Bill Clinton Makes the Case for his Wife on Charlie Rose’s Show

December 15th, 2007 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

On Charlie Rose’s PBS show Bill Clinton said that “his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama — ‘it’s not even close’ — but that voters who disagreed would be taking a ‘risk’ if they picked the latter.”

He criticized Obama for lacking experience: Obama started running for president, Clinton rightfully pointed out, after he was in the Senate for just one year. But that’s not all:

He praised Obama’s intelligence and “sensational political skills” but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the “senior governor” in the U.S. and had worked for years on international development issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been “vetted” — another subtle slap at Obama.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be “the best agent for change” not merely a “symbol for change….symbol is not as important as substance.”

One more dig at Obama? He said that Edwards had first run for president after just a few years in the Senate, but then completed his term and went out and conducted a lserious study of poverty.

“I guess I’m old fashioned,” he said, in wanting a president who had actually done things for people. He said some people could “risk” taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose.

It’s clear that Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t going to let Obama off the hook. Direct, open attacks have backfired, but it’s difficult to see how criticism like this can backfire with people who don’t already hate the Clintons.

Wretchard at the Belmot Club writes that the former president seems to imply that the Clintons have some serious dirt on Obama. I’m not sure ‘whether Clinton meant to come across like that or whether he just meant it in general.

Having said that, it’s intriguing to speculate about what kind of dirt the Clintons may have on Obama. Wretchard assumes it either has to do with drugs or with Islam. That seems logical.

Or do the Clintons simply believe that since Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience and isn’t used to dirty fights he can’t win in the national elections? Or, if he does, that he wouldn’t be a great president because he’s simply not ready for it? Perhaps that’s all Clinton is saying and, if so, I think that there’s quite some to that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. F. Igwealor
    December 15th, 2007 at 15:02
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Americans are rejecting Hillary because she refused to be level with us.
    She would not tell us how she intend to deal with Social Security funding shortfall; what measure she would implement to enforce her healthcare plan she copied from John Edwards; her real position on immigration;  and just answering simple questions.
    By focusing on attacking Barack, the Clintons are once more showing us that part of them that we don’t like to see.
    Hillary’s poll numbers will keep sliding down until she finally drops out.

  2. Josey
    December 15th, 2007 at 15:15
    Reply | Quote | #2

    FIRST! I’M AN EDUCATED BLACK VOTER AND WILL NEVER SUPPORT A OPRAHBAMA! CLINTON AS SEALED MY VOTE! IM ASHAMED FOR ALL WOMAN AND MOSTLY WOMAN OF COLOR FOR THE WAY OPRAH SINGLE HANDIDLY TUNRED THIS ELECTION AWAY FROM WHAT MATTERS AND INTO RACE FIGHT COMPLETELY DIVIDING THIS COUNTRY! EXACTLY WHAT WILL ELECT A REPUBLICAN, SO THANK OPRAH AMERICA! WHEN YOU CAN’T TAKE YOUR CHILD TO A DOCTOR, OR LOOSE YOUR HOME AND JOB. Those supporting oprahbama because of winphrey are the same ones who insisted OJ was innocent. My child’s future and health are more important that oprahs being power hungry or the color of a mans skin. Obamawinphrey would have done better without her support. Most people left the venues in IOWA/NH/SC before obamaboy even came onstage. What’s that tell you secondly, Oprahs mentor Mya Angelo and her so-called boyfriend (no not Gail king) Steadman both support Clinton.   Hillary is one of the most outstanding women of the 21 century. Because of that and had a large lead in the polls, she is continually dragged through the mud, bashed, ridiculed and called numerous names; by ALL media outlets (men controlled)Osama’s camp started circulating bogus memos and lies about her early in the campaign and now about her mother and daughter, of course obama said he didn’t know. Where’s the ridicule media? DISGUSTING! What a nasty sick group at oprhabama camp! That’s what you’re voting for when you support the likes of him. NO OTHER WOMAN IN POLITICS HAS EVER HAD TO WITHSTAND, SUCH PERSONAL ATTACKS TRYING TO HELP THE SAD DISFUCTIONAL STATE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. It makes me ASHAMED OF HOW WE DO THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY! Even today, she continues to with stand numerous personal attacks from men who are imitated like obama and Edwards. The media has not reported on her campaign or outstanding public service record and that she outshines all other on the stage. She continues to be attacked by any supporter that has a negative opinion about oprahbama. THIS IS A DISGRACE TO OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, that the media types like oprah are selling the Dream yes, oprah has put a dollar amount on Dr. Kings dream. NO ONE APPEARS TO BE INTERESTED IN WHATS BEST FOR THE US AND THE FUTURE SAFETY AND HEALTH CARE OF OUR CHILDREN like Hillary Clinton does. Obama would rather try the race game when he was down in the polls; again EXACTLY like OJ Simpson’s losing trial, the race card ALWAYS gets thrown around because they don’t want to be held accountable for their failures and or lack of experience. Oprah Winphrey and Obama are trying to sell America just like bush/Chaney. If obamawinphrey gets the nom WE KNOW VERY WELL, HE CANT WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, THIS COUNTRY WILL FALTER UNDER A NEW 2008 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCY… OBAMA IS HUGH MISTAKE FOR THIS COUNTRY, HE CANNOT BRING THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER, AND HE AND OPRAH HAVE DIVIDED US MORE THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. AND NOW, EVEN MOVE DIVIDED AS A COUNTRY AFTER LAST WEEKENDS DOG AND PONY SHOW Yes Oprah has power, look what she did with it! She put women, black or white back 50 years! She makes it difficult for any other educated BLACK WOMAN TO SUCCEED NOW! I would never watch, read or use a product Oprah endorses. DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMAWINPHREY, YOU’RE SELLING YOUR CHILDS FUTURE! 

  3. Helen Myers
    December 15th, 2007 at 16:45
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Barack Obama is detaching himself from the very principles upon which the Democratic Party was built.  He is being fawned over 24/7 by the media because the media doesn’t want the GOP to face Hillary in the general election.  Obama is about as ruthless a politician as you will find.  His team of thugs, especially his communications director, Robert Gibbs, plays mean and dirty.

    I hope Obama’s complete record – everything, including his missed votes, his "present" votes, his move from very liberal to conservative, his betrayal of the gay community, his needless but enterprising focus on social security as being in crisis and his inadequate healthcare plan ALL come into the light.

    God help us if Obama is the nominee.

    The GOP will destroy him.  

  4. Xel
    December 15th, 2007 at 17:02
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Hillary can unite the GOP against her, Obama cannot. Obama isn’t so afraid of the soccer moms and the other skinless suburbanites that he hides his experiences with drugs or his past. It is Hillary who then uses GOP slippery slope scar-mongering (targetting the paranoid and memetic among the voters) by stating that he is secretly a muslim, or sold drugs.

    His betrayal of the gay community could only be supported by the ruckus surrounding that moron artist he had around. But Obama has dared to call out the african-American community for not dealing with its homophobia, and he has declared DADT as the obsolete and embarassing cop-out it is. His look at Soc. Sec. is not good prioritizing and could play into the hands of the fiscal cons who’d want nothing more than to have their privatization fantasies made into reality, but it also could be seen as a capacity to adress all problems and refrain from ideology or hiding your thoughts just because some ideologues get bad vibes. As for the health-care plans, I need to look into those.

    Obama is the best choice. 

  5. eNews Reference
    December 16th, 2007 at 11:05
    Reply | Quote | #5

    In hindsight Bill Clinton might be saying Hillary Clinton should’ve never went to Iowa. The truth of the matter is there’s a chance that she might come in third in Iowa and she could’ve pulled third without even going. A lot of campaign resources were spent there and the image of the perennial frontrunner have been tarnished there as well. http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

  6. Jack
    December 25th, 2007 at 10:54
    #6
Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.