Bill Bradley: “Hillary is flawed in many ways”

Yesterday NewsHour discussed the campaign with several Democratic leaders. Bill Bradley has a number of favorable comments on Obama, feeling that Obama has “a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election” and that “Hillary is flawed in many ways.” From the transcript:

Starting with you, Senator Bradley, do you believe that both Clinton and Obama are viable candidates and both should go on from this point on?

BILL BRADLEY: I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband’s unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important — you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don’t want things to explode in a general election against John McCain.

JIM LEHRER: But as a practical matter, based on what happened yesterday, winning three out of four and where the delegate count rests right now, do you think she still has a really good — there’s a real good possibility she could win the nomination, Senator?

BILL BRADLEY: No, I really don’t…

JIM LEHRER: You don’t?

BILL BRADLEY: … because, mathematically, even if she won 60 percent of the rest of the races, she’d still be behind in pledged delegates. And that would mean that the super-delegates would end up making the decision.

And I think increasingly super-delegates are going to go with Barack Obama, particularly in districts that he won substantially.

I don’t think you’re going to find congressmen, even congresspeople that are behind Hillary early, go against their district, because if they go against their district, they’re going to find that they could very well have a primary challenge the next time.

The experience issue was also discussed, with Bradley noting that that facts do not support Clinton’s case:

BILL BRADLEY: The idea that Senator Clinton has got a lot of experience from the time she was the first lady, I think the facts don’t make that case. I mean, she has not named one issue that was a critical, national security issue, that we’re in a time of war, where she played a significant role.

She has no experience in weighing different kinds of intelligence reports and trying to make a decision. She hasn’t managed the egos and agendas of a national security staff. In fact, as first lady, she didn’t even have a security clearance.

So I can’t buy the argument that somehow or another — I mean, the role of a first lady is very important. I don’t doubt that. And I think, in certain diplomatic situations, she was helpful.

But in terms of being a person ready to go with the so-called red phone at the bedside on day one is just incorrect, given what the whole facts are.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Probus says:

    While Bill Clinton was good for this country in the 90s his wife would be the wrong choice for us. She is not the true candidate of change, Obama is. Voting for another Clinton will mean going backwards not forwards. Bill Bradley is right she is greatly flawed as a candidate. We can do better that a Bush Clinton Bush Clinton dynasty. Obama is the real face of change our nation needs. The amount of secrecy on the Clintons’ finances is very disturbing to me.

    She should get out simply because she may not go into the convention with the needed amount of delegates. If it comes down to superdelegates and they end up choosing her over Obama it will greatly hurt the dems and the people who voted for Obama. I am heartened to learn that Bradley thinks that many superdelegates will go with Obama and not her.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    If Obama has a majority of committed delegates, he will be the nominee. To do otherwise means the Democrats lose the support of the young, blacks, and independents. Even if they would prefer Clinton all other things being equal, the party leaders will choose to nominate Obama and probably win as opposed to casting a vote which would mean the destruction of the Democratic Party.

  3. 3
    Probus says:

    Correct, I can’t imagine any situation where party leaders or superdelegates would go against the will of the people.

Leave a comment