Hillary and Bill Clinton Go Separate Ways for 2018 Midterm Elections

[brooklynite]

New York Times:

For years they dominated the party, brandishing their powerful financial network and global fame to pick favorites for primary elections and lift Democrats even in deep-red states. They were viewed as a joint entity, with a shared name that was the most powerful brand in Democratic politics: the Clintons.

But in the 2018 election campaign, Hillary and Bill Clinton have veered in sharply different directions. Mrs. Clinton appears determined to play at least a limited role in the midterms, bolstering longtime allies and raising money for Democrats in safely liberal areas. Her husband has been all but invisible.

And both have been far less conspicuous than in past election cycles, but for different reasons: Mrs. Clinton faces distrust on the left, where she is seen as an avatar of the Democratic establishment, and raw enmity on the right. Mr. Clinton has been largely sidelined amid new scrutiny of his past misconduct with women.

Mrs. Clinton is expected to break her virtual hiatus from the campaign trail this week, when she will endorse Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York in a contested Democratic primary, her spokesman, Nick Merrill, confirmed — a move sure to enrage liberal activists seeking Mr. Cuomo’s ouster at the hands of Cynthia Nixon, the actress turned progressive insurgent. Mrs. Clinton has also recorded an automated phone call endorsing Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic leader in the Georgia House, who is competing for the party’s nomination for governor on Tuesday.

[MrsCoffee]

2. What a load of baloney.

[RoBear]

3. My reaction exactly.

[DURHAM D]

4. Agree. nt

[Wwcd]

9. K & R your post.

Unbelievably embarrassing to still be trying to stand him anywhere near her life's work on liberal & future forward progressive policy.

TV talk shows & campaign photo ops isn't liberal nor progressive.

Their history of consistant dedication speaks for itself.

[Hortensis]

23. The OP's citing THE NYT on the Clintons???!!!

The same NYT that published 2 years of relentlessly negative content on Hillary Clinton before the election and on October 31, 2016 published a major lie to help Trump get elected?

THIS is the one, the NYTimes's Oct 31 "Halloween Surprise," which built on FBI Director Comey's October 28 "surprise" that suggested Hillary might go to prison after all.

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

The NYT claims officials (had to be from Comey's FBI) asked them to restyle their story to be less negative, so they did -- they gave it a deceptive headline suggesting innocence and buried the lead in paragraph 10 as a toss-off: that the FBI, far from believing there was no link to Russia, was seriously investigating evidence of many possible connections.

Media experts concluded their investigations and conclusions into the NYT behaviors months ago: Guilty.

From the WaPo:

New York Times acknowledges it buried the lead in pre-election Russia-Trump story

In late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

That’s one heck of a concession: We buried the lead! In their book “Russian Roulette,” authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report that editors at the New York Times “cast the absence of a conclusion as the article’s central theme rather than the fact of the investigation itself,” contrary to the wishes of the reporters.

The article in question was published on Oct. 31, 2016, and it has received a great deal of hindsight-aided scrutiny for the role it may have played in easing voters’ concerns about ties between Donald Trump and Russia. ...

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/05/16/new-york-times-acknowledges-it-buried-the-lead-in-pre-election-russia-trump-story/?utm_term=.8d56f5a54a1d

[still_one]

5. Gee, I might get the impression that the NY Times is trying to stir up disunity within the

Democratic party.

"a move sure to enrage liberal activists"?

Get off your high horse NY Times

[Cha]

7. yeah, let 'em get

pissed.

Who's Sanders going to endorse?

[SharonClark]

15. The line

"a move sure to enrage liberal activists seeking Mr. Cuomo’s ouster at the hands of Cynthia Nixon," caught my eye as well.

Such a stupid statement.

[still_one]

16. Exactly

[Cha]

6. I'm so sick of seeing

"establishment" used as an insult. I love our Dems like John Lewis to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary's out there working it.. Supporting our Dems.. she's a fucking Team Player.. how about that?



https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210637011

[still_one]

13. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[sunRISEnow]

17. I agree. There is a lot of good and validity in establishment. PP is establishment after all.

I support that organization strongly. Emily's list was another defined as establishment. Our establishment kicks ass.

[Mike Nelson]

8. Trash...

...who wrote that... Mrs. Clinton's limited role is welcome. Mr. Clinton deserves some time off the campaign trail - he should be relaxing and enjoying his advancing years. This writer would be critical of any involvement or lack of involvement from the Clintons, I'm sure...

[patricia92243]

10. I think some of Bill Clinton's not campaigning as heavily is his health. He looked very

frail the last time I saw him on tv a couple of years ago.

[mnhtnbb]

12. Bill has a limited appearance in the new movie, RBG about Ruth Bader Ginsburg

since he nominated her to the Supreme Court. Bill looked very frail in the interview.

I saw the movie yesterday and I highly recommend it. Probably won't play for long, so get out to see it if it is near you.

[patricia92243]

14. Was it a theatre? My tiny town doesn't have anything except the blockbusters. I would LOVE

to see it if I can find out how to access it. Thanks for posting this.

[mnhtnbb]

19. Limited distribution in theaters.

Put in your postal code at the top of this screen where it says showtimes and tickets to see if it is playing anywhere near you.

https://www.imdb.com/showtimes/title/tt7689964?cl&pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=11468689-c6cf-4171-acbb-3b9e94cd223b&pf_rd_r=3N5PTP3FJSXQZX6Q0RB0&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=15021&pf_rd_i=tt7689964&ref_=tt_wbr_sh


It's playing both in Vero Beach and Sarasota if you want to make a day trip to see it!

[mcar]

11. Keep pushing those anti-Dem memes, NYT

[ehrnst]

18. Doing work to help Democrats get elected. Team players. (nt)

[karynnj]

20. Remember 2014 -- and consider who this helps

In 2014, there were many articles speaking of how Obama was a negative in many many races. The solution offered was that the Clintons were not negative and they could help in Senate races such as the ones in Kentucky and Georgia. I wonder now if this - whether designed to or not -- simply helped the Republicans.

As that story was repeated, I wonder if it gained credence among independents and led them to the opinion that even Democrats did not really approve of President Obama's actions. Then when (I say predictably ) the Democrats lost in some of these high profile races - GA, KY -- it was said by some of the same people that this might mean that the Clintons were able to win over these people either.

Where are the stories suggesting that having Trump campaign in many states could be negative? He is certainly far more controversial among his party and the independents than Obama was. Note also that races that should have been won by the Republicans were lost after he appeared. Yet, I think the idea that Trump campaigning helps the Republicans ..... just as having Democrats campaign would. In BOTH cases, they will need to make sure that they do not eclipse the actual candidate.

There are MANY places where ANY top Democrat could give a good speech in front of a large crowd - that would cheer them even before they started and would end up energized. In fact, it doesn't have to be a rally -- consider the number accounts of Democrats being cheered when noticed at a Broadway show. Nearly every large urban CITY in this country is very heavily Democratic. What if, all these elder statesmen in the party - the Obamas, the Clintons, Kerry, Biden, etc all speak to people at rallies in the big cities of specifically calling on them to become engaged and active and to support the Democrats running in that state. EVERY one of them already have given tons of speeches over their careers that speak to just this. Updated to now, they could light a fire that could get volunteers in the state and (simultaneously) get people motivated to vote.

[George II]

21. You can't compare a sitting President campaigning in the 2014 midterms with....

....an ex-President who has been out of office for eighteen years and Hillary Clinton who hasn't held elected office in eight years.

[karynnj]

22. You are completely missing my point

My point is that we should not allow journalists' opinions to make us hesitate from using the people we have with the most name recognition to get people out in the places where people would still be excited to see them.

My point in 2014 is that I think the "analysis" likely did end up limiting Obama's involvement. It also set up the Clintons as saviors (in races very unlikely to be won) and then rejected them too.

My point is that there are urban areas where any of the people I named could bring out people who might not come out in the early stages when our candidates do not have huge name recognition.

Here is a real example, in 2005, John Kerry agreed to go to 5 different cities in NJ for the Democratic candidate in the Governor's race. In each city, he was able to get a crowd of people interested in seeing him in person. In each city, people had the opportunity to sign to support either Senator Corzine and/or the local Democratic party. I know in my county (one of the most Republican), the volunteers they got were very needed and valued and helpful in keeping the Republican margin in our county.