There wasn’t a doubt in my mind the race-baiting that occurred in the 2008 primaries wouldn’t stick to former Pres. Bill Clinton. It was utter bullshit.
I also have no doubt that Barack Obama never believed it of either Clinton. You don’t tap a racist to be your secretary of state, including if you think her husband is a bigot.
It was simply a useful political cudgel for Obama, Axelrod and company at a time candidate Obama needed a knock out punch. It was partisan warfare. His team was also sure the charge would be sucked up by traditional and new media, who were decidedly on Obama’s side.
It’s all been forgotten, which presents us with a teachable moment on race. In America, we simply let it go. It will all blow over.
So I’ve been waiting for Bill Clinton’s poll numbers to rise for some time. They don’t call him the Comeback Kid for nothing.
Sixty-one percent of people questioned in a Gallup survey say they have a favorable opinion of Clinton. That’s nine points higher than the 52 percent who say they see Obama in a favorable light. The poll indicates that 45 percent say they have a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush.
Gallup says this is the first time in their polling that Clinton’s favorable rating has eclipsed that of Obama. Clinton’s numbers are up nine points from the summer of 2008, when he was branded by many people as playing a too partisan political role in helping his wife during her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination against Obama.
If Mr. Clinton was actually a racist or if anyone really believed it, beyond the partisan Obamaphile hacks, former Pres. Bill Clinton would never have recovered. But he has and for good reason. His roots belie the race-baiting lies of a partisan fight, which goes back decades to Bill Clinton’s foundation.
[...] From the start, Clinton also had an uncanny ability to forge a bond with African American voters. Judge L.T. Simes II understood why this was so: Simes had grown up picking cotton in Helena, Arkansas, at a time when the Mississippi Delta of Arkansas was predominantly segregated and inhospitable toward African Americans. … Simes immediately took note that Clinton, unlike most of the stodgy “old-boy” professors, treated black students with the utmost fairness and respect in the classroom. After becoming governor, Clinton bucked the system by appointing highly qualified blacks to key positions in state government. Simes himself became the first African American to sere as chairman of the Arkansas Soil and Water Commission. Although Clinton paid dearly, in political terms, for eschewing the prevailing culture by appointing blacks, that didn’t slow him. During the governor’s 1980 reelection campaign, Clitnon brought Simes along to a country club in an elite section of eastern Arkansas where segregatrion was still firmly entrenched. …Clinton was defeated by Frank White that fall… “We’ll be back,” he said. “We’re not going to let the people down.” – Ken Gormley, “The Death of American Virtue” (pages 22-23)
Bill Clinton’s outreach to African Americans has been a bedrock of his life.
Reaching out and finding common ground goes to the life Shirley Sherrod has lived as well. There’s been a lot of talk today about her father being shot by a white farmer over a “dispute over a few cows,” and how that informed her life. Talking about a teachable moment, Ms. Sherrod offers another one, especially for the Obama administration. Ms. Sherrod’s husband was Charles Sherrod, who was mentioned briefly today on “Morning Joe” as someone whose name should have been as familiar as “Jackson or Al Sharpton” to the NAACP. If we want to be honest, the teachable moment on race cascades outward to include Pres. Obama and his administration, who have missed the opportunity by design.
It shouldn’t be surprising that this is the second time the Obama administration has tripped on race, the first being when Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley collided and Pres. Obama weighed in. Ta-Nehisi Coate:
The argument has been made that this isn’t Obama, just the people working under him. That theory elides the responsibility of leaders to set a tone. The tone that Obama has set, in regards to race, is to retreat with great velocity in the face of anything that can be defined as “racial.” Granted, this has been politically smart. Also granted, Obama has done it with nuance. But it can not be expected that the president’s subordinates will share that nuance.
More disturbingly, this is what happens when you treat the arrest of a black man, in his home, as something that can be fixed over beers. [..]
I do not expect Barack Obama to condemn the Tea Party’s racist elements, any more than I expect Ben Jealous to lead the war in Afghanistan. But I do not expect him, or his administration, to make the work of the NAACP harder, to contradict them for doing that which the administration can not. I do not expect them to minimize those elements, thus minimizing the NAACP’s fight, and then accede, to people who are pulling from the darkest, vilest reaches of the American psyche.
The “beer summit” was supposed to be a teachable moment to move us beyond racial conflict, remember?
When Andrew Breitbart, a known wingnut assassin who lynched Shirley Sherrod, is trusted over a woman who worked her whole life fighting the civil rights battles of the ’60s that have yet to be won, therein lies an ugly reality, however difficult to accept.
Whatever teachable moment people crave on race, we live in the era of Pres. Obama who stated plainly a long time ago that he’s not interested in “the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s.”
While Barack Obama was rising, Shirley Sherrod quietly and steadfastly did the work that the NAACP and other civil rights leaders from the 1960s have been doing to make his presidency possible.
So, here we are looking at Ms. Sherrod’s firing hoping yet again for another moment to make us all wiser on race.
That’s a difficult leap when the person at the top hasn’t said one word on record and in public on what happened under his watch and by his administration, while Sect. Vilsack takes the heat. Now, it’s Mr. Vilsack’s fault the “harassed” Sherrod phone calls came, but also the firing occurred, though it’s inconceivable that this action wasn’t ordered from way on high.
So the teachable moment will have to wait.
As for former Pres. Bill Clinton’s predictable, if gradual, rehabilitation we have all witnessed in 2010, not only has the Big Dog returned, but he’s doing things for Democrats Obama can’t come close to doing.
Pres. Obama’s behind it now, which won’t do Dems any good in November. But as I keep saying, even with more Republicans, which won’t impede Pres. Obama’s continuing political push to the right, the President can make gains and recover before the 2012 slugfest begins.
This reality is aided by the fact that the Republicans, including Sarah Palin’s Tea Party branch, have no new ideas. Newt Gingrich’s railing bigotry, coming after Sarah Palin’s Ground Zero anti-mosque Facebook post, is all simply a blast back to the Bush past. Republicans may buy it, but independents will not and neither will even disaffected Democrats.
Though it’s a cinch Pres. Obama will have a much rougher fight on his hands in 2012 than he ever did against McCain-Palin. …and it’s very likely that former Pres. Bill Clinton and perhaps even Hillary will be one of Pres. Obama’s strongest advocates when the time comes.
Teach that.
Great post, thanks for this and for your website.
Thanks, Isis, it’s a privilege to have readers like you.
I feel Bill Clinton has been more successful with regards to liberalism after he left office than while he was in office.
All Presidents experience a growth in stature after they leave office, only to even out after historians have had a chance to fully review the impacts of their Presidency over decades. And Bill Clinton is no different.
But perhaps with the increase in longevity and the unique nature of Bill Clinton, we are seeing a unique rise in stature.
What do you mean the increase in longevity? Regan lived a long time,of course he was dibilitated but Bush Senior jumped out of an airplane for his 80th BD, Ford lived to a ripe old age,Jimmy Carter is still going strong. LBJ had heart disease when he was president and stopped completely taking precautions with his health when he left office.I’m pretty sure that Nixon was in his eighties.
It is kind of a myth that people are living so much longer now than they did when SS was enacted. Back then lifespan satistics were scewed by childhood diseases. Now men live about three years longer after age sixy five than they did then and women about 4 and a half years longer. Don’t believe the Repub talking points on this issue.
I just ordered a book that explodes some of these myths. We all need to get educated before the assault on SS starts.
You are right.
I was thinking that maybe recent increased longevity would see more Presidents taking a greater role after they leave office. But my theory is wrong.
True fact NoFortunateSon…
and let’s not forget where Clinton’s numbers were coming up to his first midterms… someplace in the low 40′s if memory serves… and we all remember how those midterms turned out…
…and after that midterm massacre was his monumental sell out to the right, “necessary” for him to claw his way back into the reelection ring, and that’s how we ended up with NAFTA.
I am no Obamabot, but Clinton was no angel either…
The difference between the two in midterms is after this november, when Obama finally realizes he is in trouble, he will have nothing left to bargain with. I wonder what river he will sell us down to get reelected. He started out so far to the center that if he moves any further right, he might as well just change parties…
As far as Clinton’s numbers and him helping Obama in 2012, just remember that Clintons numbers are always higher when he is not running his mouth…
I am truely about done with the both of them….
</cynical rant>
Nonsense. Mere nonsensical vitriol. Have a cookie.
Explain.
Mind you, this is favorability, not job approval. But…
Obama’s job approval at this point in his Presidency is the exact same as Bill Clinton’s and Ronald Regan’s. It’s also the same as Jimmy Carter’s.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-approval-ratings-economy-link/story?id=11182543
If the economy begins to turn around, they will be carving Barack Obama’s face on Mount Rushmore. If not, he will be in for a real fight in 2012. It’s all about the economy.
To say that Obama’s tepid approval is about any of these small things like the BP Oval Office address or this latest trip by his administration on Sherrod Brown is emotion, not political analysis.
Presidential approval follows unemployment more than any other factor by a long shot. Look at this one for Regan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/Reagan%20Job%20Approval.jpg
And this one for Eisenhower:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/Eisenhower%20Job%20Approval.jpg
In fact, the correlation between Obama’s job approval in Gallup and the Gallup response on economic outlook correlates almost 100%. The better people feel the economy is doing, the better the more they approve of Barack Obama.
no, jinbaltimore right. I am getting my dates mixed up… NAFTA was in 93. it was Healthcare that tanked his Clintons numbers before the midterms. but they were they were much lower than mid 50′s.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had the same levels of job approval by this point in their presidency.
I think Barack Obama will lose far fewer seats because he is stealing the middle ground from the Republicans.
What middle ground?
Good point.
As much as we Obama supporters hate to see it, Barack Obama is Bill Clinton circa 1996. Obama has sat himself down square in the middle of the American political spectrum and is body blocking the Republicans from an end run around towards moderation.
The GOP has to be where they are, out on the loony fringe because one step away from that ledge puts them one step closer to Obama.
Despite all the media hysteria, I firmly believe (no pun intended) that the GOP is between a rock and a hard place. If they fail to take the house, they are done for a long time.
The portrayal of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton as racially insensitive was the lowlight of the 2008 primary. Shame on the MSM for not ripping Obama and Axelrod to shreds over it.
Both Clintons have a long documented history of fighting for social justice and for anyone to have implied otherwise was reprehensible.
But the mainstream media had their mission: Elevate Obama and crucify Hillary. Whatever it takes.
Sure worked well in the SC primary.
Glad to see that both Clintons have recovered nicely from these ludicrous charges.
Racism is like a bear trap for recent Democratic Presidents. And both the Clintons and Obama have sprung it many times through their hsitory.
For Bill Clinton, it was Sista Souljah and the attorney he wrongly fired over her accused racism (can’t remember the name but it was similar to present story with Ms. Sherrod). For Barack Obama, it was the Cambridge PD and now this. For Hillary Clinton, it was a poor choice of words in South Carolina.
Not her words… And the whole S Carolina fiasco was ABSURD… and Obama ust let it happen… all the while race-baiting himself. Anything it takes to win I guess.
Keep forgetting to use Taylor’s new preview (which I love!).
This fiasco is pretty absurd too. The Administration got punked by a Right Wing hack.
Yes …absurd
For example:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2008/03/10/obama-plays-the-hoodwink-card-in-mississippi/
Racism is like a bear trap for recent Democratic Presidents. And both the Clintons and Obama have sprung it many times through their hsitory.
_________________
“Correctimundo,” as Samuel Jackson would say. And the woman you are thinking of is Lani Guinier. She was a pathbreaking legal scholar on voting rights, and she was forced to withdraw her nomination after the Right assailed her as a “quota queen.”
Thanks ogenec! I always get her mixed up with the one who had nanny problems.
WJC should have stuck up for Lani Guiner, IMO.
Thanks for the name. I remembered the story of Lani Guinier, but couldn’t remember her name. Sister Souljah was even more shameful, in my opinion, as that was premeditated.
The point of bringing these stories up is not to diminish the foolishness of the snap judgment considering the source and the fear of Fox. It’s that in our rush to criticize (and plenty o’ criticism is due), we’re not addressing the source of the problem.
What words were spoken by Hillary?
That’s what I said above! I think NFS was referring to campaigns in general.
I still think the whole S. Carolina fiasco was absurd.. Basically Obama got a pass for his race-baiting… but the Clintons were screwed.
I agree with you, Whitepaw. I remember all the okie-dokie and hoodwinking talk that went on. I kept thinking to myself, are they talking about the Clintons? It sounded so incredible to me.
The Clinton’s just politically stepped in dog s***. It happens to the best of them. They said the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Some words could be misconstrued, and the next thing you know, we have the turning point of the campaign.
But NFS…
No one (MSM) paid attention at all… to Obama’s “hoodwinking” comments..
Nothing… nada..
Depends on what the media wants to portray… when it comes to what you step in…
LL — Just a question. Do you ignore my posts? I never get a reply from you. It’s OK if you do… just wondering.
Sorry whitepaw~ On days that I am a granny nanny I dip in and out and sometimes don’t read as carefully as I should and then I make a point tht someone else has made. I apologize!
I always enjoy your posts. I always get a vision of where you are living…one of the prettiest parts of our country.
No worries.. I’m actually surprised I even asked the question.. I enjoy your posts very much!
Hillary said something about it taking a president (she was referringto LBJ) to actually get civil rights legislation passed which the MSM ran with. Technically, she was correct but it was taken in the MSM as an affront to the importance of Martin Luther King’s sacrifice. The other incident was a remark about “working class whites” of which I don’t remember the exact details.
I agree about the Lani Guinier episode as it does echo in some way the decision of the Obama WH re/Sherrod (whom I deeply respect and fell she is a role model for the rest of us). I also admire & respect Guinier for her, as Ogenec said “pathbreaking legal scholar on voting rights” and was not happy when he withdrew her name in nomination for Assistant Attorney for Civil Right’s in 1993. And, let’s get all the facts accurately. Bill Clinton never fired Guinier because she never worked in the position she was nominated for. So, as I said in my opening sentence “the Lani Guinier episode…does echo IN SOME WAY the firing of Sherrod” in that both Adminisration’s caved to right wing falsehoods. Guinier was employed by Harvard at the time. She didn’t have to worry where her next pay check came from unlike Mrs. Sherrod. That’s a meaningfull difference between the two, imo.
Here’s the Wiki bio of Lani Guinier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lani_Guinier And here is the relevant passage related to this topic.
“Guinier is probably most well-known as President Bill Clinton’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in April 1993. A combination of political factors led to her nomination being withdrawn in June 1993. Guinier was attacked by Clint Bolick of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page as one of “Clinton’s Quota Queens”.[3] (The title, some said reminiscent of the denigrating term “welfare queen”, was chosen not by author Bolick but by editors at the Wall Street Journal.)
Others described her views as “anti-constitutional” because of her views on using proportional representation in local elections. In addition, Democratic Senators such as David Pryor of Arkansas and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts informed President Clinton that her interviews with Senators were going poorly and urged him to withdraw the nomination.
According to Clinton’s autobiography, Democratic Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, the only African-American who was serving in the upper chamber at that time, also urged the President to withdraw Guinier’s nomination. President Clinton took the advice of these elected officials and withdrew her nomination, claiming he was unfamiliar with her writing and that he didn’t realize that she advocated pure racial quotas as opposed to affirmative action, as opponents had charged. The charge was false; Guinier had many times explicitly rejected the use of racial quotas in her law review articles.”
About Sista Souljah. I have very little sympathy for this woman & if I were in Clinton’s position I woulld have done the same. There are some things said by people that are just not acceptable or should not be tolerated then and now. And, if her words were spoken by a white person or Asian person or Hispanic person or Native American person they would have been/be disavowed by all pols & any person.
Google is your friend. Here is part of what she said, the relevant part that prompted Clinton to criticize what she said when he found himself at a forum with Sista Souljah in 1992 before the general election.
SISTER SOULJAH: I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? You understand what I’m saying? In other words, white people, this government, and that mayor were well aware of the fact that black people were dying every day in Los Angeles under gang violence. So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?
…….. You ever heard of Hammurabi’s Code? Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? It’s revenge. I mean, that seems so simple. I don’t even understand why anybody [would] ask me that question. You take something from me, I take something from you. You cut me, I cut you. You shoot me, I shoot you. You kill my mother, I kill your mother.”
How could most anyone let alone a pol running for POTUS & who was attending the same forum with Souljah not critcize her or anyone for spewing such vitriol? If we are honest in our answer, we would answer “not a one of them would have reacted differently”.
So imo, the Sista Souljah example was not the same as the Lani Guinier example when trying to make a similar comparison between what Clinton did in the Guinier example & what Obama did in Sherrod’s case.
Bottom line: both Clinton & Obama were equally wrong and didn’t show the courage they should have in both cases,
Btw, it was not long after Guinier, that the Clinton’s started to fight back against the right wing nutzoid’s & learned how to deal with these hate mongering and baiting f..ktards.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9244/clinton.jpg
Love it!
Awwww!
Bill Clinton is the “come back kid” because he keeps coming back! He won’t lay down for the haters. He just keeps going forward doing good.Bless him!
That’s my biggest fear about Obama. That he is too cautious.
Then again, since Barack Obama has been the frontrunner ever since he won Iowa, he’s rarely, if ever, had nothing to lose.
I agree with you, here, NFS. Maybe I’m wrong about strategy, but I believe Obama should have really run like the wind with his victory in both the presidency and Congress, believing he had a mandate to deliver change the public wanted. He had the media on his side then and a lot of good will. But he decided to pursue a more bipartisan approach. Maybe he will be proven correct in time, I don’t know. I have always thought he would be at his best with a bold push to the left for Main Street. Just my opinion.
Me too…
But from what I have read, they are trying to emulate 1982 Regan and avoid the perils of 1994 Clinton, even though the political ideologies are reversed. Regan ran to the left when he was elected before swinging back hard right. Clinton ran to the left but got rebuked.
Taylor, thanks so much for this great piece.So true on all points.
While Barack Obama was rising, Shirley Sherrod quietly and steadfastly did the work that the NAACP and other civil rights leaders from the 1960s have been doing to make his presidency possible
Especially this one!
You bet, LLady.
I know, right? We just can’t keep fightin’ for social justice, even if it benefits people. It’s just to f-ing divisive.
Run away, run away.
Call me sappy, but I love this picture of the two presidents. There’s something about it.
I hope Bill Clinton goes to town in 2010 on the GOP.
What a week this has been. The white house jumped the gun including the media. I have a funny feeling this might end up happening again, hopefully I am wrong.
My concern is that Breitbart, Drudge, and FOX now know they can punk this Administration.
Next time, the story might be true, and the Administration could be caught reacting too slow.
Both parties have their problems and neither are innocent. I don’t no if the republicans are going to take the house or not but they will win more seats and end the democrats majority. We have a party in charge of everything. I didn’t like when the republicans did and I don’t like when the democrats did. I believe a party can abuse power if they have too much power. I strongly believe in check and balance. I just wished there was moderate republicans, but it seems those days are gone until they see the light, if they ever do. Sadly the Tea Party has a congressional caucus now and if they win more seats this year, we might be seeing more of those people. I believe if the economy does not turn around people are not going to care who that person is as long as they have a R next to their name.
The tea party caucus won’t win seats.
The Republicans may win the House, narrowly. They will not win the Senate.
We do have moderate Republicans. Their names are: “Plantation” Blanche Lincoln, Ben “Cornhusker Kickback” Nelson, Joe “The Cretin” Lieberman, Mary “Drill Baby Drill” Landrieu, “Extend the Bush Tax Cits” Kent Conrad.
and don’t forget Barack “Bipartisan” Obama
I think Shirley Sherrod is a woman of great courage. She overcame great heartache and bitterness that many of us would have had if in her shoes, to reach out and help others through great inner strength. She was only being honest in explaining her journey to racial reconciliation, which I admire. She teaches us a great lesson.
I caught Ms. Sherrod on ABC, she said she was upset that she’d been called a racist, afterall she’d spend entire life fighting against….welcome to what was said to Bill and Hillary Clinton, imagine they felt pretty much as she did. She seems like the kind of lady that will learn from the experience of being called racist…maybe she’ll have some empathy for what Hillary and Bill felt…maybe it won’t happen again to the Clinton’s.
Hey Taylor & Friends,
I am the new guy on here, just wanted to say Hi and I love your site and have been reading it for some time.
Finished with Obama and the Democrats. I will not vote this November. It will be my first time NOT to vote in an election or primary since 1980.
To me, Obama just seems like an extension of Clinton’s Third Way rail of politics. Look at Obama’s Cabinet, its like a Who’s Who of former Clinton servants who were a failure the last time around.
The Big Dog is making a comeback. What does that tell us? Dubya ain’t far behind. How does that make you feel? It sickens me to no end.
I wish Obamas, the Clintons and all the other DLCers would go to Hell. None of them are progressives/liberals. All just ruling elitists, like Republicans, just better orators than the bourgeois Bush family. Big deal. All sell government as the solution, when they are the problem by virtue of being owned by the very corporations/banks that run our gov’t. Timothy Geitner and Larry Summers are proteges of Bob Rubin and served under Bill Clinton. Remember Bob Rubin?
So Taylor, why are you still playing this game, Obamaphiles vs Clintonistas? Both governed or are governing way to the right of the promises they made that put them in office. Get over it, the Clintons and Obamas are no good. You are way too smart to continue on this silly path. Not allowing Democrats to hide behind the Republican boogeyman should be “our” mission and not who was right or wrong in 2008.
Thanks, Ronc99. Appreciate your thoughts, with anyone willing to share their voting tilt especially. I’ve heard from a lot of people in the last 16 months or so who are moving into the independent slot, with many of the women I hear from striking in 2010.
There is nothing in this essay about Clinton’s governing, not one word. This is about a teachable moment on race, which no one is going to get from the Obama White House. It’s an important point. If you’re reading anyone who is providing cover for the Obama administration on the Sherrod firing, run for your life. They don’t belong in the political analysis business.
The photo JimK points to in the link above is instructive, with Ms. Sherrod’s whole life, beginning with her husband, the civil rights hero Charles Sherrod, providing the foundation.
This Obama debacle begins and ends with Mr. Obama’s quote that “the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s.” So, after summarily firing Sherrod, what did the Obama administration do next? They offered her a bigger job to come to Washington, DC to handle the larger portfolio of outreach. Read the quote in this paragraph again. They offered her the job because no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. wants it themselves. Certainly another teachable moment for anyone not paying attention.
I appreciate this post, Taylor. You always make me think.
Always good to hear from you, lynnette.
I think your focus, Taylor, on the “ideological battles” statement is right on target. It provides one very significant way of understanding Obama’s philosophy and approach to governing, especially the political aspects. Directly related to the Sherrod incident, her statement is fairly explicit, in terms of a “teachable moment”: “[Obama] is not someone who has experienced what I have experienced through life, being a person of color. He might need to hear some of what I could say to him. . . .” http://tinyurl.com/826mbf
If we don’t understand those “ideological battles,” if we weren’t one of those like Sherrod, or if we don’t learn about them from people like Sherrod or those who learned from such folks, then “break(ing) out of … the ideological gridlock” is almost certain to result in stumbles and bumbles. In the 2007 interview Obama also stated, “I don’t think there is anybody in this race who’s able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can.” He proved he could bring new people in. In terms of breaking some of the gridlock, I think his actions thus far have proven he needs some teaching.
From a Washington Post, August 15, 2007 article, where this “ideological battles” statement is quoted:
“Saying that Bill Clinton’s presidency was good for America, he added: ‘The question is, moving forward, looking towards the future, is it sufficient just to change political parties, or do we need a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington . . .? Do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s?’
“Obama never used the term ‘polarizing’ to describe Clinton but made it clear he has studied polls that show that many people have an unfavorable opinion of her. ‘I don’t think there is anybody in this race who’s able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can,’ he said.” http://tinyurl.com/29r237a
No question about it, Joyce.