Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Defends the Clinton Dynasty

Clinton nicely handled a question about whether having either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1988 was a good or a bad thing.

Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Hillary Clinton (REUTERS/Tami Chappell)

"I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000," said Clinton to laughter and applause. "I am very proud of my husband's record as president of the United States," she added to more applause. "Anyone of us would be a better president than our current president." (MORE applause)

After a hit on the DLC by former Sen. Mike Gravel, Obama AGAIN painted the race as a choose between past and future, arguing that it isn't about representing Democrats or Republicans but rather Americans.

By Editors  |  July 23, 2007; 9:03 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Draws Contrasts with the Clintons
Next: Debate Finale


Jan said the man in black was loud, obnoxious, petty, childish and a foolish follower of other loud, obnoxious, petty, childish and foolish followers. Not exactly name calling, particularly if she's accurate and this guy just loves to hate. Dave, do you really think we are better off now then prior to this Bush administration? Safer? You do realize 9/11 happened on this administration's watch, right? We are so safe the most destructive terrorist attack in our nation's history happened, killing 2,998 people. We are safer, but 3,640 American soldiers have died (4 are reported missing and presumed dead), and nearly 500,000 Iraqi's are dead (depending on your source). You do "read" that due to the administration's insistence on fighting a civil war in Iraq, Bin Laden and his operation are once again back to full strength, right? So you can be certain, there will be further attempts before this administration winds down. How can we be wiser, when this administration is so secretive that they spy on all of us that use phones or the internet, and then shroud everything they do in secrecy to the point where the government is going to stop as we head to a constitutional clash between the legislative and executive branch of government. If you can remember back that far, we had one of the best economies in history and . . . gasp . . . no deficit spending! You may be one of the few Americans that got rich in this administration, but Voodoo Economics only help the top 1%. I know you won't rethink your position and facts do slap you around a bit, but it's America, you can hold on to your ideals and go down with the ship.

Posted by: Cave_mann | July 25, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush could make any President look good by comparison. Right now, even Richard Nixon looks somewhat reasonable (even though he was horrendous) compared to the lowlife liar currently occupying the White House.

Posted by: snesich | July 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

This was the most humorous moment of the night. She handled every question with thoughtful answers but this was the best way she showed her humor. I am now 100% behind Senator Clinton!

Posted by: Ryan | July 25, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton clearly did not answer the question. A President does not represent just the people who are in their party, but represents ALL Americans and this is what Senator Obama will do.

Just because you feel Bill was a good President does not mean Hillary will be good. The Federal Times had an article recently about Hillary wanting to cut the number of federal contract workers. Well, the person who started the contracting out movement in federal government was no other than Bill Clinton, when during his administration he downsized government and eliminated thousnds of jobs. So do you really think she will correct the problem initiate by her husband?

Also, in her own words she wants people to judge her on her own "merits". She has not done anything meritorious. If she were a true leader she would have: read the NIE, read the plans for the war and noticed that there was no plan for what happens after the down fall of Saddam; and noticed that there was no exit plan. A true leader would have noted these deficiencies and brought it to the attention of her colleagues before voting to authorize the war.

Posted by: andrea | July 25, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

to Jan: You are more stupid than the man in black. In fact, all of yoou stupid dems are more stupid than the man in black. You like calling names (politics of personal destruction ... a clinton mantra) keep calling names and spewing garbage. It helps to ensure you imminent demise.

Posted by: jane | July 24, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Right now a Clinton dynasty would be an improvement over the Bush dynasty. Everyone forgets that the first Bush was elected out after one term (the economy stupid). The second Bush will leave office as the dumbest President in history. The only question is how so many yahoo's elected him to a second term (hell, he didn't even get elected to a first term). Hillary is a great improvement over G.W. (Hell, anyone off the street would be an improvement). Give em Hell Hillary!

Posted by: mike | July 24, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I agree with others above to have described the "dynasty" question as irrelevant.

First, an actual dynasty happens in a monarchy where people have no opportunity to have a voice in who the next leader is.

Second, I suggest that the differences among any democrat to another democrat, or any republican to another republican are likely to be no greater than the differences between a Bill and Hillary Clinton. I know that some of you may see this is exactly the problem-in that we don't have a wide variety of political choices-but that's a separate issue than the dynasty question.

Posted by: Craig | July 24, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"Here's my lone question about the "lousy" presidency of Bill Clinton: Is American better off now than it was eight years ago?" Yes. We are safer, wealthier, heathier and wiser.

Posted by: Dave! | July 24, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I was struck by how completely the candidates (other than the frivolous Gravel) passed on the chance to comment about the Presidency of the United States being passed between members of just two families who went to the same school, associate with the same kinds of people and do the same thing (campaigning) most of the time, for nearly a generation now and potentially many years longer.

That's never happened before in American history. Most Americans don't know enough history to know that, but at least some of them are plainly nervous about the direction our politics have taken. All the Democratic candidates chasing Bill Clinton's wife get asked the question directly, and none of them has anything to say. You have to ask yourself why they are even taking time out of their lives to do this campaign.

Posted by: Zathras | July 24, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double post.
Didn't think the first one went through.
But, then the more I thought about it, the stupider I decided the man is black is.

Posted by: Jan | July 24, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

A great answer from Senator Clinton!

I don't really don't know why this keeps coming up. We are a democracy. If you don't want to vote for a Bush or a Clinton, don't.
But would you say you didn't want Ken Griffey Jr to play baseball just because his dad did?

And the Clinton Presidency, in contrast to BOTH Bush Presidencies, was a SUCCESS! We ignore success in America because of someone's last name?

To the man in black--
You have 11 reasons why you think Bill Clinton was a lousy President.
3 out of the 11 have to do with scandals that the GOP created to try to force Clinton out of office.

For example, how do you feel about the fact that Ken Starr had to threatened to put Moninca Lewinsky's MOTHER in JAIL if she didn't give him the blue dress, against her will? Nice, huh?
We LOVE our gov't using gestapo tactics to delve into the private sex life of an adult citizen, in order to impeach a twice-elected President, because a federal Grand Jury refused to indict him.

And then you have 3 out of 11 reasons for Bill Clinton being a lousy President as "etc"!!!

So more than half the reasons you could come up with for thinking Bill Clinton was a lousy President are things that the rest of us don't care about, or are "et cetera"?
That probably doesn't bode well for the rest of your reasons.

You know what?
We're all tired of Clinton Haters.
You're loud, obnoxious, petty, childish, and foolish followers of other loud, obnoxious, petty, childish, foolish followers.

Here's my lone question about the "lousy" presidency of Bill Clinton:
Is American better off now than it was eight years ago?

Posted by: Jan | July 24, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The "man in black" poster is a typical Clinton Hater.
He lists 11 reasons he thinks Bill Clinton was a "bad" President.

He lists 3 scandals that the GOP created to get him out of office.
Like "the blue dress" scandal?
How do you like that Ken Starr threatened to put Monica Lewinsky's MOTHER in JAIL if her daughter didn't produce the blue dress, against her will?

And 3 "etcs"! So, out of 11 complaints in eight years, 3 of your 11 complaints are "etc."

I smell a Loyal Bushie... whom the rest of us now realize, are the stupidest people on the face of the Earth.

Posted by: Jan | July 24, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

I wrote this from Malaysia. Although Americans can say the US election is none of my business, I beg to differ. Whoever chosen to sit on that throne will eventually affect America's dealing or foreign policy around the world. Right now, many countries especially the Muslim countries and developing countries like China viewed the US foreign policy in a bad light. Ask anyone from these countries, and they say, Bush tries to be the "police of the world". Hence, whoever succeeded in the presidential race must take note of this and tries to earn the respect of the world back. America was viewed favourably in the past as a big nation who cares. Not a country who acts like a police. And who else can do a better job in this diplomacy than Bill Clinton - hence, choosing Hilary Clinton as the President can restore the faith and respect of the world towards America. I suppport you Senator Hillary from the Malaysian shore.....

Posted by: Vincent | July 24, 2007 3:20 AM | Report abuse

The big wild card in the candidates' forum at YearlyKos in August will be whether the media reports on the facts reported at the "Truth About Kos" Blog. If they do, then the candidate who most successfully distinguishes herself or himself from DailyKos and YearlyKos will be candidate who wins the debate.

Posted by: Francis L. Holland | July 23, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse

D.Wayne, would you like me to send you a free copy of the Manifesto? I imagine reading it would help clarify the term "communism" for you.

Posted by: roo | July 23, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

It's very revealing that she never stated why she should be President. Only that her husband did a good job. The fact that she couldn't come up with one good reason shows she should never be President.

Posted by: nuzreporter | July 23, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

It was a great debate for sure and Hillery dident miss a beat even being the only woman on stage but im still undecided on who i would vote for with our country in the mess its in now a days its going to be a huge job for whoever wins.

Posted by: sharon | July 23, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama made a great point that showed a clear distinction between himself and Hillary when he said it was terrific that Hillary was asking the Pentagon how we were going to get out of Iraq, but that those questions should've been asked before we went into Iraq.

In order words, Obama is saying four things to Hillary:
"Don't authorize the war and then start fighting to stop it"
"Don't get us into a war without figuring out how we're going to get out"
"Quit making a mess and then trying to clean it up"
"Don't act stupid and then think later"

It shows that Hillary lacks good judgment to be president, while Obama will be as careful as John F. Kennedy was in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis, which clearly would've escalated if JFK had the judgment of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse




(All failed globalization policies that have hurt the american worker and the workers of the countries those jobs were exported too.)

White Water

Jennifer Flowers

Monica and the b-job blue dress

Welfare Reform resulting in millions of people ending up in prison because the politicians are just getting around to assisting those unprepared to deal with being unskilled. Clinton should have had the foresight to deal with this before enacting such legislation.

The destruction of our public education system by bringing in the corporate world to overhaul things to work for the corporate world and not the individual.




Posted by: the.man_in_black | July 23, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is married to the best president I've ever known in my lifetime of 23 years. I trust a Clinton to fix the damages of a failed Republican presidency any day. They're done it once before, they'll undoubtedly do it again. Who knows, maybe we'll actually act thankful for it this time.

Posted by: Everett | July 23, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

While Clinton evaded the question (and got easy applause) by insulting Bush, Obama took the high ground by declining this approach.

Instead, Obama said it should not be Republicans vs. Democrats.

If Hillary wins, the Republicans will mobilize against her.

It is time for some real change.

Posted by: Clinton Dodged and Blamed, Obama Soared | July 23, 2007 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I think the questions asked favored Obama, as expected. Hillary did very well throughout the two hours. IMO, the question I was looking for, about immigration, wasn't addressed to my satisfaction at all. I did not see, or hear, anything to change my strong support for Hillary.

Posted by: lylepink | July 23, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Clinton proudly calls herself a "progressive". This is code for Marxist Communist".
So it boils down to choosing between the Marxist communist Clinton or one of the Stalinist communists from the Republican party.
Say good bye to the United States and it's constitution. The last defender of freedom & democracy has been conquered by the communist freedom haters.
Soon we'll have national health care and we'll all be able to get the same great medical care now being provided by the V.A. hospitals.

Posted by: D.Wayne | July 23, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Don't you mean "Clinton Defends a Possible Clinton Dynasty"? She hasn't been elected yet...

Posted by: Shawn Garrett | July 23, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I support in Candidate Clinton's stand on the war in Iraq and believe in her capabilities for restoring America's stand in the world. I think America needs to prove itself and to the world that we are better than investing $340 billion dollars into a fruitless war. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight and reduce global poverty, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eliminate poverty across the globe. However, our government is spending an average of $2 billion dollars a week in Iraq creating more poverty and hunger. As Americans, we definitely need to support organizations such as the Borgen Project as well as candidates that recognize the importance of the issue of global poverty.

Posted by: Mstessyrue | July 23, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company