Did Clinton *really* undercut Obama? Or, the media gins up a controversy.

[Bucky]

First off, it's very important that you read this article two ways.

Bill Clinton in Denver again undercuts Obama
By Sam Youngman, TheHill.com

DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium.

The headline sets us up. The notions and rumors are already rampant that Clinton, who was very tough on Obama during the primary, is venting his displeasure at the primary elections' outcome. Given the power of words on paper, we brace ourselves to expect the worst. This, if it happened as presented, certain is pointing in a bad direction for when Clinton addresses the nation Wednesday night.

But let's look at what Bill Clinton actually said: "Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote? This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

On the face of it, Bill Clinton could be giving subtle signals that he wants some Democrats to vote for McCain, if you choose to read that into it. OR he could be just kind of pontificating on some abstract intellectual quandries completely without regard for this year's election. Given only this evidence, we have to choose what Clinton we choose to see. Is he plotting our ruin as so many Fox newscasters have warned us he would in the past? Or is he, as any other people would do in a time of loss, turning philosophical and playing out unanchored what-ifs in his mind?

The reporter in this case certainly made his supposition known. Losing any mask of objectivity, Sam Youngman of TheHill.com wrote this in the 'pause' (emphasis added): "The former president posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee."

That's a good start, but hardly damning. Youngman had to go inside Clinton's brain to ferret out the full "truth": Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause...

Might be taken? Might be taken by whom? His job only half done, Youngman next crawls inside everyone else's mind and tells us how to think, and in this case how to think paranoiacally: The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

Ah, the Phantom They. The same They who we used in high school to convince our friends that everyone was smoking pot, so they might as well join in. Now the infamous They is back trying to convince you that you shouldn't trust that the Clintons will support Obama because, you know, They all know how two-faced and conniving the Clintons are. If you take the Clintons at face value, you're not as smart as They are.

From this charming escalation of what-ifs, we build to the crescendo of "not supporting... if not implicitly undercutting him." It's a long train from Bill Clinton's thinking out loud to him masterfully scheming to destroy that upstart Barack Obama, a snake in Obama's Mile High Eden. Then, to sucker you into reading this whole mess, TheHill.com takes the most outlandish, if still nuanced, charge of "if not implicitly undercutting him" and dumbs it down to an outright assertion in its headline. "If not implicitly" is gone and the article states forthrightly "Clinton undercuts Obama" as if the Big Dog were actually sawing the planks out from under the lectern.

We have to figure out which Bill Clinton is talking here: is it the scheming Macchiavellian puppetmaster undermining his own party for his wife's benefit in 2012... or the semi-retired philanthropist noodling around ideas in his head as he grieves this downturn in his life-partner's career track?

If you're gonna crawl inside Bill Clinton's head I suggest taking a simpler road. Bill Clinton feels guilty. He busted his behind to get his wife nominated for president and they failed--failed by inches. He knows she sacrificed much to help his career and he probably felt like he could finally pay her back for all she's done for him. Not only did she fall short by inches, she fell short while he was making more than a couple of rhetorical fumbles along the road. I'm sure he's dealing with real grief.

I'm no qualified psychologist, but I am certified to teach social studies by the state of Texas. To me, this whole Candidate X and Candidate Y business sounds like he's in the bargaining phase of his grief.

And he's getting older, too. The old lion is being replaced (Ted Kennedy showing up last night might have been a perfect trigger for such thoughts). And look who he and his wife are being replaced by! A sharp former law professor who shoots to the top of the heap in his forties, married to one of the smartest lawyers from Chicago--Hillary's home town--the home town she left just to help him run for office. It's like God's playing a joke on him. The Obamas aren't replacing the Clintons... the Obamas are the Clintons--quite possibly a new and improved version. She's a Hillary who can give a great speech. He's a Bill who keeps his pants zipped. Policy wise, they are distinguished only by the minutest of differences.

So what did Bill Clinton do--undercut Obama? If you think that, you don't know Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has always been a think-out-loud guy. He's always spoken in abstractions and rambled off into wide ranging territory when he lets down his hair down. And he always gets burned by it. Remember the controversy over him saying "that dumbass don't-tell policy"? For two weeks the wingnuts assailed him for being a crass rube betraying his high office with coarse speech. Only it turned out, when the reporter checked back with his tape recordings, that he said "that don't ask don't tell policy".

The media lives to fuck up Bill Clinton. That they find this year an opening to drive a wedge between the Clintons and the Democratic base is the professional equivalent of Cindy McCain's childhood Christmases. They pounce and slobber. Wait till Wednesday night, my friends. You'll see where Bill Clinton stands. He stands with Barack Obama and he stands with us.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

1. (Shrug) I think it can be interpreted either way, which is the problem.

[Bucky]

2. And yet I see DUers happily going along with the most negative Fox-like spin on it

Occam's razor: is Clinton literally working to undercut the Democrats? Is that really the simpler answer than he was just musing some thoughts around?