January 14th, 2008
10:45 AM ET
11 years ago

Bill Clinton compiles 'list' of Obama attacks

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/14/art.billclinton.ap.jpg caption=" Bill Clinton appeared on Roland Martin's show Monday."] (CNN) - Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign came out swinging Monday against the latest complaints from her rival, with former President Clinton announcing he has "a list of 80 attacks on Hillary" by Senator Barack Obama's campaign.

In a nationally syndicated radio interview on WVON, Bill Clinton said Hillary Clinton's way of handling attacks showed a clear difference from Obama. "She didn't complain about it," he said, citing one in particular that he considered "appalling."

"She just said 'I disagree,' and went on."

Clinton's remarks on the Roland S. Martin Show - which has a largely African-American audience - came amid a flare-up over remarks by Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, who appeared with Hillary Clinton on Sunday at a church in South Carolina, site of an upcoming primary.

Many believe Johnson made a veiled reference to Obama's drug use as a young man, though he insists that was not his intention.

"I think we have to take it at his word," the former president told Martin, adding that "nobody knew" what Johnson would say, and "it wasn't part of any planned strategy."

Johnson was rejecting the controversy over a recent remarks by Hillary Clinton, who noted that it "took a president" to make the Voting Rights Act a law after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had led the struggle for it. Some interpreted that remark as dismissive of the civil rights movement. Obama on Sunday called the remark "ill-advised."

Full story

- CNN's Josh Levs

soundoff (617 Responses)


    January 15, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  2. kamenwati

    Bill Clinton's behavior has been atrocious. He act like Obama has committed a sin by declaring his candidacy and running for the nomination. Too Bad. But perhaps he will come to understand that the Clintons do not own the Democratic party, and that the support of the voters is not theirs by divine right.

    BTW, would you vote for Jeb Bush if he was candidate in this election? Then why the hell would you vote for Hillary Clinton. End the Bush-Clinton dynasty!

    January 15, 2008 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  3. Ahamed Nizar

    My god...is this how low politics have gone? sigh....

    January 15, 2008 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  4. Steve O

    You Hillary supporters are a joke. Everytime your candidate takes a hit in a legitimate debate, you claim she is being unfairly attacked (with the implication that she is being attacked solely because she is a woman). But most of the time it's Hillary doing the hitting either directly or through surogates. And when someone responds, you claim they are playing the victim. Never did anyone play the victim more than Hillary Clinton when those MLK vs LBJ comments were made and she tried to blame her own unfortuate wording on the Obama camp. It was Al Sharpton and Rep Clyburn of SC who turned her words into a controversy and neither has endorsed or has any connection to the Obama campaign. Still she had Bob Johnson claiming that and even going further to claim that Obama had somehow called into question her civil rights credentials and to make veiled references to Obamas drug use as a teen. Senator Edwards was right last week when he said that Hillary's campaign was without conscience.

    January 15, 2008 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  5. Darryl

    wow all these negative comments, seriously thought, i hope you enjoy your republican president in 2008. Obama is real good talker but will loose the electorial, which is exactly the set up corporate america wants. Keep believing the news. OBAMA for president!

    January 15, 2008 03:26 pm at 3:26 pm |
  6. SouthernGal

    What strikes me the most is that the black people most vocal in supporting Hillary are the ones that have already "made it" – and want to keep it – the black power elite. They're Republicans, the whole lot of them, but because they're black they won't vote Republican. So they'll find the next best thing – a Republican calling herself a Democrat. And she's a woman so they still have an "ism" to screech at all those who disagree with them – "sexism".


    January 15, 2008 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  7. LINDA


    January 15, 2008 07:40 pm at 7:40 pm |
  8. From The North

    Well Bill, I completely understood Hillary's remark regarding Martin Luther King's "struggle" as you suggested. But, I still feel the comment could have been made in a more respectful, less ambiguous and condescending tone.

    Martin Luther King is a world Icon. He was and is the champion of the oppressed and forgotten. He has warmed the hearts of the worst among men. And while many will be applauded and later forgotten, Martin Luther King will continue to live in the hearts and minds of a Universal Population. The strength and power of this man's humility shattered decades of hostility and abuse.

    When you speak to such greatness you must ensure there is no ambiguity. And although a President may have had to pass a law before Martin Luther's noble conquest was fulfilled, we must never leave any doubt about where the conquest began, who had the dream and who fought the battles and made the journey to transform his dream into reality. To have the privilidge to pen one's name to such a Victory should not be considered a taking of but rather an honoured giving to duty. An attestation to the Greatness of Humility and Compassion for our fellow man.

    January 15, 2008 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm |
  9. Obama for President

    Hillary does not have the African American vote ( female or male) like she thought. She is working hard for it. Yes, most African Americans are Republicans, no big. Once chose what ever party affiliation they want.

    The female vote from either culture is wanting to elect a female. The majority feel it is time. I disagree. I do believe there is a female that will make it to the Oval office, but Hillary is not the one.

    Yes, Bill is defending his wife, but she is also a candidate for the Presidential election. Bill needs to lay off. This goes with the territory. If Hillary cannot take the heat in the kitchen, she should get out.

    Hillary believed from the beginning she had the nomination before the process started. That is why she put her name in the hat. She just forgot how many people do not like her. She is inconsistent about her position on everything from abortion rights to the war. Her voting record is horrible in the Senate.

    When she was First tLady during Bill's first term.....she failed at the health care reform and it was swept under the rug. She flopped on a hedge and it was swept under the rug. She lost important documents that were under investigation and that was swept under the rug. My god she may sell us to China.....if we elect her to Oval office.

    4 years of Hillary .......and we are in the beginnings of a recession, and in the middle of a war that may never end......NO. We asking for trouble.

    Ask yourselves....Do we want someone who can assemble the right people to their cabinet, or somone who will assemble crooks as their cabinet? Remember the people that worked for the Clintons? Where are they now? Look at the list of crooks he pardon and gave commutations to. Get real people.

    I think it is time we look for a candidate to do the job, not someone that is power hungry.

    January 15, 2008 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm |
  10. eclecticbf

    Monte Brown, New York, NY you need to get your Bill and Hillary to have their friend Dan lasater or Bill's brother to get you some of that cocaine they were using and distrbuting in Arkansas so you can at least be fair in talking about candidates drug histories. I don't equate youhthful drug use with mature professionals and a state governor embracing those peddling drugs to others.

    Yeah and she is just not some silly woman standing by her man, but some other man is responsible for her real colors being displayed – not her own. New York, please do the rest of the country and world a favor and keep your Goldwater girl in her recent home. The restt of us are moving on to to set a different tone and make a better country.

    By the way, see if you can get your senator to unseal her college thesis. Inquiring minds want to know what required a presidential order to keep it secret. Obama's past is a open book – tell your senator to open up her life so the American people can truley know her.

    January 16, 2008 05:49 pm at 5:49 pm |
  11. Lisa, Texas

    "Personalize it"
    Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"

    1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

    2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

    3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.

    4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

    5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

    6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

    7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

    8. Keep the pressure on.

    9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

    10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

    11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

    12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    Hillary's Senoir Thesis is available since the Clintons are no longer in office. The thesis is at Wellesley College in archive. Along with everyone else's. The date is 1969.

    Anyone can read about Saul D. Alinsky and get an idea of what Hillary may have written in her thesis. Above is Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that I pasted for a read.

    Interesting, but I wonder if everyone is a radical if you clearly understand each rule he has listed.

    January 17, 2008 09:25 am at 9:25 am |
  12. jan

    In so many ways, this is more about "us" than it is the candidates. Much as we say we hate negative campaigning, it works. We all get steamed up during election time because it's the only time we really have the power to influence. Once someone is elected, we're out of the loop. We've seen candidates brought down year after year by negative ads ads, slurs, inuendos, etc.
    Let's face it-for once, the Dems have 3 really good candidates and should win the election. We don't need to fan the flames here. I would be happy with any one of them as the nominee.

    January 18, 2008 08:47 am at 8:47 am |
  13. DougH

    Sounds like both sides are playing the same old politics...

    A few weeks ago, Obama and Edwards trailing drastically in the polls and decided it was time to attack Hilary... now when Hillary and Bill fight back... they accuse the Clintons of divisive/negative campaigning..

    There's an old saying "Don't start something you can't finish"

    We all know about the Clintons.
    We all know about Edwards..

    As for Obama, his platfrom of change and bringing people together contradicts what he has actually practices in the political world. All one has to do is look at Obama's record to know he votes solely along party lines and never comprimises...

    So who is he ever going to be able to bring people together???

    January 21, 2008 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  14. Bea M

    I am sick of all the hog wash with the Clintons. After what he did in the White House with disrespect to all, then he trashes Obama. give me a break. Its time shut his mouth and crawl in the corner. his wife would do better without him. Obama gets my vote for sure now. the Clintons has seen to that. thanks Clintons for letting me see the light.

    January 24, 2008 01:38 pm at 1:38 pm |
  15. James Martin

    We can shoot the messanger, accept everything at face value, or ,look closely at what is going on. It is the manner this is happening that is disturbing, however some of what the Clinton's are saying is obviously. An example is the donations from the "slum lord" along with the property transactions between Obama and this individual. However, what should be clear is that Hillbilly is throwing things against the wall hoping some will stick. This approach overshadows the few facts that "stick". The clintons have shown they are not far removed from the bush machine that resulted in years of King George". As democrats we need to nominate someone who will not unify the republicans and Clinton haters so the chance to regain the whitehouse is squandered. A second look at Edwards might be inorder.

    January 25, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  16. Adeleke Otunuga

    Bill Clinton as a freelance political attack dog? That's hardly an insult, considering Aristotle's submission that "man is by nature a political animal." Coming back to the issue on hand, I think Bill Clinton as an individual is a husband with clearly divided political interests. Bill Clinton as a former president, however, should be an elder statesman, the father of all, and a discerning public speaker whose words should not only be well-advised, but also laced all the way with the condiments of integrity. Bill Clinton has clearly showed which of the two roles takes upper precedence in his ratings scheme. He's not only entitled to the exercise of his choice, he also deserves whatever controversial responses trail his comments. It is just unfortunate!

    January 25, 2008 06:41 pm at 6:41 pm |
  17. b2008

    Barack Obama has the knowledge, charisma, and know-how to step up to the plate and fairly take on any Republican. It doesn't matter about his past drug use or anything else. He knows how to defend himself and how to make the records straight.

    Also, Mr. Obama plays FAIR, which is more than I can say for the Clintons. They are the most underhanded, spiteful, hateful, sneaky, untruthful democratic opponents I've ever seen. There has been no other presidential opponent as insensitive, with as little character, as the Clintons. May God forgive them for they know not what they do.

    Unless you're blind and deaf, there is no reason why you cannot read the past history of the Clintons and know for yourself they would not be the preferential candidate for this day and age. No one wants to go further back into the past. We want to go forward and the Clintons don't know any forward moves other than negatives ones.

    January 26, 2008 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25