Sunday, April 13, 2008

Bill and Hillary's 'Stockholm Syndrome'

By Robert Parry
April 14, 2008

As one of the few mainstream Washington journalists who defended the Clintons when they were under often unfair attack in the 1990s, it sometimes pains me to watch how that experience shaped – or misshaped – them in their national political revival a decade later.

The two most distinctive features of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – and Bill Clinton’s attempts at a supporting role – are a seemingly bottomless pit of self-pity (excavated in part by the right-wing attack machine years ago) and the copycat use of many right-wing tactics to demonize their opponents and critics.

Read on.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, Mr. Parry, though not altogether foreign or surprising to me, and I am sure many, many others as well. This latest fluff attack on Obama for a handful of words, "bitter" being the most natable one, in regard to Pennsylvanians who have lost good blue-collar jobs is an emphatic example of this. The press and the Governor of Pennsylvania, a Clinton ally, are making a huge deal out of what is literally a non-event. I can't imagine even half the people who heard the speech would have been able to remember those couple of sentences. Now, of course, the entire nation will hear about this for a week.

Those Democrats that say this Darwinesque pursuit for the best candidate is actually good for the party are completely missing the point. Independents, the swing voters, are watching this circus of insignificance and petty vitriol and coming to the conclusion that the Democratic contenders for the presidency are little more than buffoons. Even slow, and slower, George did not have to contend with that image.

Roland Poche
New Orleans

Anonymous said...

http://www.counterpunch.org/
gonzalez02292008.html

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

Complete article and reality check at CounterPunch.org.

Anonymous said...

Your analysis is right on the money. Not only the Clintons have become like their detractors, but they are working with their detractors to destroy Obama and the democratic party. The Clintons and their surrogates are constantly on right-wing media such as FOX to bash Obama. And very chocking, Hillary conducted an interview with the Pittsburg Tribune Review, a paper whose owner spent much of the 90's trying to destroy the Clintons and the democratic party. This is the height of betrayal. No wonder some democrats are using the "w" word to characterize Hillary.

Art said...

It seems to be the real theme of this campaign, especially from Obama supporters, talk out of both sides of your mouth without shame. I guess it's not surprising as the followers are only aping their leaders but come on Mr Parry, you must be smarter than this.

If you support Obama you are supporting the notion of unity, of being honest and respectful to those with whom you disagree rather than smearing them with GOP talking points. To compare the Clintons to Attwater and Rove, two foul human beings who you actually show respect for - "creative brilliance" ffs - (kinda like Obama re:Reagan huh?) is disgusting in itself but to do so and fail to give any concrete examples of Rovian style slander is downright dishonest. You whine about the Clinton's whining and playing the 'gender' card and claim this is equivalent to Willie Horton, Whitewater, Swift Boats and the whole friggin' Bush Jr administration! It's more comparable to the Obama campaign whining and playing the 'race' card every time it's criticized. Try and be the great journalist you claim to be by showing some objectivity, both Obama and Clinton are deeply manipulative, ruthless politicians with moderately progressive policy positions, grow up.

Art said...

It seems to be the real theme of this campaign, especially from Obama supporters, talk out of both sides of your mouth without shame. I guess it's not surprising as the followers are only aping their leaders but come on Mr Parry, you must be smarter than this.

If you support Obama you are supporting the notion of unity, of being honest and respectful to those with whom you disagree rather than smearing them with GOP talking points. To compare the Clintons to Attwater and Rove, two foul human beings who you actually show respect for - "creative brilliance" ffs - (kinda like Obama re:Reagan huh?) is disgusting in itself but to do so and fail to give any concrete examples of Rovian style slander is downright dishonest. You whine about the Clinton's whining and playing the 'gender' card and claim this is equivalent to Willie Horton, Whitewater, Swift Boats and the whole friggin' Bush Jr administration! It's more comparable to the Obama campaign whining and playing the 'race' card every time it's criticized. Try and be the great journalist you claim to be by showing some objectivity, both Obama and Clinton are deeply manipulative, ruthless politicians with moderately progressive policy positions, grow up.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. Parry. At the beginning of this primary process, I was SO happy with our choices.When it got down to the two, and it was my time to vote, I voted for Obama, with the thought in back of my mind that I would be equally happy with Hillary. I ALWAYS supported Bill Clinton. But they have taken too many cheap shots, and I am disappointed to have to say now that I see why so many people disliked them in the 90's. As a woman, it is a great disappointment to me, because even though I would vote for her if she is the nominee, I would be less than thrilled about it.

Anonymous said...

Jim says,

"But the Clintons thought that the Republican meanness would subside once they took office, that they would be given a fair chance to govern."

How do you know that? Your signature model Piezoelectric Head Cage, again.

"Hillary Clinton also never really came clean in her explanation."

She should have kept the controversy going? Are you daft? It was explained to most people's satisfaction... not everyone's but most.

"– with Bill Clinton portraying Obama as the black candidate in South Carolina"

Clinton was answering questions from the press ABOUT the race factor in SC. Cong. Meeks stood right effin next to him and has said the SAME thing.He wasn't fuckin "portraying" ANYTHING.

"The recurring complaints about an anti-Clinton media bias..."

You DOUBT that charge. Try turning on your TV once in awhile or read almost ANY liberal blog...you couldn't fail to see that was absolutely true.

"To some, it’s hard to decide if the Clintons are suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome"

Who's the "some, Bob, you? I've never heard of this stupid assessment anywhere but here.

And, BTW, please use some of the donations to improve this impossible comment page.

John Edwards fan said...

Robt Parry sez: To some, it’s hard to decide if the Clintons are suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which they now identify with the cruel tactics of their past Republican tormentors, or if the Clintons are so consumed with self-pity that they would rather smash Democratic hopes this fall than face personal political rejection now.

Huh? Bill and Hillary have done nothing to deserve this kind of low-down, right-wing gutter trash talk from a self-described early truth teller.

I am beginning to think that the Obsessed Obama Oracles are already searching desperately for someone (or "some two" -- Bill & Hillary) to blame when Mr. Walk-on-Water gets trounced in the General Election.

Barack Obama and his male-bashing wife have provided enough material to the GOP-supporting 527s to make certain that there will be no President Obama sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Michelle Obama's rude, sexist anti-man remarks will turn off the white male vote in the GE.

Take it to the bank.

Obama's loss will be a family matter. His fault -- her fault.

financial advisor said...

How's that fundraiser coming, Bob?