Obama vs. Clintons

A feud is erupting between President Obama and Bill & Hillary Clinton.  As we saw during the Vice Presidential debate, the Obama administration is trying to blame the debacle in Libya on our intelligence agencies and the State Department.  Bill, having given Obama a big boost with his convention speech, is furious that Obama is trying to throw Hillary under the bus.  An account of the feud and what it might do from Tony Lee:

A nasty rift has opened up between President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the fallout from the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. This feud may undermine and threaten Obama’s reelection chances.

Obama and Clinton both do not want to be held responsible for the negligence before and the cover-up after the Libya attacks. Clinton biographer Ed Klein on Friday reported that Bill Clinton, sensing Obama’s political team wants to pin legal and political blame on the State Department and Hillary Clinton, has been working on doomsday and contingency scenarios “to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.”

“If relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obama’s chances for re-election,” Klein writes.

According to Klein’s sources, Bill Clinton has assembled an informal legal team in case there are cables or other evidence that would legally implicate Hillary. Klein also told The Daily Caller that Bill has even considered advising Hillary to resign if the Obama administration tries to make her the “scapegoat.”

On Friday, there were signs the White House was preparing to do to throw Hillary Clinton and the State Department under the bus.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, when asked if Obama and Biden had “never been briefed” about the fact that more security was needed in Libya, essentially blamed the State Department, saying, “matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the State Department by those responsible for it.”

Carney repeated a variation of this line throughout the press briefing.

Carney’s comments came a day after Vice President Joe Biden not only contradicted State Department officials but himself threw the intelligence community under the bus when he said the Obama administration did not know U.S. interests in Libya needed more security before the attacks and that the intelligence community changed its story after. . . .

Klein writes that the long-simmering feud between Obama and the Clintons has only gotten worse after the Democratic National Convention. The bad blood between Obama and the Clinton family dates back to the 2008 Democratic primary, and Obama’s advisers had to convince Obama to give Clinton a prominent role at the convention.

Klein writes “the latest quarrel began when Clinton heard that Obama was behaving so cocky about his first debate against Mitt Romney that he wasn’t taking his debate prep seriously.”

Clinton offered to give Obama some advice, and Obama brushed him off.

Klein writes “the former president was dumbfounded that Obama had ignored his offer, and his hurt feelings quickly boiled over into anger.”

“Bill thought that he and Obama were on friendly terms after the convention,” a source told Klein. “He couldn’t believe that the White House didn’t even extend him the courtesy of a return phone call. He concluded that Obama’s arrogance knows no bounds.”

There is no love lost between Obama and the Clintons, and they could mutually destroy their political futures in the days ahead. Team Obama could destroy Hillary Clinton’s 2016 prospects by scapegoating her for the Libya attacks. But Hillary Clinton, by potentially resigning or pointing to evidence that implicates Obama and Biden, can just as easily torpedo Obama’s chances at getting reelected.

via Libya Fallout Gives Rise to Obama-Clinton Feud.

Look for this to come out in some way in tomorrow’s presidential debate, which is supposed to focus on foreign policy.

Ben Carson is running for president
Socialist Bernie Sanders is running for President
Hillary says "religious beliefs. . .have to be changed"
Today the Supremes take up gay marriage
About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    The source for this story is Ed Klein. Enough said. Really. But consider, anyways, that nothing could be better for the Secretary’s run in 2016 than a successful second term for Obama. Why would she ruin her chances by torpedoing the President? She’s not politically stupid.

  • Tom Hering

    The source for this story is Ed Klein. Enough said. Really. But consider, anyways, that nothing could be better for the Secretary’s run in 2016 than a successful second term for Obama. Why would she ruin her chances by torpedoing the President? She’s not politically stupid.

  • Rose

    Tomorrow’s debate will include both domestic and foreign policy. The solely foreign policy debate is Monday Oct 22.

  • Rose

    Tomorrow’s debate will include both domestic and foreign policy. The solely foreign policy debate is Monday Oct 22.

  • Cincinnatus

    Obama, however, is being politically stupid–or at least unprincipled–by foisting the blame for his Administration’s debacles on a segment of his Administration. What happened to “the buck stops here”?

  • Cincinnatus

    Obama, however, is being politically stupid–or at least unprincipled–by foisting the blame for his Administration’s debacles on a segment of his Administration. What happened to “the buck stops here”?

  • Jack

    Hillary’s State Department? How is that? Isn’t it Obama’s State Department? If the President cannot trust one of those whom he has placed on his cabinet, and has publicly blamed that person for a huge debacle, how is it that she still holds her position today?

    How is The President going to show that he is responsible and in control?

  • Jack

    Hillary’s State Department? How is that? Isn’t it Obama’s State Department? If the President cannot trust one of those whom he has placed on his cabinet, and has publicly blamed that person for a huge debacle, how is it that she still holds her position today?

    How is The President going to show that he is responsible and in control?

  • Cincinnatus

    Jack:

    Exactly. If Obama truly thinks the State Department is at fault for the murder of an ambassador, then he ought to fire Hillary post-haste. Alternatively, he needs to ascribe blame to himself, apologize profusely, and announce a rigorous internal investigation (announcing some kind of revenge against the perpetrators wouldn’t hurt either; I’m certainly not asking for an invasion, but since when does anyone get off with murdering an ambassador scot-free?). Either way, though, he needs to accept responsibility if he’s going to stick to the narrative he’s crafted.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jack:

    Exactly. If Obama truly thinks the State Department is at fault for the murder of an ambassador, then he ought to fire Hillary post-haste. Alternatively, he needs to ascribe blame to himself, apologize profusely, and announce a rigorous internal investigation (announcing some kind of revenge against the perpetrators wouldn’t hurt either; I’m certainly not asking for an invasion, but since when does anyone get off with murdering an ambassador scot-free?). Either way, though, he needs to accept responsibility if he’s going to stick to the narrative he’s crafted.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, come on. Requests for more embassy security don’t normally make their way up to the White House – they’re handled by the State Department. That’s a plain fact that Biden was pointing out in the debate. And didn’t senior campaign advisor Gibbs, when pressed on ultimate responsibility just yesterday, say that “The administration is responsible …”? Yes, he meant responsible for making sure the failure isn’t repeated. What more would reasonable non-partisans expect?

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, come on. Requests for more embassy security don’t normally make their way up to the White House – they’re handled by the State Department. That’s a plain fact that Biden was pointing out in the debate. And didn’t senior campaign advisor Gibbs, when pressed on ultimate responsibility just yesterday, say that “The administration is responsible …”? Yes, he meant responsible for making sure the failure isn’t repeated. What more would reasonable non-partisans expect?

  • Tom Hering

    And hasn’t the administration said they’re conducting the investigation you want? And that they’ll bring the perpetrators to justice, as you want? The President made bin Laden a priority, and has been pretty darn aggressive in dealing with other terrorists. Why wouldn’t he go all out in this case too?

  • Tom Hering

    And hasn’t the administration said they’re conducting the investigation you want? And that they’ll bring the perpetrators to justice, as you want? The President made bin Laden a priority, and has been pretty darn aggressive in dealing with other terrorists. Why wouldn’t he go all out in this case too?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@6:

    To these reasonable, non-partisan eyes, it seems, then, that the Obama Administration is advancing multiple, conflicting narratives. On the one hand, Obama accepts that he is responsible. On the other hand, he seeks to blame the State Department/Hillary (which is a bit of cowardice: it’s his State Department, whether he likes it or not).

    Either way, though, the question is this: And? What are you gonna do about it, Mr. President? Obviously, we can ask what he should have done about it to prevent the incident in the first place, but now that he’s being so generous in ascribing blame, the next question is always “So what”? New security policies? A shakeup in Foggy Bottom? Some forced resignations? Bolstered security at our embassies? Retaliation? What? Nothing?

    I’m fully aware of the budgetary dynamics of why there wasn’t enough security in Benghazi in the first place. But you know full well that this is no excuse. The routine policies–which Obama admittedly didn’t craft himself–blew up in his face. Unfortunately, it’s now his problem, and it doesn’t satisfy anyone or solve anything to engage merely in blame-shifting. Those are just words.

    Expect him to get hammered on this in the debate.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@6:

    To these reasonable, non-partisan eyes, it seems, then, that the Obama Administration is advancing multiple, conflicting narratives. On the one hand, Obama accepts that he is responsible. On the other hand, he seeks to blame the State Department/Hillary (which is a bit of cowardice: it’s his State Department, whether he likes it or not).

    Either way, though, the question is this: And? What are you gonna do about it, Mr. President? Obviously, we can ask what he should have done about it to prevent the incident in the first place, but now that he’s being so generous in ascribing blame, the next question is always “So what”? New security policies? A shakeup in Foggy Bottom? Some forced resignations? Bolstered security at our embassies? Retaliation? What? Nothing?

    I’m fully aware of the budgetary dynamics of why there wasn’t enough security in Benghazi in the first place. But you know full well that this is no excuse. The routine policies–which Obama admittedly didn’t craft himself–blew up in his face. Unfortunately, it’s now his problem, and it doesn’t satisfy anyone or solve anything to engage merely in blame-shifting. Those are just words.

    Expect him to get hammered on this in the debate.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I could care less about the Clintons vs. Obamas “feud”.

    And what Cincinnatus said @ 8 is spot on.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I could care less about the Clintons vs. Obamas “feud”.

    And what Cincinnatus said @ 8 is spot on.

  • fjsteve

    Tom, #6:

    “Requests for more embassy security don’t normally make their way up to the White House – they’re handled by the State Department.”

    I might agree with you if this were a normal case of embassy security in most other countries but have you been watching the news lately? There’s been a little commotion in Libya lately that I think the White House would have been interested in. In fact, it was Obama himself that took credit for ordering the air support for the rebels. Why is embassy security in that country suddenly not important enough for the President’s attention? I don’t buy it.

  • fjsteve

    Tom, #6:

    “Requests for more embassy security don’t normally make their way up to the White House – they’re handled by the State Department.”

    I might agree with you if this were a normal case of embassy security in most other countries but have you been watching the news lately? There’s been a little commotion in Libya lately that I think the White House would have been interested in. In fact, it was Obama himself that took credit for ordering the air support for the rebels. Why is embassy security in that country suddenly not important enough for the President’s attention? I don’t buy it.

  • fws

    This might be another case of Nixon vs Kennedy.

    There were instances in the nixon kennedy debates where Kennedy knew that Nixon could not answer for national security reasons. And so he asked those questions. Why? It made Nixon looked evasive.

    If this is Romneys stragegy, it is a very very good one and he is an astute student of presidential debate history.

  • fws

    This might be another case of Nixon vs Kennedy.

    There were instances in the nixon kennedy debates where Kennedy knew that Nixon could not answer for national security reasons. And so he asked those questions. Why? It made Nixon looked evasive.

    If this is Romneys stragegy, it is a very very good one and he is an astute student of presidential debate history.

  • Jon

    If relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly.

    Funny, but I guess that is the “deal” that they struck four years ago when they were running against each other.

    “Look, Hillary, if you’ll give me the Whitehouse now, then you can have that fourth branch of government. You know, it’s called ‘The State Department.’ And after I’ve had my turn the Whitehouse in eight years, then you get to have the Whitehouse, and maybe you can put me in ‘The State Department’ because I’ll have so much experience by then. What do you say to that?”

  • Jon

    If relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly.

    Funny, but I guess that is the “deal” that they struck four years ago when they were running against each other.

    “Look, Hillary, if you’ll give me the Whitehouse now, then you can have that fourth branch of government. You know, it’s called ‘The State Department.’ And after I’ve had my turn the Whitehouse in eight years, then you get to have the Whitehouse, and maybe you can put me in ‘The State Department’ because I’ll have so much experience by then. What do you say to that?”

  • Cincinnatus

    fws:

    An interesting point, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Obama has already provided a more or less comprehensive answer to whatever questions he’ll be asked without withholding any obvious secrets. The problem is that the answers have been bad, contradictory, or milquetoast, not evasive.

    Now, would Romney have done better in the same situation? Doubtful. As Tom Hering noted, embassy security issues typically operate at a level below the direct gaze of the President. But Romney’s competence won’t be the issue, and whether or not the President “knew” about what was happening is–and ought to be–irrelevant.

  • Cincinnatus

    fws:

    An interesting point, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Obama has already provided a more or less comprehensive answer to whatever questions he’ll be asked without withholding any obvious secrets. The problem is that the answers have been bad, contradictory, or milquetoast, not evasive.

    Now, would Romney have done better in the same situation? Doubtful. As Tom Hering noted, embassy security issues typically operate at a level below the direct gaze of the President. But Romney’s competence won’t be the issue, and whether or not the President “knew” about what was happening is–and ought to be–irrelevant.

  • Rose

    Cincinnatus—”So what?”
    For starters, Obama should attend his national security daily briefings. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html.
    And give press conferences, not appearances on The View while lounging on a couch.
    According to testimony of the Security Chief in Libya:
    “The taliban is inside the building.”
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/

  • Rose

    Cincinnatus—”So what?”
    For starters, Obama should attend his national security daily briefings. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html.
    And give press conferences, not appearances on The View while lounging on a couch.
    According to testimony of the Security Chief in Libya:
    “The taliban is inside the building.”
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/

  • Jack

    The President cannot, of course be in on every decision made by those who serve under him. The fact remains, though that he sought and accepted the office to which he was elected, and he selected the folks who serve on his cabinet. He, ultimately bears the responsibility for the actions of his cabinet. It’s the nature of the office. If he had no knowledge of the debacle in Libya and that which led up to it, then mustn’t he deal with those that did? Mustn’t he separate himself from his Secretary of State, now? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen certainly applies, here.

  • Jack

    The President cannot, of course be in on every decision made by those who serve under him. The fact remains, though that he sought and accepted the office to which he was elected, and he selected the folks who serve on his cabinet. He, ultimately bears the responsibility for the actions of his cabinet. It’s the nature of the office. If he had no knowledge of the debacle in Libya and that which led up to it, then mustn’t he deal with those that did? Mustn’t he separate himself from his Secretary of State, now? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen certainly applies, here.

  • SKPeterson

    The Clinton’s are simply asking for the generosity and leniency extended to Janet Reno in the wake of Waco. Profuse apologies, investigations, yet no resignation, no real changes in policy.

    Does anyone at the BATF ever get punished or let go for rank stupidity? Has any President in the last 30 years or so asked for a cabinet secretary to fall on their sword for a policy debacle?

  • SKPeterson

    The Clinton’s are simply asking for the generosity and leniency extended to Janet Reno in the wake of Waco. Profuse apologies, investigations, yet no resignation, no real changes in policy.

    Does anyone at the BATF ever get punished or let go for rank stupidity? Has any President in the last 30 years or so asked for a cabinet secretary to fall on their sword for a policy debacle?

  • dust

    Tom at 1….nothing could be better for Biden, not Clinton, than an 8 year term….better lay low on the catnip :)

    Besides, my guess is it is in fact the State Dept that blew it, and POTUS is very upset, given it will blow the election, along with the bad economy, gas prices, broken promises, etc.

    cheers!

  • dust

    Tom at 1….nothing could be better for Biden, not Clinton, than an 8 year term….better lay low on the catnip :)

    Besides, my guess is it is in fact the State Dept that blew it, and POTUS is very upset, given it will blow the election, along with the bad economy, gas prices, broken promises, etc.

    cheers!

  • Tom Hering

    Expect him to get hammered on this in the debate.

    (@ 9)

    Nah. Not on Tuesday night. It’s a town hall format, with questions asked by undecided voters who were selected by Gallup. Not the most tough-minded group of citizens, and from what I understand, their questions have been selected ahead of time too.

    The third debate, however, will have the same format as the first, and the focus will be foreign policy. Maybe then, if the issue is still hot. Depends on what the moderator asks, how much back-and-forth is allowed, etc.

  • Tom Hering

    Expect him to get hammered on this in the debate.

    (@ 9)

    Nah. Not on Tuesday night. It’s a town hall format, with questions asked by undecided voters who were selected by Gallup. Not the most tough-minded group of citizens, and from what I understand, their questions have been selected ahead of time too.

    The third debate, however, will have the same format as the first, and the focus will be foreign policy. Maybe then, if the issue is still hot. Depends on what the moderator asks, how much back-and-forth is allowed, etc.

  • Tom Hering

    Oops. The reference above should have been “@ 8.”

  • Tom Hering

    Oops. The reference above should have been “@ 8.”

  • dust

    Tom at 18….undecided not the most tough minded? those are the only ones not marching in lock step mit die party line, aka za drones?

    Besides, they are the ones who will decide the election, according to the experts, and right now leaning against POTUS?

    They will have great questions, from the street, and they will be tough, you wait and see….uh, in the meantime, no more catnip for you :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Tom at 18….undecided not the most tough minded? those are the only ones not marching in lock step mit die party line, aka za drones?

    Besides, they are the ones who will decide the election, according to the experts, and right now leaning against POTUS?

    They will have great questions, from the street, and they will be tough, you wait and see….uh, in the meantime, no more catnip for you :)

    cheers!

  • Tom Hering

    I’m surprised any of them were able to decide on a question to ask. ;-)

  • Tom Hering

    I’m surprised any of them were able to decide on a question to ask. ;-)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    If I were Romney, I’d start any discussion of the debacle by announcing that in his administration, all diplomatic outposts would have American guards, and they would be armed whenever on duty. And if a host nation didn’t like that, the ambassador goes home.

    And ask why Obama didn’t have that policy.

    Regarding the “can’t answer that question” issue, if such things come up, I’d simply note that some of the details do remain classified, and that anyone who should seriously aspire to the office of the Presidency ought to realize this. And as long as Obama doesn’t have TOTUS at his side, he won’t be able to do this. :^)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    If I were Romney, I’d start any discussion of the debacle by announcing that in his administration, all diplomatic outposts would have American guards, and they would be armed whenever on duty. And if a host nation didn’t like that, the ambassador goes home.

    And ask why Obama didn’t have that policy.

    Regarding the “can’t answer that question” issue, if such things come up, I’d simply note that some of the details do remain classified, and that anyone who should seriously aspire to the office of the Presidency ought to realize this. And as long as Obama doesn’t have TOTUS at his side, he won’t be able to do this. :^)

  • dust

    Tom at 18….the subject will be foreign policy, if it is still hot…you can’t be serious?

    One of the 2 major players in this political opera has to lose, and that will guarantee it will not only stay hot, but my guess is it’s going to get even hotter!

    As they used to say here, get out your popcorn boys and girls :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Tom at 18….the subject will be foreign policy, if it is still hot…you can’t be serious?

    One of the 2 major players in this political opera has to lose, and that will guarantee it will not only stay hot, but my guess is it’s going to get even hotter!

    As they used to say here, get out your popcorn boys and girls :)

    cheers!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The President cannot, of course be in on every decision made by those who serve under him.

    This is a fair point.

    But it does make a person ask whether he gives his opinion on any of the decisions. I mean, I make some decisions. I assume he makes some decisions, too. So, what are they? I ask because knowing which ones he actually takes enough interest in to make the decision himself would tell us a lot about his priorities and competence. Some have noted that in addition to being pretty boring himself, President Obama is also kind of bored by the actual job of being president. He seems more like the servant of the people who fund his campaign and spokesman to those who cast votes. He seems bored with all the policies themselves or how they work or if they work.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The President cannot, of course be in on every decision made by those who serve under him.

    This is a fair point.

    But it does make a person ask whether he gives his opinion on any of the decisions. I mean, I make some decisions. I assume he makes some decisions, too. So, what are they? I ask because knowing which ones he actually takes enough interest in to make the decision himself would tell us a lot about his priorities and competence. Some have noted that in addition to being pretty boring himself, President Obama is also kind of bored by the actual job of being president. He seems more like the servant of the people who fund his campaign and spokesman to those who cast votes. He seems bored with all the policies themselves or how they work or if they work.

  • Tom Hering

    dust @ 23, the third presidential debate, with its foreign policy focus, is a week away. Big things could happen in the next eight days, like a war between Syria and Turkey. The wider conflict such a war could trigger would knock embassy security off the list of pressing issues. Think Russian involvement.

    But back to tomorrow night’s town hall. If anyone needs more proof it won’t be a hot seat for either candidate, here you go:

    Campaigns Want Tight Rein on Debate Moderator

  • Tom Hering

    dust @ 23, the third presidential debate, with its foreign policy focus, is a week away. Big things could happen in the next eight days, like a war between Syria and Turkey. The wider conflict such a war could trigger would knock embassy security off the list of pressing issues. Think Russian involvement.

    But back to tomorrow night’s town hall. If anyone needs more proof it won’t be a hot seat for either candidate, here you go:

    Campaigns Want Tight Rein on Debate Moderator

  • dust

    Tom…agree, but it will be spun as though it’s more of the unraveling of their failed policy in the middle east….think Iran and the lack of their support!

    If so, the gift of the Clinton-Obama rift will be one that just keeps on giving….get your popcorn ready :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Tom…agree, but it will be spun as though it’s more of the unraveling of their failed policy in the middle east….think Iran and the lack of their support!

    If so, the gift of the Clinton-Obama rift will be one that just keeps on giving….get your popcorn ready :)

    cheers!

  • MarkB

    Wow, just wow! Hillary Clinton just took responsibility for the failure of the security in Benghazi. So how does that line up with this supposed split between the Clintons and Obama? And does this totally defuse this issue for President Obama?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

  • MarkB

    Wow, just wow! Hillary Clinton just took responsibility for the failure of the security in Benghazi. So how does that line up with this supposed split between the Clintons and Obama? And does this totally defuse this issue for President Obama?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

  • dust

    MarkB….well, the administration may think this solves it, since they don’t get it and think this is the big issue….but my guess is there’s lots more fire behind all the smoke…and mirrors!

    get your popcorn :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    MarkB….well, the administration may think this solves it, since they don’t get it and think this is the big issue….but my guess is there’s lots more fire behind all the smoke…and mirrors!

    get your popcorn :)

    cheers!

  • DonS

    Benghazi will dominate the campaign during its last three weeks, barring some other “October surprise”, and rightly so. I don’t know if there is that much to this Clinton/Obama story — it’s already well known that there is no love lost between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s, and that their ongoing relationship is one of mutual convenience, but Hilary will not take the ultimate fall for this disaster, nor should she. The State Department is part of the administration, and Clinton was appointed by Obama. He is responsible for the shambles his foreign policy has become.

  • DonS

    Benghazi will dominate the campaign during its last three weeks, barring some other “October surprise”, and rightly so. I don’t know if there is that much to this Clinton/Obama story — it’s already well known that there is no love lost between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s, and that their ongoing relationship is one of mutual convenience, but Hilary will not take the ultimate fall for this disaster, nor should she. The State Department is part of the administration, and Clinton was appointed by Obama. He is responsible for the shambles his foreign policy has become.

  • MarkB

    dust @ 28

    Hillary falling on the sword for Obama does not satisfy me at all. There are a whole lot of other things to worry about in this.

  • MarkB

    dust @ 28

    Hillary falling on the sword for Obama does not satisfy me at all. There are a whole lot of other things to worry about in this.

  • dust

    MarkB….right on, and the hubris to think this lays the issue to rest, can you say out of touch?

    My guess is there’s a good chance a majority of the electorate will not fall for it this election cycle :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    MarkB….right on, and the hubris to think this lays the issue to rest, can you say out of touch?

    My guess is there’s a good chance a majority of the electorate will not fall for it this election cycle :)

    cheers!

  • SKPeterson

    MarkB @ 30 – She didn’t fall on her sword though, did she? Has she resigned? No. She simply did the post-modern version. Go out to the press and say, “I accept responsibility,” without actually having to take any responsibility, ignore the consequences, and then say repeatedly when asked why she hasn’t taken complete responsibility say, “I accept the responsibility, and the matter is now in the past. Now is the time to move forward.”

  • SKPeterson

    MarkB @ 30 – She didn’t fall on her sword though, did she? Has she resigned? No. She simply did the post-modern version. Go out to the press and say, “I accept responsibility,” without actually having to take any responsibility, ignore the consequences, and then say repeatedly when asked why she hasn’t taken complete responsibility say, “I accept the responsibility, and the matter is now in the past. Now is the time to move forward.”

  • MarkB

    SKP @ 32
    Yes, definitely.

  • MarkB

    SKP @ 32
    Yes, definitely.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP@32:

    I don’t know if it’s postmodernism so much as it is simple fecklessness. In this age of the perpetual campaign, only words matter, not deeds.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKP@32:

    I don’t know if it’s postmodernism so much as it is simple fecklessness. In this age of the perpetual campaign, only words matter, not deeds.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X