|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
February 18, 2008 - 6:45am.
![]() Democratic political professionals worry that former President Bill Clinton is "out of control" and "destroying his wife's campaign" after he reportedly slapped a heckler at a rally in Ohio and got into a shouting match with another. Party insiders tell Capitol Hill Blue that the former President's hair-trigger temper is surfacing more and more as he campaigns for his wife and his actions are "detrimental to the party and the Senator." "We're looking at a man out of control," says one Clinton adviser. "He won't stay on message and too often seems like a madman on stage. He has to be stopped or removed from the campaign." Sources say an angry and abusive Clinton routinely chews out campaign staffers and even members of his Secret Service detail. Reports The Associated Press:
In Steubenville, Clinton got angry at another hecker. Reports The National Journal:
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
This is not a surprise to me
Submitted by Sandra Price on February 18, 2008 - 7:07am.This is not a surprise to me as I have read many books on the tantrums in the White House during the Clinton years. They are an angry and ugly couple.
A morning dump on the
Submitted by neondog on February 18, 2008 - 8:48am.A morning dump on the Clintons? Who writes the headlines on CHB, NewsMax?
Bias and hype to attack the Clintons, nothing new from CHB. Same old boring ass political attacks from the Clinton haters.
"The Clintons are angry and ugly"?....straight up RUDE & HATEFUL.
Bias and hype to attack the
Submitted by keith on February 18, 2008 - 11:03am.Neondog, it would appear that the only "rude and hateful" behavior in all of this is coming from Mr. Clinton, not CHB!
And CHB has not been the only journal that is reporting this latest boorish outburst on the part of Mr. Clinton. If those in control of "Hillaryland" would prefer not to see such reports, then all they have to do is reign in the former President.
What's more, such "out of line" public behavior on the part of the former President is also nothing new. Mr. Clinton performed in a similar fashion in New Hampshire, Nevada and then again in South Carolina. Leopards don't change their spots.
However, as he is the ONLY reason Mrs. Clinton is even on the ballot, it would appear that the Clintons are now caught between the proverbial "rock and a hard place".
That is, Mrs. Clinton simply can't win the nomination WITHOUT her husband's name recognition. And, based on Mr. Clinton's increasingly boorish performances, it is looking like they can't win WITH him either. His presence in the campaign is clearly becoming more and more of a political liability.
It is also ironic that all of this boorish behavior is coming from the self-professed "experienced" candidate(s) who supposedly know how to effectively handle such "tough" questioning from their opponents.
By any measure, such "eruptions" from her husband...wherever and however they are reported...are not doing Hillary any favors in the run-up to the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.
Dude: If CHB was reporting
Submitted by neondog on February 18, 2008 - 11:28am.Dude:
If CHB was reporting "boorish" behaviour, I would not have questioned the headline. CHB is pro-claiming that Bill Clinton slapped someone in the face, which was clearly not the case.
Dude: If CHB was reporting
Submitted by keith on February 18, 2008 - 3:50pm.Well, "Dude"...it would appear that the REST of the mainstream press (particularly the Associated Press who first generated the "face slapping" element of the story) is standing by their assertion.
What's more, if, as you say, it is "clearly not the case", that Mr. Clinton did anything wrong, then why has the Clinton camp yet to demand an apology? Or, if the story IS untrue, then why have the mainstream press agencies (MSNBC, AP, et al) responsible for the initial story yet to offer one?
CHB is only repeating what multiple "someone elses" have already reported. So, please stop trying to shoot the messenger(s).
Clearly, Mr. Clinton owns the problem here. If he's been truly wronged and his actions have been misreported, then he needs to ask for (and he absolutely should receive) an apology. Neither of those actions have yet to happen.
But, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the incident (or who slapped (or didn't slap) who), it would appear that Mr. Clinton still needs to SERIOUSLY consider cleaning up his act.
If this is true then I would
Submitted by Steve Horn on February 18, 2008 - 9:05am.If this is true then I would suspect that the Clinton campaign has run out of ideas as well as money, as that's typically when normally rational people resort to violent outbursts.
Holeman told MSNBC news that
Submitted by Elmo on February 18, 2008 - 9:08am.Holeman told MSNBC news that Clinton was “irate” and jabbed his finger at him. “I think he even hit me in the face with his hand,” he said. “He did give me a little pop.”
This is a long way from slapping someone in the face. Stories like this belong in the NY Post or on Faux News.
The lead of the AP story on
Submitted by dougthompson on February 18, 2008 - 9:16am.The lead of the AP story on the incident said:
The headline was intended as a question but the question mark was left off in the original version. I corrected it and stand by it the headline as intended.
So, if I understand you,
Submitted by Elmo on February 18, 2008 - 1:40pm.So, if I understand you, you're falling back on the old "I didn't think, I just repeated it" excuse. Your old boss Paul Findlay wouldn't have done that when he ran The Pike Press nor would Al Seiler when he did. This isn't journalism and it ill-becomes you to claim it is.
Find a good reason to slam Slick Willie -- there isn't any shortage.
Elmo: What the head did was
Submitted by dougthompson on February 18, 2008 - 3:41pm.Elmo:
What the head did was raise the question of whether or not Clinton struck a protestor. The AP story says the heckler said he was hit. Other stories quote him as saying he might have been struck.
However, the point of our story is that the former President is losing control of his composure and that loss of control is a growing concern in the Clinton camp.
Damn Doug.....If you would
Submitted by neondog on February 18, 2008 - 6:09pm.Damn Doug.....If you would use a bit of bleach before that "spin out" you'd get alot more traction and blow a hell of lot more smoke....
LOL....
Tabloid journalism what we
Submitted by mary cali on February 18, 2008 - 9:53am.Tabloid journalism what we would expect from Robert Murdoch. I don't say that as an avid supporter or Bill either, because I am not.
But the description in the story does not match the emotional headlines.
The Associated Press story
Submitted by dougthompson on February 18, 2008 - 4:49pm.The Associated Press story raised the question that Bill Clinton may have struck the protester. We simply asked the question and used that question to probe into the concern that is mounting in the Clinton camp.
Wow, I thought the rightwing
Submitted by tony12000 on February 18, 2008 - 9:54am.Wow, I thought the rightwing were the only nutcases out there. But this website has proven me wrong. So, a guy interrupts a speech and then lunges toward the stage afterwards, and he is credible enough that you say the president actually "slapped" him. Yeah, no wonder this is some obscure website. With "reporting" like this, hopefully it will remain that way. This is irresponsible. The fact that you "stand by" this misleading headline is even worse.
Another thing -- How can
Submitted by tony12000 on February 18, 2008 - 9:58am.Another thing -- How can someone be trusted who says this:
“I THINK he even hit me in the face with his hand...."
UM, The former president of the USA slaps you in the face, and you can only "think" that he did it? This guy is totally high and derainged from drinking Obama's kool-aid and watching the Will I. Am video on repeat since it first came out. PATHETIC.
e raderman what would good
Submitted by erade on February 18, 2008 - 4:52pm.e raderman
what would good old george w have done at the first peep from a heckler. i'm more than, quite, sure he'd have had the heckler muscled out by his police brigade.
i would KNOW if anyone poked me in the face. i wouldn't think it might HAVE HAPPENED.
This is just another example
Submitted by pollchecker on February 18, 2008 - 10:10am.This is just another example of why we don't need the Clinton's back in the WH.
Look I admire and respect both the Clintons for the service they have given to our country. But like a very large percentage of the American people, I don't want to be continually distracted from the real issues by Bill Clinton's antics and his wife's reaction to them.
We need someone whose name is not Bush or Clinton to occupy the office so the country can move forward and do the hard work needed to repair the massive damage GW has done to our country.
No, pollchecker -- this is
Submitted by tony12000 on February 18, 2008 - 12:16pm.No, pollchecker -- this is an example of why the intellect in this country is in the toilet. People believe everything they read, without any criticial examination. This title is clearly misleading, but you launch into some diatribe about the Clintons. Obama is not going to move us anywhere except to la la land. Actually, he won't even have the chance because McCain will cream him.
"This title is clearly
Submitted by pollchecker on February 18, 2008 - 2:24pm."This title is clearly misleading, but you launch into some diatribe about the Clintons."
I didn't launch into anything except to point out that this is the type of thing we can continually expect to hear about if Hillary is the nominee.
I read the article and didn't even initially commnet until all this diatribe on the comments section began.
Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball to be able to predict what the future would be like with Obama as the nominee, but if history is a valid predictor of future behaviour, it is highly unlikely that Hillary will do anything but continue the political polarization that we've seen since in the past. I do not believe that is what the majority of Americans are looking for.
As to whether or not McCain creams him, I believe that Senator's McCain's votes and positions are perfectly clear as to where he stands on all the issues. He will not be able to talk his way out of his past record without becoming a flip flopper. But since that is not what this thread is about, I will quit with that being said.
"They are an angry and ugly
Submitted by Sandra Price on February 18, 2008 - 10:31am."They are an angry and ugly couple."
These are my words, not Doug's. They are true and come from a number of books I have read on the couple.
A high level of frustration,
Submitted by Flapsaddle on February 18, 2008 - 11:36am.A high level of frustration, I'm sure. This is probably due to the inescapable conclusion that the wheels are coming off of the Clinton White House Express.
In all of his long political career, Bill Clinton has been able to avoid physical confrontation with opponents. An affable person who would have made a superb used-car salesman, Clinton's unctuous manner has generally been an asset and has been a formidable tool in his success as the "Comeback Kid" and as the paramount fund-raiser for the Democratic party.
But this is not what the Clinton's envisaged for this stage of the campaign. By now, the supposedly pro forma caucuses and primaries were to have validated Hillary Clinton's presumption that the nomination was already hers, and she would doubtlessly be working on the short list of VP selectees - perhaps even planning Inauguration Day functions - rather than trying to keep from sinking.
Instead of advanced planning for the festivities, Clinton finds her campaign in a life-or-death fight with an upstart senator whose claim to fame is a rousing speech at the 2004 convention. She has suffered eight straight loses in primaries and caucuses, prominent endorsements going to her opponent, and - worst of all - money is beginning to evaporate.
Her campaign has also suffered the interference of Bill Clinton, who clumsily played a race card and had the thing blow up in his face. Now, she has the problem that her spouse appears to be unable to control his temper - something that cannot be spun as anything other than a problem.
Hillary Clinton had enough problems without Bill dropping this particular turd into the campaign punch-bowl.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Hillary Clinton had enough
Submitted by keith on February 18, 2008 - 3:56pm.Bingo!
Do you really want this guy
Submitted by Wayne K Dolik on February 18, 2008 - 12:12pm.Do you really want this guy in the Whitehouse who couldn’t keep his pants zipped up? Then the white trash moved to N.Y. Jeeze give me a break. America needs better than this. Nuff said.
I am extremely disappointed
Submitted by Alexandria Lupu on February 18, 2008 - 12:35pm.I am extremely disappointed lately in the hate & misinformation spewed in Capitol Hill Blue about the Clintons, esp. the anti-feminism views on Hillary. I would ask that my name be taken off the mailing list, but I still want to see whatever else is published.
Your rancor is not justified.
What hate? What rancor? What
Submitted by dougthompson on February 18, 2008 - 4:52pm.What hate? What rancor? What misinformation? What anti-feminism views? We raised a question based on a report from a mainstream news service and information from concerned sources within the Clinton campaign.
We leave the hate to partisan web sites. Our rule here is that "if your mother says she loves you, confirm it with a second source."
I don't believe for one
Submitted by JudyB on February 18, 2008 - 12:39pm.I don't believe for one minute Bill slapped anyone..if he had, he would have been arrested faster than anyone on this planet! As for the Clintons being mean and ugly people? Yes, I have heard they have tempers, but I have also read that every president has had temper issues, and the worst is said to be GWB and its all over the media that McCain has a doozy of a temper. Again, I don't believe this guy was hit by anyone but it seems to me that people are out see if he will...that would cinch the deal of Clinton having an out of control temper. You cannot insult people and expect them to say calm.
And Sandra, I have always shown you respect, but the other day when you said "a group of apes could have written the 10 commandments" and referred to God as "skydaddy" you insulted millions of believers and their God. That was insulting and not in any way necessary to make your point.
O good grief. It's ok if you
Submitted by sherry on February 18, 2008 - 12:42pm.O good grief.
It's ok if you are for Obama. I forgive you.
It's one thing to say Clinton dressed down a heckler. Quite another to suggest he was punched.
All this bad press may get you Obama as the nominee. However, by the time the Rove machine is done with him, he's toast.
I don't care whether people like Bill Clinton, I just hate the rhetoric Obama inspires against him.
Some day you will wake and smell the coffee. all to late, I fear
Sherry, I'm not "for"
Submitted by dougthompson on February 18, 2008 - 4:46pm.Sherry, I'm not "for" anybody. We just call 'em as we see 'em. My feelings about the Democratic field were best summed up in a column last year when I wrote:
And don't interpret that to mean I felt good about any of the Republicans. In that same column, I wrote:
I wrote last week that I think Obama is a better candidate than Clinton. I stand by that assessment.
Judy, I take abuse every day
Submitted by Sandra Price on February 18, 2008 - 1:08pm.Judy, I take abuse every day of my life because I am an Atheist. I was on the Board of Directors of a wonderful organization and when one of the other members read my web site, I was no longer allowed on the board. I was their marketing manager and did a very good job for 4 years. I get this crap even years ago when I was on Reader Rant.
Judy, do you believe that everyone believes in God? There are over 55 million of us who do not! We are the fastest growing group of Americans since the days of when we were still a colony. Read Richard Dawkins and learn something about the rest of the people.
On second thought....lol.
Submitted by tony12000 on February 18, 2008 - 1:38pm.On second thought....lol. They edited the title. May as well drop the article, because no one in the mainstream press is taking it seriously. And given their hatred of the Clintons, this should tell you something.