Here’s what they and others are saying…
Santorum: “There’s a lot of things going on right now that we need to be concerned about other than what happened 15 years ago.”
“Having gone through that in the United States Senate, having sat in judgment of the president of impeachment, I’m perfectly willing to put that issue behind us and move on to things that are of deep concern to the American public. And there’s a lot of things going on right now that we need to be concerned about other than what happened 15 years ago.” [Fox News, 2/18/14]
Reagan: “He’s supposed to be a serious conservative/libertarian Republican with an eye on the White House.”
“What was Sen. Paul thinking — or not thinking? He’s supposed to be a serious conservative/libertarian Republican with an eye on the White House. He attracts media attention every time he opens his mouth. He should be talking about high unemployment, tax cuts, the folly of the $10.10 minimum wage — anything.” [Michael Reagan, Gannett, 2/20/14]
Romney: I think Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee, will have plenty to discuss about her own record. I don’t imagine that Bill Clinton is going to be a big part of it.”
“Romney said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that Hillary Clinton will be judged on her own merits. ‘I don’t think Bill Clinton is as relevant as Hillary Clinton if Hillary Clinton decides to run for president,’ the 2012 GOP presidential nominee said. ‘I think her record is what will be judged upon, not the record of her husband.’ Romney added: ‘I think Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee, will have plenty to discuss about her own record. I don’t imagine that Bill Clinton is going to be a big part of it.’” [Washington Post, 2/16/14]
Rove: “Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country.”
“Rove said he’s not sure Paul has a strategy. ‘Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,’ Rove said on Fox’s ‘America’s Newsroom.’” [Politico, 2/11/14]
Thomas: “Dredging up the past may help them raise money, but it won’t raise Republican votes.”
According to evangelical radio commentator and columnist Cal Thomas, “If conservatives and Republicans think resurrecting this old news will bring them electoral victory against Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run, they are mistaken. Dredging up the past may help them raise money, but it won’t raise Republican votes. In fact, such a strategy could backfire as Mrs. Clinton would again be portrayed as a victim by a sympathetic media. Having forgiven her husband, those mean Republicans want to ‘assault’ her again.” [Thomas, Chicago Tribune, 2/20/14]
“The number of false charges hurled in the 1990s at the Clintons could fill a book.”
“The number of false charges hurled in the 1990s at the Clintons could fill a book. (See Conason and Lyons’.) Like ordnance left over after a war, this ammunition remains ready to be used by conservatives who recoil at the thought of another Clinton in the White House. It doesn’t matter that these bombs are duds. As Fox News showed this week, the Clinton antagonists of years ago and of today will reach for whatever ammo they can find to recreate the impression there was a swirl of Clinton corruption and push a politically useful mantra: Don’t stop thinking about the past.” [Mother Jones, 2/20/14]
“Clinton smearers paved the way for the Obama bashers, and some conservative agitators have dutifully served in both camps.”
“Political consumers of today who are too young to have experienced the visceral and extreme Clinton hatred of the 1990s might find it tough to imagine the excesses of that era, but they would recognize parallels with the anti-Obama hate machine. Then and now, Republicans in power whipped up investigations (Benghazi!) to satisfy their their angry and resentful base voters and knowingly associated with (and validated) those hurling even more outlandish accusations about a commander-in-chief much detested on the right. To an extent, the Clinton smearers paved the way for the Obama bashers, and some conservative agitators have dutifully served in both camps. Joseph Farah, a leading birther, was a champion of Foster conspiracy theories. In 2007, Fox News host Sean Hannity hosted a special episode on the ‘mysterious death’ of Foster, hinting that the Clintons might have pulled off ‘a massive cover-up.’ Rush Limbaugh, too, has in the past suggested Hillary had Foster killed.” [Mother Jones, 2/20/14]
The “conservative forces went far beyond the boundaries of reality in their ceaseless efforts to destroy the Clintons.”
The “conservative forces went far beyond the boundaries of reality in their ceaseless efforts to destroy the Clintons. During the 1992 campaign, some right-wingers whispered that Bill Clinton was a Manchurian candidate who had been brainwashed by the Russians when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and took a student trip to Moscow. Others circulated fliers—this was before the internet hit big—claiming he had fathered the son of an African American prostitute. And there were claims that the Clintons were connected to a major drug-running operation that had been based in Arkansas and tied to a series of murders. Yes, murders. Dozens of murders.” [Mother Jones, 2/20/14]
“For those who lived through the conservative get-Clinton madness… this may seem like a bad acid flashback.”
“For those who lived through the conservative get-Clinton madness that culminated in Clinton’s impeachment (and acquittal), this may seem like a bad acid flashback. Or a truly cheesy sequel.” [Mother Jones, 2/20/14]
“Here Come the Crazy Clinton Conspiracies of the 1990s.”
In an article titled, ‘Here Come the Crazy Clinton Conspiracies of the 1990s,’ Mother Jones reported, “With Hillary poised to run, expect conservatives to revive all the old tales: Vince Foster, Whitewater, mysterious homicides, drug money corruption, and dead cats… It’s back. The anti-Clinton craziness of the 1990s. It was inevitable that the right-wing nuttiness of those days would return once Hillary Clinton officially acknowledged her presidential ambitions, but the mere prospect of the former first lady turned senator turned secretary of state seeking the White House has led to a premature—or perhaps preemptive—revival of the old Clinton tales from two decades ago.” [Mother Jones, 2/20/14]
Joe Scarborough: “So Andrea, this is all very exciting. I feel like Michael J. Fox about getting into a DeLorean.” [Morning Joe, 2/11/14]
Joe Scarborough: “This is just sheer insanity.”
“If anybody thinks Americans want to go back and re-litigate this, trust me, I was there the first time we litigated this and Americans didn’t want to hear it then. This is just sheer insanity and as far as these papers go, I mean, come on.” [Morning Joe, 2/11/14]
Joe Scarborough: “The Republicans need to focus. Let’s have fights on issues. But this stuff, Mike, is going to get eyes rolling awfully fast.”
Well you know again, it’s not, it’s sort of… legally you wouldn’t call this hearsay in court but this is one woman writing notes about a friend. Again, if this is the opposition research that Republicans are going to have — no, I’m just saying. How do you get people back to work, right? And I would much rather fight about the Affordable Care Act and debate that and talk about why that is bad for business and talk about why we need to build the Keystone pipeline. The Republicans need to focus. Let’s have fights on issues. But this stuff, Mike, is going to get eyes rolling awfully fast. [Morning Joe, 2/11/14]
Much of the archive was made available to Carl Bernstein for his 2007 book.
“Much of the Blair archive has been reported on before. Carl Bernstein told msnbc via email that ‘significant parts’ of the archive, which is the property of the Diane Blair Trust, were made available to him by Blair’s husband, Jim, for Bernstein’s 2007 biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman in Charge. ‘I believe some of the papers had yet to be transcribed and/or deposited by the Trustees at the time,’ Bernstein told msnbc.” [msnbc, 2/10/14]
Mike Barnicle: “If Reince Priebus thinks that this is a critical issue, man he ought to wrap it up. This is so over. People are so not interested.” [Morning Joe, 2/11/14]
David Axelrod: “This strikes me as warmed over seconds from Drudge’s table that already were baked in the cake.”
According to Politico, “David Axelrod, a longtime Obama adviser, agreed that such blasts from the past will have little effect. ‘This strikes me as warmed over seconds from Drudge’s table that already were baked in the cake,’ he said. ‘I don’t think it will have any bearing.’” [Politico, 2/10/14]
Ex-DGA head, Nathan Daschle: “None of this is news; it’s just water cooler gossip.”
According to Politico, “Nathan Daschle, former Democratic Governors Association executive director, said he thinks there could be interest among younger voters because it’s ‘political tabloid’ theater. ‘But it’s not really relevant unless she makes it relevant,’ he said. ‘There is no reason to respond to this on a personal level, and even less on a political level. Winners talk about the future; losers talk about the past. … She is the most well-defined potential presidential aspirant since Richard Nixon. None of this is news; it’s just water cooler gossip. She could be president if she has a message about the future. She definitely won’t be president if she spends her time defending the past.’” [Politico, 2/10/14]
Brazile: “These files have been out there since 2010, so why are they so relevant today?”
According to Politico, “‘These files have been out there since 2010, so why are they so relevant today?’ Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential race campaign manager, wrote in an email. ‘What’s the news? Is it just the soundbite?’” [Politico, 2/10/14]
Time: In “terms of policy and news, Hillary and Bill Clinton’s own voluminous writings are much more revealing.”
“Despite some early interpretations to the contrary, the papers represent a collection of thoughtful reflections and evolving positions on Clinton’s part, rather than a smoking gun of anything damning, or even surprising. But they do offer a colorful look into the thoughts of the former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State and possible 2016 presidential candidate… But in terms of policy and news, Hillary and Bill Clinton’s own voluminous writings are much more revealing.” [Time, 2/10/14]
Van Jones: “Cynical tone deaf attacks on a powerful woman will not help you close the gender gap.”
“Cynical tone deaf attacks on a powerful woman will not help you close the gender gap. Stuff like that is what created the gender gap. I’m sure you agree with that, Kevin.” [“Crossfire,” CNN, 2/10/14]
Tracy Sefl: “This is old, this is stale. This is also, I don’t know how many ways you can say irrelevant.”
“Van used the word ‘new’ earlier, let’s do a fact check. There’s nothing new here. Something that’s been recycled, rehashed. Maybe they put it in a new font for this release. This is old, this is stale. This is also, I don’t know how many ways you can say irrelevant. But what I love is that the Republicans think that they’re on to something. By all means, here’s a shovel, keep digging, it is, I agree with Van, will not help women feel motivated to move over to the Republican Party, which is something that certainly the Republican Party would need.” [Crossfire, CNN, 2/10/14]
Terbush, The Week: “It’s more anti-Clinton spaghetti being thrown against a wall to see if anything sticks.”
According to Jon Terbush in The Week, “It’s more anti-Clinton spaghetti being thrown against a wall to see if anything sticks.” [Jon Terbush, The Week, 2/10/14]
Terbush, The Week: “If all the anti-Clinton shadow campaign has are some decades-old talking points, then the GOP is probably better off just building that time machine.”
According to Jon Terbush in The Week, “To be sure, this tactic isn’t new or unique. What’s notable is just how weak these efforts are. If all the anti-Clinton shadow campaign has are some decades-old talking points, then the GOP is probably better off just building that time machine.” [Jon Terbush, The Week, 2/10/14]
L.A. Times’ Deputy Nat. Editor: “As the Clinton campaign song put it in 1992: ‘Yesterday’s gone.’”
According to Cathleen Decker’s news analysis in The Los Angeles Times, “More to the point, both Clinton and her detractors need to gaze through the windshield, not the rearview mirror, for both sides’ political benefit… As the Clinton campaign song put it in 1992: ‘Yesterday’s gone.’” [Cathleen Decker, News Analysis, Los Angeles Times, 2/11/14]