MyDD :: Were These Same People Saying Bill Clinton Could Not Win In 1992?

Were These Same People Saying Bill Clinton Could Not Win In 1992?

by Bobby Obama, Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:13:08 PM EST

So Hillary supporters and Republicans keep telling us Senator Obama can't win. They say Wright will kill him with whites. They say "Bitter" will kill him in swing states. They say the elitism will kill him everywhere. They say being black will hurt him. They say his outspoken wife will harm his candidacy. These things go on and on. So i wonder if these are the same people who spewed the right wing talking points in 1992.

They claimed Bill Clinton could not win because he cheated on his wife multiple times and would keep getting caught. They claimed Watergate would destroy him. They claimed he was inexperienced. They claimed he smoked his youth away with pot. They said he was a draft dodger who would not get a single military vote. It went on and on.

So i wonder if the Hillary supporters who say these things are old Republicans or are they Democrats who simply forgot about 1992.

Thoughts?

Poll

Votes: 5
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Election, 1992, 2008, President (all tags)

Permalink :: 8 Comments :: Post a Comment

Why would watergate (none / 0)

destroy Bill Clinton?

by linc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:16:03 PM EST

Re: Why would watergate (none / 0)

Do you not remember how big of a story it was when it first came out?

by Bobby Obama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I figured it out (none / 0)

I think you mean Whitewater...

by linc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I figured it out (none / 0)

I think i will admit you are 100% right and i am a bozo for not noticing that. Thank you for the correction.

by Bobby Obama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I figured it out (none / 0)

Madison Guaranty had been thoroughly investigated by the DOJ and Jim McDougal had been indicted, tried and acquitted in 1989. So, it's a very different situation but has warnings for Obama. In 1992, even though McDougal had been acquitted, the DOJ began investigating again. The Clinton didn't find out about this until after the election. If Obama's relationship with Rezko is being investigated, we won't find out about it until it's too late to change our course of action. Clinton officially cleared on Whitewater before he ran. No one has looked into Obama's relationship with Rezko and Fitzgerald doesn't even begin to try and flip people until he has a conviction. If Rezko is going to accuse Obama of misbehavior, then it won't happen until he's facing an effective life sentence in the slammer. Think about that for a while.

No one said Clinton was inexperienced because he'd been governor for 12 years. Being an Illinois state senator required 44 days a year - so in effect, Obama had 3.5 years of legislative experience before announcing his candidacy. Two years in high office. Clinton had 12 years in high office and had won 6 out of 7 races that he had run.

by Little Otter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:58:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I figured it out (none / 0)

Approximately 55 mandatory days a year for the Illinois state senate; not 44. Sorry.

by Little Otter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Win In 1992? NO (none / 0)

I don't think you were around in 1992. These weren't the issues. When the right wing dug up Genifer Flowers Bush I said 'don't go there' because Bush I was cheating on his wife...so it was a non-issue during the campaign. Watergate was Nixon..the only thing you mentioned was the draft deferment candidate running against someone who had served. He was governor of Arkansas and that is generally where our candidates come from.

Hillary isn't Bill, Obama isn't Bill but make no mistake he will be attacked like you've never seen before except maybe Kerry. Republicans won't be playing softball with him come the Nov election. You can pretend all you want through rose colored glasses but he's going to be beaten and battered and won't know which way is up or down because he doesn't do well with even slight critizism based on his own words or record- wait till he has to deal with out and out lies that are harder to defend because there is no defense. Then remember- there is ALWAYS the October surprise right before the Nov 4 election. Bank on it.
Had it not been for Ross Perot splitting the rep vote- Bill wouldn't have won- the second term he won on merit.

by Justwords on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST

Re: Not Win In 1992? NO (none / 0)

Whiterwater
Inexperience
Drug Use
Cheating

I think all of them were very serious charges and got TONS of media play. I certainly do remember it that way.

Also studies have shown Clinton would still have won without Perot in the race.

by Bobby Obama on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.