand, but word of the Maloney event comes as the congresswoman moves toward formally announcing her candidacy. An adviser said this week she is running.

Both Maloney and Gillibrand supported Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed presidential bid, and Bill Clinton had made a point of thanking supporters.

During the Democratic primaries last year, Bill Clinton publicly criticized Obama as untested and unready for the job of president. Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a grueling and ultimately losing battle with Obama for the party’s nomination. Bill Clinton and Obama made amends and the former president campaigned for the Democratic nominee.[/i]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_el_se/us_clinton_ny_senate

Obama does not want a challenge to Gillibrand, as he has tried to clear the decks for her in a Democratic primary (see above, Obama asked a potential challenger not to run against Gillibrand).

Now, Bill is raising funds for Gillibrand’s challenger.

2

Wait so not only does Obama own and run GM now but he also wants to point people into power kinda like a king picking his friends to run lands?

3

[quote]Slayers wrote:
Wait so not only does Obama own and run GM now but he also wants to point people into power kinda like a king picking his friends to run lands?[/quote]

“Brownie’s doing a hell of a job”

4

Rift’s been there, good to see you’ve noticed.

5

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Rift’s been there, good to see you’ve noticed. [/quote]

I get that your feelers are hurt that anyone would defy The One, but the interest here is not that they are each other’s biggest fans, but that now the rift is affecting policy and the direction of Obama’s wishes.

6

Heaven forbid that the matter of who is the next Democratic candidate for Senator of New York would be in the hands of the voters in any kind of remotely equal contest in terms of funding. Obama should decide who the candidate should be.

It is seriously fucking up this country that Bill Clinton would “affect policy and the direction of Obama’s wishes” with regard to whether the voters have no real option, or an option, for their next Senator. Damn that Clinton. He is worse than the Repugnicans. This will probably ruin everything. Obama’s policies should not be affected by the voters having a choice.

7

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Heaven forbid that the matter of who is the next Democratic candidate for Senator of New York would be in the hands of the voters in any kind of remotely equal contest in terms of funding. Obama should decide who the candidate should be.

It is seriously fucking up this country that Bill Clinton would “affect policy and the direction of Obama’s wishes” with regard to whether the voters have no real option, or an option, for their next Senator. Goddamn that Clinton. He is worse than the Repugnicans. This will probably ruin everything. Obama’s policies should not be affected by the voters having a choice.[/quote]

I know what the hell is Bill’s problem jeez don’t he know Obama has to do all the thinking for us Dumb folks. some people never get the memo I guess

8

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Heaven forbid that the matter of who is the next Democratic candidate for Senator of New York would be in the hands of the voters in any kind of remotely equal contest in terms of funding. Obama should decide who the candidate should be.

It is seriously fucking up this country that Bill Clinton would “affect policy and the direction of Obama’s wishes” with regard to whether the voters have no real option, or an option, for their next Senator. Goddamn that Clinton. He is worse than the Repugnicans. This will probably ruin everything. Obama’s policies should not be affected by the voters having a choice.[/quote]

I agree, and this is an underappreciated aspect to the story - discouraging electoral challenges is a damnable thing, regardless of party. I suspect it is because Obama is smart enough to sense the growing rift in the Democratic party (and departure of independents) and doesn’t want a primary fight to air the dirty laundry in the midst of weakening of support of him.

Two Democrats battling it out in a primary would have to distinguish themselves, and one of them would conceivably run “against” Obama. New York deserves such a debate, but Obama is no fan of it - and there is no greater principle than preserving his ruling class.

9

Thunder you must not be from NY because if you were you would know we are already part of the social experiment. Just look how it works A normal person carrying a gun in NYC goes to jail for 3 years a OK football player shoots himself and hes going to get nothing.

10

This puts Hillary in the unenviable position of defying either her ex president/campaigner husband or current president boss. Or supporting nobody. Although SoS,s endorsements aren’t always the biggest deal this state of affairs just might make it one in this case which is even worse.

11

This has all the earmarks of some manufactured bullshit to distract from the reality that your “great white hope” for 2012 just melted down and evaporated before your very eyes.

12

[quote]tme wrote:

This has all the earmarks of some manufactured bullshit to distract from the reality that your “great white hope” for 2012 just melted down and evaporated before your very eyes.[/quote]

Who’s “manufacturing” it to provide the distraction? Palin supporter Bill Clinton? The Associated Press?

Can’t wait to hear your answer.

13

“growing rift”? “Hillary (and Bill) is playing by her own rules”? “Affecting policy”? Who could possibly be manufacturing this?

BTW, which “great white hope” melting down are we talking about here? Can’t wait to hear your answer.

14

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

“growing rift”? “Hillary (and Bill) is playing by her own rules”? “Affecting policy”? Who could possibly be manufacturing this?

BTW, which “great white hope” melting down are we talking about here? Can’t wait to hear your answer.[/quote]

Well, TME wrote this (I will underline the relevant):

This has all the earmarks of some manufactured bullshit to distract from the reality that your “great white hope” for 2012 just melted down and evaporated before your very eyes.

“My” couldn’t refer to Hillary, since I didn’t support her (or Obama) and Hillary hasn’t “just melted down and evaporated before my very eyes”.

Can you remember the last time you posted anything worthy of discussion? Me neither.

15

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

“growing rift”? “Hillary (and Bill) is playing by her own rules”? “Affecting policy”? Who could possibly be manufacturing this?

BTW, which “great white hope” melting down are we talking about here? Can’t wait to hear your answer.

Well, TME wrote this (I will underline the relevant):

This has all the earmarks of some manufactured bullshit to distract from the reality that your “great white hope” for 2012 just melted down and evaporated before your very eyes.

“My” couldn’t refer to Hillary, since I didn’t support her (or Obama) and Hillary hasn’t “just melted down and evaporated before my very eyes”.

Can you remember the last time you posted anything worthy of discussion? Me neither.[/quote]

LOL. Yeah, I thought you were a Hillary supporter. With insights such as that I can’t imagine why you don’t find value in my posts! Care to try again?

16

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<< LOL. Yeah, I thought you were a Hillary supporter. With insights such as that I can’t imagine why you don’t find value in my posts! Care to try again?
[/quote]

Are you even stirring around a bit down in there somewhere at all?

His point was that none of the relevant players could possibly have a motive for providing cover for Palin which makes TME’s post nonsensical.

17

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<< LOL. Yeah, I thought you were a Hillary supporter. With insights such as that I can’t imagine why you don’t find value in my posts! Care to try again?

Are you even stirring around a bit down in there somewhere at all?

His point was that none of the relevant players could possibly have a motive for providing cover for Palin which makes TME’s post nonsensical.
[/quote]

Lol. Cute effort. Boy, it’s almost as though my “questions” post specifically addressed this, funny huh? “Are you even stirring around a bit down in there somewhere at all”? (Nice expression by the way. Is it, perchance, from the deep south?).

Care to try again?

18

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Lol. Cute effort. Boy, it’s almost as though my “questions” post specifically addressed this, funny huh? “Are you even stirring around a bit down in there somewhere at all”? (Nice expression by the way. Is it, perchance, from the deep south?).

Care to try again? [/quote]

What was once cryptic is now just plain stupid.

Just try and write a sentence clearly. It will save you time and embarrassment.

19

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
<<< Care to try again? [/quote]

Nah, you’re doin fine without me.

20

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Lol. Cute effort. Boy, it’s almost as though my “questions” post specifically addressed this, funny huh? “Are you even stirring around a bit down in there somewhere at all”? (Nice expression by the way. Is it, perchance, from the deep south?).

Care to try again?

What was once cryptic is now just plain stupid.

Just try and write a sentence clearly. It will save you time and embarrassment.
[/quote]

I recall trying to talk at your level on the econ thread. I even provided a “beginners” link to show you how silly you were being. Instead of reading it you simply continued to miss the point and shout about how “bad” and how much a “failure” Obama is (not even 6 months into his first term).

You’ll have to excuse me if I’ve given up and I just poke fun at threads such as this. Your (in)capacity to understand notwithstanding.