« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Bill Clinton is TRYING His Level Best to Hurt Obama
ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward….
"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue."
Barack Obama needs to put President Bill Clinton on notice. Either you are ‘with’ us or you’re ‘against’ us – which is it? It appears from current interviews you are ‘against’ us. Because of that --- Thanks but No thanks to your help.
Advertisement
Comments (229)
I am done with this fucktard.
September 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fucktard is right. Give him a box of Cohibas and send him off to a whorehouse somewhere. He's not helping, and he has no intention of helping.
September 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez rabbitt
September 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get over Bill, OK? He's a scumbag who cheated on his wife and brought the Democratic Party down because he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants. In many ways, we owe Bill for Bush's presidency. If Bill hadn't screwed around on his wife, is there any doubt Al Gore would have been president in 2000?
September 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rabbit....Yes, I can argue that he wouldn't have won..which we all know he did win....Al ran ....well a shitty campaign. If he would have just loosened up it wouldn't have been a race. But Bill Clinton is a great Man.
September 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Donna Brazile ran Al Gore's shitty campaign.
September 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
**Don't be banging on the bunny. That little hare knows what he's talking about.
September 25, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pussyhare is a prude disguised as a punk.
September 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill thinks he's more clever and less transparent than he actually is these days. When I look back at my support for him; I was a charter member of MoveOn.org; I feel like I got played.
September 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bill is being a lot savvier than folks think. I've been watching him closely. He's not talking to us fervent Obama supporters at all.
Bill's talking to the angry disaffected Hillary voter and Appalachian folks that may like McCain's war hero meme. He's implying that he's not a big fan of Obama either, BUT Obama represents everything Hillary did. McCain doesn't.
This is a much more convincing argument and nuanced message that perhaps only Bill is capable of delivering. IMO, much better than having him out there as a normal surrogate. He comes off as another "in-the-tank" Democrat with the same old talking points. Swing voters will tune that out. No. He's got a new message: "I'm not a big fan of Obama either. In fact, I like McCain better. He's a war hero. But I surely wouldn't vote for him. His policies are horrible."
September 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am certainly not the biggest Bill Clinton fan (or even a fan at all) but his statements are in line with what Obama has said in the past and are pretty mild as quoted above. Obama always goes out of is way to not vilify the guy. McCain pretty takes care of that all on his own.
September 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. I think folks are looking at him as Hillary's hubby, not as a former President. He has to remain above the frey to some extent.
September 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That or McCain owns some compromising photos
September 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton laid out his case pretty well last night, but I still don't believe he needs to spend quite so much time complimenting McCain and Palin. I know the game he's playing (it's an old salesman's trick), and I've played it myself, but I think he's overdoing it.
Here's what's going on: I'm trying to sell a guy a car. He says, "I like this car OK, but there's one at another dealer that I think I like better." So you tell him, "I sorta agree with you, to tell you the truth. That other car is a great car. Drives great, looks great. The gas mileage is a little better on this one here, but if that's not a big deal, you're gonna be a lot happier with that other car." Of course, you've already determined that gas mileage is a priority with this customer. Then you throw in the kicker: "This one will have a little better resale value as gas prices go up, but if it was me, I wouldn't even be thinking about that right now. Just between you and me, I'd be going for that other car. After all, who knows where gas prices will be in a couple of years? Could be way down, for all we know."
Yeah, right. Sold. Ring it up.
September 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's Bubba all right.
September 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too think that Clinton's spoke in good faith, but his responses could be a little sharper, along the lines of "I believe he's acting in good faith, I just don't understand why he thinks it's a good idea".
September 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but he hasn't really been expected to perform on the national stage for a while. Based on the damage he did to Hillary's campaign, there is little doubt he is rusty. Too many cush speaking engagements I guess.
September 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puh-leeze. You are bending over backwards to defend Bill. He still has his rhetorical smarts and the ol' lip-biting schtick.
He was ineffective for Hill, not because he's rusty, but just because he, along with the whole Hill campaign, started to get desperate. That's what happens when the Entitled don't get what they want. (see also: de Rothschild).
Bubba needs to shuffle off the stage pronto. Go bikini-shopping with Anthony Hopkins or something. If you're not gonna help, get out of the way!
September 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is rusty (politically) and arrogant, not a great combination. I am the very last person who would defend Bill Clinton, but I certainly see no reason to go out of my way to bash the guy.
I happen to think he was the "liberal" equivalent of Baby Bush, dismantling all the controls that had served us well since 1930s and setting us up for this meltdown, despite his being president during the tech boom.
Having said that, I have pretty much had to get over that crap until the election is over and go along with the Great Bill Clinton Makeover.
September 26, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't really up on the "New World Order" conspiracy theories, but I read a blog last week that claimed that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain were "Rockefeller" candidates
http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2008/09/now-is-time-there-is-hope.html
September 25, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Rockefeller has publicly admitted in his autobiography that he is part of a consipiracy aimed at over-throwing our Constitution. It is in black and white for anyone to read. Given the power of the Federal Reserve, you could argue they have already accomplished the goal.
Rockefellers should be put on trial for treason and all of their front groups (like the CFR and Bilderburg) dismantled and sown over with quicklime.
September 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't quite what Rockefeller said. I quote:
September 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe you're fooled by what he wrote -- I'm not. He's interested in a "globalized world" only if he can control it.
September 25, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't encountered Ruppert before, I'd be a bit cautious. I used to read his FTW website and I've also poured over his Crossing the Rubicon. He's got a lot of good things to say about peak oil, but some of his info is pretty thin. I'd avoid his conspiratorial rantings.
September 25, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
the question is this -- is there a global banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds yes or no?
September 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh-ooh... I love conspiracy theorists! What else you got?
September 25, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's not really theory when you quote the exact words coming out of D Rockefeller's mouth, is it? No other family has as much influence over Ameican domestic and foreign policy. Do you know how many institutions they directly fund?
Given their unelected status to be king-makers or shadow rulers, that, my friend, would be considered treason in 1776. Today, nobody seems to care.
September 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bill! STFU!
Man! What the hell do you think you're doing? You go on Letterman and praise your wife like there's no tomorrow... You mention Obama's name 4 times... and you mention (in rather glowing terms) McSame 4 times...
Equal billing for McLame... C'mon!
Chris rock follwed Clinton and said, "somebody should tell him Hillary lost."
Dammit, man... just STFU!
September 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Rock is too funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sT0KgGR-uM. Can't wait for the HBO special Saturday!
September 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link doesn't work, Jason, but see link below.
September 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ignore Bill. Do not even mention his name. He wants us to talk about him, and take our focus off of the election drive.
Keep your eyes on the prize.
Leave Bill just twisting slowly in the wind.
Stop talking and writing about him.
You are falling into his trap.
September 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was about to BLAST Clinton until I read Jason and Bw's comments. As president he might have to stay above the frey. I don't remember him villifying Obama during the primaries at all though. AT ALL.
September 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being above the fray means you can get away with saying nothing. What he is doing here is defending republicans from specific lines of argument advanced by the democrats. It's a little weird. Why say anything?
September 25, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you mean, he sounds more like a pundit than a supporter.
September 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Connie, let me try to explain Bill Clinton is simple terms.
Bill Clinton personally probably doesn't like Obama given the fact he was protrayed as racist race baiter in the primary. People tend to take personal attacks personally, and Bill Clinton takes them more personally than most. I'm sure Obama feels the same way and doesn't care much for Bill Clinton. For Bill to be doing cartwheels and Terry McAuliffe'ing saying I LOVE OBAMA is going to come off as fake and ungenuine.
What he can do is act all presidential and say why he thinks policy wise Obama is the best to lead this country & that is what he has done consistently. It doesn't play well for Obama supporters like you because all you want to hear is how much he loves Obama and Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It does play well for Hillary supporters and undecideds who racognize he's still pissed, but is backing Obama despite what personal resentments he still has.
If the Obama campaign doesn't appreciate that, they can stick Bill in a basement somewhere and not publicly ask for his help campaigning. Endorsing and campaigning for someone despite being angry and having hard feelings about the campaign is admirable and very hard to do - Ask Teddy Kennedy if you don't believe me.
I think the Obama campaign recognizes that it's smarter to just accept the GENUINE and UNFAKE support Bill has given rather than to focus on the very real anger that Bill still harbors. Maybe Obama supporters should realize this as well. Your whining about Bill is even worse than McCain at the NYT. Enough already.
September 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with that is he NEVER did this to Obama when O was facing Hillary. NEVER. That is the main problem, as a democrat and as a politician Bill can validate Obama without seeming so damn tepid and aloof. What he did at his speech did not seem fake whatsoever but it did what was needed to be done. Ever since then he is getting more and more tepid. I understand him being above the fray, however, you can do so AND try to show that you actually believe the nominee to be someone who you need to vote for.
September 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Above the fray and even-handed are not the same things.
September 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you hadn't noticed, there was a primary campaign going on so of course President Clinton was supporting Hillary and as such argued why she was the better choice. But many many times he said how the democrats had two great choices and he thought Hillary was better. You (or the press) just had selective hearing and only heard the criticisms.
September 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary refused to say Obama was qualified to be CiC, Bill could have said, of course he is. That's pretty much what he is doing here: Democrats are saying McCain is playing some cynical political games here, and Clinton is saying, no of course he is just looking out for the public good.
Whatever his motives, which I am not qualified to judge, there is a big difference.
September 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... He's saying that he takes McCain at his word and that he suspended his campaign because McCain thought it was the right thing to do. I don't see anywhere in the quote that Bill thinks Obama should've done the same, he just says that he doesn't think McCain is afraid to debate.
September 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lessee, the big reason Obama supposedly wouldn't take Hillary as VP? Because Bill would always be there. Hmmmm. Wouldn't that piss you off? A two-fer, one for yourself, one for your wife.
September 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well who are we to let the fate of our nation get in the way of hurt feelings.
The point is he should just not say anything if he wants to stay out of it. I am sure he wants a democrat in the White House. I think he actually admires and identifies with Obama far more than he is willing to acknowledge. he will do some campaigning on Obama's behalf.
But it is weird that he would actively defend Mccain and palin against legitimate democratic attacks. Especially when the whole world knows that the press likes nothing more than to drive wedges between the Clinton's and Obama whenever possible. Why give them any reason to? Unless you think he is right in what he is saying. McCain just wants to save America and there is no high stakes political calculation in this.
Let's separate our personal feelings here, if that is possible. Should ANY democrat being saying this stuff? At this time?
September 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing - you can come off as a political hack like Harry Reid (saying Senator McCain needs to step up and pressure the Republicans to pass a deal one day, and the next say McCain is no longer needed because he's going back to Washington to play such a role). Or you can come off as above the fray. Acknowledge that McCain could be doing this with the very best intentions, but Obama is still the candidate best prepared to lead us through this crisis and in the future.
The people in the middle - the undecideds - don't care about the partisan bickering. They probably respect both McCain and Obama, hence why they are undecided. Rather than attacking McCain personally, Bill Clinton is doing the right thing by focusing on the actual issues rather than the political gamesmanship. Bill Clinton comes off as more credible than some partisan hack who thinks political games is more important than the economic crisis. The person you guys should be irritated at is Harry Reid who embarassed himself.
September 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so this is all about how one comes off. I thought it was about the election. And more than that about he future of the country.
Why is Bill trying to be liked? Why does he need to be seen as complimenting both sides? The best way to stay above the fray is say nothing. He could very easily have down that. Instead he keeps bending over backward to compliment the other guys. He doesn't have to be a bitter partisan, he can just refrain from letting them off the hook.
Problem is he can't help but want to hear his own voice.
McCain IS being transparently political by pretending to be the non-partisan white knight (who by the way has neither a plan of his own nor has he read the current plan). Clinton knows this as well as anyone.
September 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're hearing me. Bill Clinton is being EFFECTIVE with the audience that really matters. And sorry to say, you and I don't really matter here. Undecideds & possible Obamacans do. The reason they are in the middle is they don't go for political gamesmanship / party affiliation. They are not into demonizing Republicans or Democrats. They just want to know what's in it for me and who's best to lead this country.
John McCain used a cynical ploy - that's going to turn some of those folks off without any help from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton could do a whole cheapshot partisan attack or bring it back to the actual issues. Which do you think is more appealing to undecideds?
If he really cared about how folks perceived him, Bill'd be falling all over himself applauding Obama like a parent at a grade school recital to get back in the good graces of Obama folks and the democratic party. But that would be so transparently fake. He is most helpful being Bill Clinton, not some talking points spouting puppet, even if it means the Obama fans get more angry at him and continue peddling division because he hasn't saluted high enough.
September 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I have been arguing that he should just be quiet, not fawning over Obama. He's not a politician anymore. Hillary is. She is campaigning the way democratic politicians campaign at election time.
I really don't see where Bill is doing any good here. Talking up the competition isn't going to get any votes and it is not going to make people more receptive to his very brief policy remarks.
The other day Clinton said the important thing with the middle-of-the-roaders is not to get them to like you, but to convince them you like them. So why is Bill spending time trying to look good. To get the undecided to like him for his even handed-ness. I didn't hear Bill say how much he feels their pain. And who would care, he is not the candidate.
He made the case just fine at the convention. Stuck to the issues. Didn't tear anyone down personally but built Obama up personally. What he is doing now is different and it doesn't make sense, IF what you think he is doing is campaigning. I said above he's not. He's trying to get publicity for himself and his Initiative, which I am sure he thinks is more important than politics.
My bottom line here is that Clinton would be better off staying out of the election. He certainly doesn't need to be defnding the republicans against the arguments being made by democrats.
September 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton is doing the right thing because independents do not respect Clinton and neither do the Reagan Democrats. It would be the kiss of death for WJC to become effusive about Obama with that demographic. The Clintons are toxic when it comes to the general election. They also appear to be toxic when it comes to the Democratic party as folks are still calling themselves 'Hillary supporters' when the Democratic party nominee is Barack Obama.
Maybe those 'Hillary supporters' were never really Democrats to begin with.
September 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, your nutty. Go back to the Elections and see where Clinton won and in which states. He did outstanding with DLC Democrats. Using that term Reagan democrats makes one believe that your not a Democrat at all.
September 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know what year you are talking about but I am referring to the 2008 primaries.
WJC was liked and won states in 92! Not 2008.
September 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pick your year..you are still wrong
September 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove it.
List the states you think WJC won in the 2008 primaries.
Then list the ones you think HRC won...don't forget the rules along the way.
Winning in the Democratic primaries is defined as winning the most delegates NOT votes.
Start listing.
September 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously since he wasn't running he didn't win any. Did he help? Yeah, but win any? No. However, I think your point was whether he was popular with so called Reagan Dems or Independents....and I would again say yes. Pick your year. Your still wrong.
September 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's another element: there are those who won't trust or vote for ANYONE associated with (Obama) or complimented by (McLame) Clinton.
So instead of siding with Obama, he "praises" McLame by raising the issue of whether McLame is acting in "good faith".
September 26, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish would have wrote that. I couldn't agree more. Not even going to mention the amount of money they have helped raise for Obama.
September 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo:
Stop being rational. Bill Clinton, like many of us who supported Hillary, should make believe he is not human and he should just erase any memory of the racism charges levied at him like the poster of this silly post, and many of her like-minded circle jerkers.
Shit, I'll be totally honest and people can believe me or not. I have never come close to donating as much money to a candidate in the general election as I have donated to Obama, and I ain't done. He's my guy, but not because I like him, or because I believe he is special, or because I feel an affinity for many of his most vocal supporters (puleeze). I'm supporting the Democrat because that's what I do. But I am still so fucking angry about the racism charges and innuendos, and I will never forget it; my entire worldview has been altered by what happened in the primaries. Issue has been joined, and hopefully for the sake of all of us it will be on the suspense calendar until after the election.
Alas, I'm with Bill and I'm with Obama whether I like it or not.
September 25, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy to see you back Bruce :)
September 26, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've not left dijamo, but I am sticking with my pledge not to make any comments that might be construed as criticism of the Obama campaign, because I don't believe that a former Clinton supporter will be taken seriously at the new and strangely Freeper-like TPM Cafe. I reserve the right to challenge people like this poster, whom I believe has been and continues to be detrimental to the prospects for electing Senator Obama.
In short, I reserve the right to challenge Clinton haters for the duration of the campaign, because I don't think Clinton haters help Senator Obama. Clinton haters help to maintain a division in the Democratic base. I believe the division will survive the election, and I'm prepared for an intra-party squabble like never before. I'd just rather have that squabble with a Democrat in the White House. I want to have that fight because I want Democrats who have respect for all of their fellow citizens to be in control of the Party. I don't want self-righteous faux progressives anywhere near the controls of our democracy.
Dijamo, I know you understand the way things work, and I sure as hell do to. The Obama loving strand of Clinton haters were poison in March, they will be venemous in February, and marginalized by next summer. When they're back to squealing about the way things should be, and when they're carping about what President Obama, who will come home and be accountable to folks like us who are in this for the long haul and who understand how government works, my anger will wane and I will move on.
I've learned much over the years that doesn't come from reading books, and two things I've observed time and again are that: (a) what goes around comes around; and (b) you meet the same folks on the way up as you do on the way down. The alleged Obama supporters who continue to hate the Clintons should consider the foregoing.
September 26, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you ever NOT condescending?
September 26, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
Are you ever NOT condescending?
September 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, when I don't have to explain campaigning 101 to a mob out for blood over imaginary Bill Clinton slights to Obama. Try following the lead of the Obama campaign. Lord knows if they feel insulted by the Clintons, they will let you know through the press or they will simply ask Bill not to camaign if he's hurting Obama. I don't think the Obama campaign is as dumb as Connie thinks they are.
Oops still condescending? Can't help it :)
xoxo dijamo
September 26, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it dijamo.
September 26, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo is my hero!
September 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
{This is what I posted at Clearthinker's recent blog. Admittedly, not nearly as eloquent and fair-minded as Dijamo's comment above, but still fitting, I believe.}
--Wow. The insanity never ends with you people does it? The misplaced rage; the irrational, reactionary, unhinged nature of the Obama cultist is still evident, even today. It is heartbreakingly depressing to witness.
The race is Obama vs McCain.
Stay focussed you sad, pathetic people.--
September 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he has to stay above the fray, why doesn't he??
I can't think of any purpose this is serving.
If they think this is a subtle soft play to the
middle undecided, it's laughable. He's done what - the View, Larry King, the Today show, The Daily Show, and who knows what else in the last few days?
Just how much attention does he need?
Memo to Obama Campaign: use clinton if you absolutely must - only in some rural areas with no national, cynical press. Anything else is damaging the cause.
September 25, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything is not about Obama. Bill is doing the press tour for the Clinton Global Initiative - a non-partisan philanthropic cause. But of course he gets asked about the race and the economic crisis because that's big news.
All this griping about Bill, and not one post I can recall on the Hillary economic policy media war on Tuesday where she had plenty of great points about Obama, Biden, and the dmeocratic response to the bailout plain. There's just this effort to only focus on anything perceived as less than cartwheels for Obama and even when there are all glowing endorsements, those get ignored. The media just wants drama and posts like this just feed into it.
September 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You act like this is the only post on this entire blog. Puhhhhleazzzze. It is a FACT that Bill Clinton's support seems mroe than tepid. If people believe Bill less than supports O then why play into the narrative? Noone is saying he has to be head over heels in his support, but he does have to come off as someone who is GENUINELY supporting him. As the "greatest politician of our time" that shouldn't be to hard to do.
September 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are working for Obama. Hillary is in full battle gear and fighting valiantly. No complaints at all. She deserves more than respect for that. I say she is doing a great job repairing the breech.
Bill on the other hand is basking in the attention he is getting as they gear up their annual Initiative conference. He is on a publicity tour. He is seeking attention for an obviously good cause, but a cause that he leads. He doesn;t lead the country anymore. he is a marginal player inthis election. The press wants to use him to create wedges, to exploit tension. They want a show. Why is he giving them any ammunition?
The only reason I can fathom has nothing to do with the election itself. It's just that Bill cannot pass up an opportunity to tell us why he thinks and have us bask in the fact that he is the smartest, shrewdest, fairest, most honest guy out there. It's weird.
September 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of typos there, sorry.
September 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
D, you've made some great points that I agree with. Hillary Clinton IS doing her level best for Obama and that has been fun to watch. And there is a certain statesman gravitas that we expect from our former presidents.
However, I think Bill Clinton might be pyschologically unable to accept that his presidency is over. I know he's moved on to other things and that he obviously understands he's no longer president. But he has a dificult time admitting that he might not be the only person in the universe who can be good at the job and it comes through in his lukewarm support, not just for Obama, but also for Gore in 2000. And I don't even remember him being visible for Kerry.
I think the frustration for me is that I loved Bill Clinton once and he has let me down. The press loves conflict and Clinton knows this and knows that if he is lukewarm the press will spin it to maximum effect.
Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush have attended their party conventions and then stayed out of it. Clinton knows he's going to get questions about the election when he puts himself in the way of the media. I'm sure he recognizes this as a great time to get coverage for his project. But if he's going to be out there, he needs to be out there for the right side. I'm appalled that McCain was even invited to speak at the thing in New York yesterday. Appalled.
September 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando. Donna Brazile and Al Gore ran away from Bill in 2000. He was willing but they didn't want him around. Remember?
Kerry is the same as Obama..out of the Kennedy wing of this party. They want nothing to do with anything Clinton(hence joe biden). Putting the blame on the wrong person here.
Jimmy Carter inserted himself in both Clinton terms. He had many unkind things to say about Clinton and was very upset that Bill didn't let him run over the world trying to save it.......
September 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's ridiculous. Clinton could not have helped Gore in 2000. And in fact Gore did "win" that election.
Bill had his by pass operation in Sept. 2004 that's what kept Kerry from using him more effectively.
To say Obama is running away from Clinton makes no sense. Hillary is on the warpath. Obama refers more than ever to the success of the 90's as a model and a little less time pointing out that democrats and republicans made serious mistakes (he still says it because it's true even if it gives Bill heartburn).
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name a major speech where he has pointed out that the 90's were a time of solid economic and social progress. That budgets were balanced., Home ownership was up and stable, that employment was low, that we were on the path to solving some of the worlds crises, that Saddam Hussein was squashed in the pinchers of our airstrikes. Haven't heard any of that.
And, yes, Bill Clinton could have helped Al out. Why not?
The operation was the 7th of Sept....Was there any reaching out for support before or after? We both know there wasn't. Kerry was more about getting Teddy out of the bar and onto a podium for him.
Lastly, Hillary is out there because she is selfless. No other defeated Candidate has ever done so much.
September 25, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remember the outpouring of sympathy when Ted went into the hospital this spring - I thought we were going to have to cancel the primaries out of respect and sadness.
September 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, His beatification is a bit much. The real Teddy, is the one that treated Joan the way he did all those years.
September 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
True colors showing through.
September 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks O! I co-sign with Obamawon on Jimmy Carter. He was actively criticizing Bill Clinton even after he won the nomination and didn't speak at the convention. Gore kept Bill Clinton away from campaigning even though Bill wanted to help and ended up losing his own home state. Gore's making the election close enough to steal was his own fault, not Bill's. Kerry was a disaster - Bill couldn't have helped him even if Kerry wanted him to.
In terms of inviting McCain to the CGI event - Bill Clinton had no choice. It's an initiative that brings Republicans and Democrats together. How partisan would it have looked for him not to invite McCain? Isn't that Obama's whole message?
It's not just the press feeding into the division theme - it's Obama supporters as well parsing every word to see if it meets their standards for support. BIll's not speaking to the peopel who've already bought in to Obama. He's trying to bring new converts onboard and I think this fair, balanced presidential way of not hitting low blows against McCain is exactly what Obama wants him to be doing.
Bill Clinton's not perfect. He's got a lot of pride and so does Obama. But he's actively working to help Obama win and deserves credit for that.
September 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
STFU about the Clintons. There are no Clintons in this Presidential election. The Clintons are going to do and say what the want. We are not going to change that, but you are just compounding the problem for Senator Obama, by constantly starting debates about the Clintons, at this critical period, when you should be focusing on Senator Obama. Every blog with Clinton in the title, is a blog that is taking attention away from Senator Obama. Stop it, now.
September 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am done done done with him.
I used to love this man. But it is clear the he thinks the Democratic Party is Him and only Him.
If he wanted, Clinton can deliver this election for Obama. However, From Letterman, to Greta, to now ABC, it is clear that is trying to do otherwise.
Well as a good Democrat I am putting him on Notice: I will never support him or his wife, not even for dog catcher.
He is really making a mistake here. If he keeps this up Hillary can forget about any future support from the African-American community.
September 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't do that. Hillary is going OUT OF HER WAY to aid Obama and I can't wait to vote for her in her senate race and if she runs again in 2016. Back to more important business though, Bill's tepid support is only adding feul to an unwanted fire.
September 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC's political fortune rises and falls based on WJC. She rode to the top based on his political influence and power and she can fall by the wayside based on his decline in influence within the Democratic party as well as the AA community. There is no demographic that was more loyal to the Clintons than blacks and WJC showed them complete disdain during the primaries. Bill may not be racist but it is unequivocal that he used race to polarize the electorate to the extent of even going on Limbaugh right before the TX primaries. If he is not racist, he is clearly a racemongerer.
September 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said elsewhere. If you want to keep peddaling that crap from Axelrove about Clinton being a racist it is only going to hurt Obama. Anyone with a brain knows otherwise. Just stop it. Its disgusting. Was pitiful to hear in the Primaries and even more disgusting now.
September 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I clearly stated he was not a racist but he is inDEED a racemongerer. Do you understand the difference? If not, look it up and stop trying to act like you have some divine insight into who is and is not a Democrat. Your posts sound like a nitwit devoid of political history when it comes to the Democratic party.
What is disgusting is your inability to accept reality.
WJC gets no free passes. He made his bed and he destroyed his own legacy. He showed his hand.
sigh
September 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yours seem like you have GWB writing them. Georgie is that you? I know what you were calling him bub it isn't that hard to figure. I am sure we can have a continuing debate on who is more of a Democrat...
September 25, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Taylor Marsh, who was a HUGE HRC supporter thinks WJC is out of line with his remarks.
Her is what she had to say:
"Rush Limbaugh was eager to play Clinton's quote at the top of his show today, followed by a brief belch on the lack of importance of debates.
Then at CGI, former President Clinton went further, applauding McCain's, ahem, just words "foresight," even though there has been no actions, on global warming. As for almost walking off with McCain's speech, that might have actually made up for WJC's sudden burst of tone deaf bi-partisanship.
WJC is truly testing my patience. There's no doubt he doesn't need to get nasty or partisan, you know, like the old Bill of the 1990s who went on to win two general elections, plus beat off the wingnuts handily. But he could at least choose to quit pontificating and serving up quotes that actually aid the other side. It certainly doesn't help "
Are you going to challenge whether Marsh is a Democrat too?
The WJC is toxic to the Democratic party at this juncture. He is doing nothing to help the nominee.
Bill thinks he can damn with faint praise and no one notices.
HA!
What a first class racemongering narcisstic a-hole he has turned out to be.
September 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is wrong on this one. I will tell you this. Worrying about a stupid debate when we are about to give away a trillion or more to support bankers that don't deserve it is a travesty and shows how far we need to go to get what is RIGHT. The big news is the bailout. Obama should have gotten it right the first time. Get back to Washington and help sort it out. Are you not a Senator?
We are borrowing more money (1 trillion) from other countries and giving away our chilren and grandchildrens futures and all anyone can worry about is a stupid debate? Nothing, could or would be proven at this so called debate since it isn't a debate at all. If they wanted to debate then they should go toe to toe L/D style. But we know what Obama thinks of doing L/D's.
You can go on blathering about how bad Bill is all you want. All I know is that something pretty important is happening in Washington and his ass ought to be up there figuring it out. That is, if he has any fresh ideas.
September 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and McCain can't even get into the meeting where the real work will take place (hint: it ain't the photo-op at 1600 Pennsylvania).
The truth is, Jon Tester has more clout in crafting this legislation than either Obama or McCain, simply because Tester is actually a member of the Senate Banking Committee.
Word was already out that a deal is coming down by the time McCain tried his latest guerilla tactic. When you put together the complete timeline from yesterday, with McCain's duplicitous statement to Letterman, it becomes starkly clear that the candidates only need to come back for any floor debate and for the vote itself.
Recall what happened to McCain yesterday: the second installment of Rick Davis' filleting by the NYT, Palin's absymal Couric interview, poll rollouts that had McCain down nationally up to 9 points, and a growing sense that McCain was completely unplugged from the bailout.
"Suspending" his campaign might not be the best thing, but politically, it's a better narrative than what he would've been faced with otherwise.
September 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am doing that. I will not forget. Bill thinks he is being really clever, but his itentions are transparent.
I done with him and Hillary.
September 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you have to separate what Bill and Hillary are doing here. Very very different. Hillary has a lot of skin in the game. Bill is on another planet.
September 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I think Bill is actually trying to help Obama here, while "praising" McCain and "staying above the fray."
Bill knows the debates aren't going to be postponed or cancelled. So what proposal did he make?
If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue."
He's trying to get some of Friday's debate, which was originally supposed to be about Foreign Policy only, to be about the Economic crisis! Whose hand does that play into? Not McCain's, for sure.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But Bill knows how to work the undercurrents subtly. Get Friday's debate to be partially devoted to Economics NOW, while it's center stage. Instead of a couple weeks from now, when it might not be.
September 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if Clinton hadn't said that economics is a security issue, no one else would have brought it up? That's pretty silly.
Look Clinton is not really doing any harm or good here. He is providing an unnecessary distraction.
September 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course other people have (and will) bring up the point of having economics a topic on Friday's debate. But the greater the clamor for it, the more pressure on McCain, because you know he doesn't want economics on Friday's agenda.
If the demand for economics on Friday grows large enough, McCain has to either defend the position that economics is taboo for the the 1st debate (even though the economy is cratering as we speak), or give in. So Obama started the chorus yesterday, and Bill continues it today. It's. The. Economy. Stupid.
September 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Obama should shift the focus to the Economy and make that the topic of this debate from a global foreign policy perspective. LouDobbs was vehement about this issue yesterday saying how it made no sense to focus on FP in the middle of this economic crisis. I do not like Dobbs reasoning at all, because it is all just too much manufactured outrage and seems to give 'leadership' points to McCain. However, I think Obama should call McCain's bluff and say there is no greater issue to discuss than the global economy and how foreign policy and world markets will impact the USA.
WJC just needs to STFU.
September 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever.
Obama has been making the argument for months now that our commitment in Iraq has hurt our economy.
There was no chance with Iraq and energy and international finanace in the mix that this debate wasn't going to have a great deal of economics in it anyway.
September 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the requests from the Obama camp during the pre-debate negotiations was that foreign policy come first. He took that position for a variety of reasons and I'm sure that the participants will be given the opportunity to say something about current events, plus they each get multiple opening statements, but I wouldn't expect Obama to veer too far off of his own game plan.
September 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The game plan is in part to argue that our foreign policy affects our daily lives. The choice to go to war has a cost, failure to have an energy policy requires us to act in ways we wouldn't otherwise. failure to invest in education and science and infrastructure makes us weaker and more vulnerable to foreign competition....
That has always been part of the argument--for the past 12 months at least.
Frequently we are told that leadership in a foreign crisis takes so much more than a domestic crisis. This week shatters that myth. Proof of levelheadedness in a domestic crisis then becomes a strength for foreign policy.
September 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a good plan, but it was reported that the Obama camp had requested that the first and third debates be flipped, so that foreign policy would come first.
The reasoning offered was that it'd give Senator Obama a chance to show that he could go head-to-head on what polls indicate may be his weaker subject, plus he'd then have two debates to recover if he were to make any gaffes and since the economy is considered his strong suit, he hopes to finish the cycle on a high note.
September 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, trust me , I get it. It's just that foreign and domestic issues have never been independent of each other. Every good debater knows how to bring in the arguments that help them. Our domestic and foreign policies are linked.
Obama knows that full well. Even McCain knows it. Don't you remember last week when he told us that Sarah Palin has National Security credentials because she knows more about energy policy than anyone on the planet?
September 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this differently and heard it differently when I saw it on TV. I see it as Clinton challenging McCain, basically, "Let's pretend your motives are what you say they are. But we need to have the debate anyway and you need to talk about the economy."
I think people who have it in for Clinton are just picking apart everything he says. Yeah, he's mad about the way he was treated. But I don't see anything in this particular statement that hurts Obama. He's saying practically the same thing Obama said yesterday.
September 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton. The Clinton. Chelsea Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton ton ton ton.
September 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
leave it up to djamo to find a way to exonerate bill c...i have all but given up..staying above the fray is all fine and dandy but going against democratic talking points is pure jealousy, envy and bitterness....
hrc has been constantly on message...she is not fawning over obama, which is fine, but she sticks to her talking points..there is no doubt in my mind that both secretly want obama to lose, but at least hrc doesnt make it so obvious...she is not going around complimenting mccain and palin at every turn.....how is that staying above the fray? above the fray is neutrality....stick to the policies if you hate the man...but to go out of your way to praise the opposition when you have no such glorious words for your teammate sucks and you know it djamo....your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me....
when are you people going to accept the fact that hrc lost and now its time to move on...hrc is on board....it matters not how sincere she is, the point is she is out there stumping for the cause, if not the man.....her supporters and bill clinton need to do the same...no matter how much of a joke palin/mccain turns out to be, the republicans stick to their talking points and they do not go out of their way to undermine their losing ticket...can we do the same and win????
you do not have to like obama, but if you cared for hrc so much, certainly obama is much more palatable than mccain...hold your nose and cast that vote and STFU if you are not helping the cause with positivity!!! geesh!!
September 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo is one of the smartest, best informed and reasonable writers at TPM. She has every right and every reason to defend Bill Clinton from attacks. After attempting to destroy Bill Clinton's legacy and using him as an excuse not to run with Hillary, Obama is lucky Bill Clinton doesn't spit on the ground every time his name is mentioned. If Obama doesn't want Bill Clinton's support, let him say so.
September 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
By all means, let's make the future of our country as personal as possible.
"trying destroy [his] legacy" ... give us a break.
Clinton did some very good things, he screwed some other things up, he got lucky, he had some bad luck. He bears some responsibility for the pickle we are in, he did some things that make it far better than it could have been. As a man he was incredibly talented and yet oddly self-destructive.
Clinton's Presidential legacy is mixed. Definitely more good than bad, for sure. Favored by history more than damned. 100% we'd be better off if he were President the last 8 years. But it's stupid to deify him and pretend that his administration did not have flaws. It's fair to run for president by saying you will address the things he could not or did not address.
September 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mixed? What world are you living in? Compare 2008 to 1998.........Ask Joe Bag of Donuts whether he preferred this year or 1998 and I think you will see.
September 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are only capable of evaluating Clinton's term in office compared to Bush's? Was I the slightest bit ambiguous that Clinton's was much much better? Bush is a disaster. That's doesn't make Clinton perfect.
Of course there are plenty of other standards to judge the Clinton presidency, not the least of which is what did Clinton set out as his goals and what did he accomplish. Maybe you should read Stiglitz's and Reich's critiques. So yeah mixed, more good than bad.
September 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I will bite. Compare Clinton to say the other 2 timers in the last 50 years....Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower......His accomplishments stand up quite well in that company don't you think?
Your problem is that you simply don't like him or her....and it galls you that he was and is so well liked.
September 25, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gerald Ford was better. Remember "Whip Inflation Now"? (Or "No Instant Miracles", depending on direction). Inspired a generation. Lovers leaped, old folks fainted.
September 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry no I dont' remember. :) How old are you Desi?
September 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm older than Billy. I'm older than Billy's grandpa. I was there at the 1904 World's Fair.
Meet me in Saint Loueee....
September 26, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I like Bill quite a bit. It's Hillary I don't like. The fact that you can't tell the difference only reminds me of what a knee jerk you are.
My profession is policy and an honest evaluation of what happened during the decade cannot possibly attribute all the good economic and social trends just to Clinton policies.
To say that Clinton squandered several large opportunities is also a pretty fair assessment.
September 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's fine to gloss over the race baiting of the Obama campaign?
September 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Us hard working white Americans are completely over that.
September 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about us lazy ass type?
September 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's legacy will be largely irrelevant when roving gangs of homeless people are sleeping in the Clinton Library and burning the records for warmth.
September 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much appreciated Billy.
September 25, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's not hurt our arm patting ourselves..oh never mind :)
Anyhoo, Bill Clinton was a slime in the primaries. He destroyed his own legacy. Video proof:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=148079&title=nevada-primary
Gotta love Jon Stewart :)
September 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nevada... Culinary Workers Union... wasn't that the same union running a spanish language ad race baiting saying Hillary Clinton doesn't respect Hispanic people? I'm with Bill - don't trust them as far as I can throw them. And that's ruining your legacy? Please. Get over it.
Say wasn't there another camp alleging voter suppression when they lost the Nevada caucuses due to the large Hispanic vote for Hillary by union members despite the race baiting union ad? Oh yeah, the Obama campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/19/obama-camp-alleges-voter-_n_82329.html
Can you find the Jon Stewart clip on that? Thanks!
Can we stop reliving history now? This can go on forever or we can focus on McCain.
September 26, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is that HRC lost Nevada. Obama won the most delegates despite all the racebaiting by WJC!
September 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're so clueless. Please do not have this argument. Hillary and Bill never put up an ad saying Obama doesn't respect Hispanics or White people and would have been crucified if they didn't disavow one on her behalf. The Obama campaign defended that pathetic race baiting before South Carolina when they played the race card on the Clinton's over and over. And this argument in no way is helping Obama. If you were smart you'd leave it in the past. I know that's a big if. So continue accusing the Clintons and their supporters of being racists and race baiters and see where that argument gets you... losing the election in Novemener idiot.
September 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing clueless about what I stated except your inability to comprehend it. I notice you did not rebut what was stated which was that Obama won NV! Sounds like you are clueless when it comes to the delegate count.
I made no assertion about who put up any ad.
Your comment on Obama's regard for Hispanics and whites is completely unsubstantiated by his record not to mention his own family lineage. How about you learn about his views before spewing your factless opinions?
Obama never once engaged in racebaiting in SC. The record is clear. The black community was outraged by HrC's pathetic attempt to equate MLK as ineffectual and disminishing his role to be one of only speeches and that it was LBJ who had the power! Hillary and Bill cross the line. Bubba had been running around saying waaay more than that but HRC's diminishment of MLK's record is what lit the match in the black community. There are no ones that anyone can point to that Obama stated ever! So, how about you back your mouth up with some facts for a change instead of the invalid opinions you post? Bill Clinton made his own bed. He played the race card from the moment HRC loss IA, because he knew they were dead in the water when the polls showed Obama with a 10pt lead in NH..Bill commenced to racemongering and did not cease. He even went on Rush Limbaugh before the TX primaries...even with all his racemongering..HRC still loss TX.
It you slowed down to read instead of simply retort you might grasp the fact that I have not accused the Clintons of being racist. I stated the plain hard cold fact which is Bill engaged in racemongering. Despite saying he is not racist, he used racism for his own political expediency which is actually worse than being a racist. At least a racist is ignorant. Bill was just plain despicable! In the gutter blatant racemongering to polarize the electorate on the basis of racial solidarity. He played his ugly hand and he loss. He deserved to lose. And they lost big!
It is a fact that Bill got a blow job in the oval office and it is a fact that he engaged in racemongering in little towns all over America in a desperate attempt to smear Obama when he knew HRC could not win.
If you paid half as much attention to the facts as you do to your zealous defense of the indefensible actions of WJC you might just notice that the Democrats are going to win the WH and the Clintons will not be in it, imbecile!
September 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
On November 5th I will be totally happy to have a full out discussion on how the race card was played in the primary.
September 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Hillary Clinton "secretly wants Obama to lose". Not at all. She will be much more powerful with Democrats in ascendence then otherwise.
September 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need some koolaid cher.
September 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
if they secretly want Obama to lose how come it's obvious?
is it a problem that Obama secretly obviously hates the Clintons? Is love a one-way street?
How can I have mo-lasses when I ain't had none yet?
September 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am not big hrc fan before and after the primaries, but i dont think it's fair to blame her for bill c's behavior....she has been on message and continues to be.....
please separate the two...bill has his own agenda...to those who are clinging to some hidden silver lining--i say this: if you have to search so hard to figure out whose team bill c is on, then he isn't on the right team PERIOD! with all the discontent hrc and obama must feel towards each other, there is no doubt on my mind that hrc is on the right team when she is front and center stumping for obama....again, her level of sincerity is not important b/c to be fair, i am sure the obamas are not crazy about the clintons either....bill c has his own agenda...
if you do not think bill c was racist during the primaries, good for you..if you do not think race was played to help make it easier for already bigoted voters to have another excuse to vote against obama, great......but please understand the primaries are over, the voters have spoken and they chose obama...the other side chose mccain....there is no hrc in sight.....stay focused....
if obama loses, mccain win...if you think challenging them 4 years from now with hrc will be an easy win, think again...keep in mind, obama has the logical/forward-thinking, college-educated crowd behind him....we use our brains...this charade will be remembered decades from now.....stop betting the house on stupidity....
September 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your sticking to the "bill is a racist" propaganda put out by Obama and Axelrove go ahead. Just simply is mean spirted and flat out wrong. And no, you can't separate the two.
Sorry to hurt your feelings but the logical/forward thinking, college-educated crowd has never won a Presidential Election.
September 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The facts are accurate and true.
Bill was a racemongerer during the primaries and he even went on Limbaugh to really polarize the Democratic base on the basis of race. Perhaps you forgot about Operation chaos, that Limbaugh encouraged and Bill endorsed?
Whatever.
Learn the facts before you try and check anyone else.
September 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the only fact in there was the liberal latte drinkers that you refer to have never won a Presidential Election.
Opinions are not facts...
September 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts are beginning to sound like those of a troll.
toodles
September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhhh The old TPM ploy of calling a troll when you aren't good enough or smart enough to argue the point. But, well take whiterose. I knew you would get there at some point. You all do.
September 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was given an opening yesterday on the radio show to be negative on Bill, and my response was that Hillary has been great, extra-helpful, on message, and very supportive consistently since June 7, and that I really appreciate that.
I think it's great that Bill is being Presidentially above the fray. I agree with the commenter that he is right now.
I have been very consistent in my view that ex-Presidents have always been, and should always be, above the fray in later elections. I thought that in 2000, in January 2008, and now.
I think after Obama wins, he and Bill will patch things up nicely. They would both benefit greatly from that, IMHO.
And I think if Hillary runs again the future, if after Obama's term(s) are over, Bill may hopefully have learned from 2008 that above the fray works better.
September 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY problem I have with that is he was NOT ABOVE THE FRAY WHEN HILLARY WAS RUNNING AGAINST OBAMA. Of course that is his wife but the main problem with this is you want someone campaigning as HARD FOR YOU as they did for themselves (which Hillary is definitely doing and she deserves all the credit in the world for doing so). Bill is NOT doing that whatsoever. That's the only problem.
September 25, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no fucking rule that says you're not allowed to support your spouse in a campaign. This is absolute bullshit.
Everybody makes up Clinton rules as a mass of exceptions. Teddy Kennedy gets blowjobs = he's cool. Bill Clinton gets blowjobs = he destroyed his party. RFK moves to New York to be Senator = he's cool. Hillary moves to New York to be Senator = she's a scumbag carpetbagger. Teddy Kennedy takes his primary fight to the convention = he's cool. Hillary concedes her campaign 3 days after the last primary = she should have quite months before and now owes the party until the day she dies to make up for it.
Look, acid and shared hallucinations went out of style in the 60's.
September 26, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you didn't read and/or understand what I wrote is quite disturbing. Quite disturbing indeed.
September 26, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you want and what you get are often two different things. Hillary Clinton has done more for Obama than any runner-up in history. Bill could be criticizing Obama's plans like Jimmy Carter did to Bill when he was running. That is not what they are doing. Please understand that neither Bill nor Hillary owes Obama anything. They are acting for the good of the party. Whether or not Bill is publicly all gooey and he loves Obama does not matter. They agree on policy and that's what matters. But rather than be grateful, you folks are still whining. If Obama wanted Clinton to go away, he would let him know. The constant griping from Obama fans only adds fuel to the media. It is a never-ending loop of self-destructive cluelessness.
September 26, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but Bill and Hill both know they owe Obama. As Democrats, they are suppose to use their political power and influence to help elect the nominee. There is an even greater obligation for these 2 Democrats as they did their damnest to tear down the nominee long after it was evident HRC had lost.
Even the memos released from HRC's campaign affirmed that the Clinton camp knew they could not win back in March.
Despite that, she continued to campaign, along with Bill and they both engaged in character assaults as well as throwing the proverbial 'kitchen sink' at Obama who was going to be the nominee.
So, the Clintons owe the Democratic party and obama big time because it was their sore loser mentality and gutter racemongering politics that would become fuel for the GOP in the general election.
This they owe based on the primaries. Their obligation is even greater based on the disgrace Clinton brought to the office which resulted in GWBush winning the WH in 2000 based on bringing honor back to the WH.
The Clintons owe and they owe big...to the party and our nominee. We stood behind them throughout the 90s and all that tawdry behavior.
It is time they paid up.
September 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They paid up at the convention - more than Teddy Kennedy did. Bill Clinton has forecefully and openly endorsed Obama - more than Jimmy Carter did as he was backslapping Bill Clinton in the general election over policy disputes. Really - is this your first election?
They are campaigning across the country for Obama - more than any other losing candidate has ever done and yet idiots like you are still whining incessantly taht they are not bowing down far enough. You. Are. Not. Helping. Please take Liam's advice. STFU about the Clintons. Bill Clinton is not talking to you. He's talking to undecideds. Everytime idiots like you stir up animosity, it is harder to bridge the divide and we come closer to President McCain.
September 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy you sure throw up a lot of straw men when defending the Clintons. I remember having to do that in the 90s, but there is no excuse for it now.
Ted Kennedy has been behind Obama since NH and JC also has been a big supporter of Obama. Neither of these folks attempted to smear Obama nor did they provide ammunition to the GOP to go after the party nominee. Both Kennedy and Carter have been great supporters of Obama. Kennedy had to come out and endorse early to make WJC back the hell up with all his racebaiting. Kennedy warned Bill, as did numerous others, and Bill kept right on engaging in that redneck cracker behavior instill in him in AK. So, don't try to throw others under the bus to defend Clinton..that dog won't hunt.
No one thinks Bill has forcefully endorsed Obama. No one. His remarks are tepid, tentative and a lot ass way from enthusiastic wholeheartedly support.
Obviously, you are a neophyte to Presidential elections if you think what WJC is doing is in anyway a full hearted endorsement of Obama. Or either you can't recognize someone damning with faint praise.
You however, are on this thread trying to claim some defense of the Clintons instead of supporting the nominee. If you took LIAM's advice you wouldn't say one frigging word about Bill or Hill. But then those Hill supporters can't do anything but immulate the sore loser mentality of Bill Clinton. I will say, it appears, that Hill has moved on. But folks like you haven't. You are the one who made this entire thread contentious with your verbage about 'hillary supporters'.
THe primaries are over! Anyone using the term Hillary supporter is a sore loser without any regard for the Democratic party who just wants to keep up friction and conflict. Otherwise you would simply back up the nominee and leave that stupid Hill supporters phrase in the trash where it belongs. Hillary LOST. Now, if you would just STFU about Hillary supporters we could move on to what is important and that is electing Barack Obama.
However, sycophant idiots like you want to continue the divisivness by claiming the Clintons are doing so much more instead of realizing that the Clintons did the most damage to any nominee of their own party in the history of US presidential campaigns.
So stop getting it twisted. The Clintons did the damage, they shyt on the party nominee, so they need to campaign very hard to make up for their phucked up selfish behavior. They put themselves first instead of the party.
Now it is time for them to put the party first and they need to exhaust every possibility and opportunity to do so!!
And the sooner nitwits like you realize that..the more unified the party will be.
September 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know nothing of history? Teddy Kennedy and Carter were not referenced to talk about them endorsine Obama. In the 1980 campaign Teddy Kennedy was the runner up and took it to the convention, gave a speech that basically attacked everything Carter stood for. Did not endorse Jimmy Carter. And we lost that election. Do you understand how different Hillary and Bill have acted here? Jimmy Carter basically attacked Bill Clinton's economic plan as a disaster while he was in the general election - is Bill Clinton doing that to Obama? BTW - Bill won anyway without any help from Carter. I could go through and rebut your race card nonsense but I won't beccause my goal is to elect Senator Obama. Yours is to continue to bash the Clintons either because you are a McCain troll or just really, really unbelieveably stupid. Continue your Clinton diatribes. Truly helpful to Obama's cause.
September 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiterose, they can suck Bill's dick. Clearer?
September 26, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, theone718. Get back over to your latest blog.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/am-i-the-the-only-one-that-is.php
I left you a homework assignment there.
September 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh-heh-heh... this kills me!
Now, I enjoy jacking off as much as the next person, but don't you ever get tired of stroking yourself? This isn't about you. Precisely why does it matter that you were posed a question on a radio show? That you've always thought this or that? Can you not simply offer an opinion without the pathetic suggestion that you are also a wonderful guy?
Damn near every post or comment: I, I, I, Me, Me, Me. I'm on the radio! I'm on the radio! See me, feel me, touch me! I have a new blog with my buds! Me, me, me! I'm a very consistent guy! Love me! I love me! You should love me too!
I mean really, how are you not embarrassed by this ridiculously self-serving schtick?
September 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're kinder to my self-serving interview with prepositionman and his lovable sidekick, gangsass tomorrow, loki. We're going to be discussing the Obama campaign's plan to redraw the electoral map by coloring the red states blue and distributing the map as a viral video.
September 26, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why all this talk about Bill Clinton?
Who friggin' cares. In forty days this stranglehold will finally be broken .
September 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty simple. He is clearly still the most popular politician on earth.
September 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
They'll just be changing their grip, son.
September 25, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why all this talk about Bill Clinton?
Who friggin' cares. In forty days this stranglehold will finally be broken .
September 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh shit! A double post! Someone call Andrew Golis!
September 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for Dems (and especially the Obama campaign) to realize that Bill Clinton is actually "shadow" campaigning for McCain-Palin. In effect, he's playing the role of a "mole" or Quisling ostensibly "within" the pro-Obama camp. Hillary had better make a public break, with a fairly strong deunciation, or she's gonna get implicated by association.
September 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the "I" and the "N" that you left off the beginning of your name?
September 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Bill Clinton on The Daily Show and he just look tired. He's done. Time to make way for the next generation.
September 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've no love for Sick Willy, but Let's see how he does next week after his Global Initiative shindig ends. I think he's trying to win over undecideds with honey, not vinegar. We're craving Red Meat,but he'd be preaching to the choir by pounding McCain, and looking hypocritical to do so while hosting him at his conference. He knows Hillary's chances will be slim to none if they're seen as helping to defeat Obama. This pisses me off too, but to Quote Denzel in Training Day " This is Chess Motherf#cker, not Checkers!
September 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wasn't tired on the Daily Show - he was STICKING it to Jon Stewart for his attacks on Hillary during primary. He wanted to advertise but not make it FUN for Stewart.
September 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did he stick in to Jon Stewart exactly?
September 25, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stewart and Olberman are cut from the same cloth. NYC'ers. Should get in a car and drive and see how the rest of us live.
September 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the interview that I saw with Bill and Jon was a really good one. Bill made great points about the economy, was funny and charming, and overall a good sport.
Maybe I need a refresher course on spotting Bill's evil secret-but-obvious intentions.
September 26, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's that he doesn't say "McCain sucks, McCain sucks" for 5 minutes running. How'd you miss it?
September 26, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now --- with the Clintons, I think the best way to go is to be greatful for the help (very greatful in the case of Sen. Clinton who is really coming out substantively, it seems, lately) and not pay attention to the rest. If Obama wins, things that happen - or don't happen - now may seem much less important than they feel at the moment. If he loses, it's going to be 'his fault' no matter what the facts of the matter may be and he'll go into that pasture of "disgraced Democratic contenders" they they all get sent to, and whatever is said, or could be said, in his defense will fall on deaf ears.
Bottom line: NOTHING matters except the voters' verdict on Nov. 4th. There's time afterwards to consider all this tangential stuff.
September 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed
September 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bubba's hand was shaking when he was on the Daily Show. Anybody notice? A sort of Parkinson's tremor?
By the way, he is doing what he did as pres. Go along with everybody. Trouble is, he did a lot a damage to our country by doing that, most especially NAFTA.
September 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA did fine under Clinton. Clinton's not responsible for it under other administrations.
September 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
His behavior is more than just goin' along. He is actively working against Obama. Or actively working for mccain, better said.
September 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya'll need to quit attacking the Clintons. I'm sure everybody (including John McCain) knows that this is Obama's election to lose and though I don't think there's any question who's going to win, these ridiculous attacks and extreme parsing of Bill's every word isn't helping and it because voting starts in a couple of weeks, it might actually be harmful to the Obama cause.
September 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill has been here before and has more experience with this than every poster here (including me) put together and I guess he understands there are enough grenade throwers around. The people that need to be reached now are the 7% undecideds who will be more likely to respond to someone telling them that there are two good men running and they should vote for the better of the two. If these people were going to respond to attacks they would have decided by now. But no we would rather fight amongst ourselves making wild claims as if we actually had the power to read minds and actually knew the deep dark secrets we ascribe to others.
September 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Promote Obama for President.
Never mention the name Clinton again until after the election. Every minute spend pissing and moaning about the Clintons is time wasted that should be devoted to getting Senator Obama elected.
The Clintons are what they are, and you are not going to change them, so get back on message about our candidate.
That nameless couple are not running for anything now, so for cripes sake grow up, and stop constantly harping about them.
What part of Obama/Biden 2008 do you not understand.
September 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton and John McCain are both shoddy, contemptible little men. End of story.
September 25, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't hesitate as a FORM president to ridicule Barack Obama during a Democratic Primary -- but he can't see fit to STAND by Obama and question the motives of John McCain???
September 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comically, I think Clinton might be trying to help here. He knows that the debate is not going to be cancelled, but he goes out of his way to say he understands how McCain might want to do that, that it would be difficult, then proposes an idea. Lets make the "national security" debate be in part about "economics". In general polling, democrats do better with economic issues, republicans with national security. I think the people that believe that republicans are better on national security are misled, but that is beside the point. How does it possibly hurt Obama to make this debate partially about the economy and how his party is fixing it, and McCain used it as a stunt? What Clinton did here was magnificantly passive aggressive. Don't be confused, he is not on McCain's side. This, strategically, is a better move if he appears that he is neutral. He's saying, "sure, John, this is a HUGE deal, so big that we need to reframe the debate about national security around the economy so that the american people can hear about economic plans instead." If he came across that he was attacking McCain, it wouldn't be as effective.
Lets make all 3 debates about the economy and how McCain is bad at it. For that matter, lets make the VP debate about the economy too. The more this election is about the economy, how bad republicans are at it, and that McCain is super-bad at it, and Palin knows NOTHING about it, the simpler this election will be to win.
It is STILL the economy, stupids.
September 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you said pretty much what I did about 40 comments upthread. But actually, I'm relieved that some people, at least, are reading Bill's remarks the way I am.
And I like your idea about making ALL the debates about the economy. Although I think there's about as much chance of McCain allowing that to happen as McCain nominating some neophyte, inexperienced Governor from a small state as his running mate. Wait... what?
September 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, we are getting ready to hand over a trillion to some bankers and people are worried about a debate? how silly.
September 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya'll just can't help yourselves from not hating the great President of your own party.
This great man has a global initiative working seperately from our broken government, raising billions to help the world. He needs the gop's help with money.
Who the fuck are you and what the fuck have you done to even come close to this man.
You just run you ignorant mouths and do nothing.
Stop attacking the Clintons.
Sick of it!
September 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you watch him on the Daily Show, The View, CNN or his Global Initiative conference?
If you did, you would not be bashing him. He should be honored and respected. He is the last dem President that ran a great economy.
Get informed before you spew this bs connie.
If it were me and you called me racist, I would tell you to GFY.
But he is a much greater man than me.
September 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
(NOTE: Please pardon the following rant. But I'm seeing various shades of red right now.)
WE DON'T FUCKING HAVE TIME TO HATE DEMOCRATS!
John McCain is trying every trick in the book to change the subject from Barack Obama's trump card. The economy? Remember that? The one thing McCain tried for months to distract people from with POW and victory and surge?
There's a little matter of $700BB that's about to be shipped into Hank Paulson's love and care.
We have voter caging in Michigan and ballot shenanigans in Mississippi.
And despite this, our biggest concern is Bill Clinton making nice with John McCain before McCain speaks at Clinton's big yearly conference?
REALLY? THAT'S OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM?
GODDAMNIT, FOCUS! We have an election to win! Bill Clinton is NOT the target. That would be the ex-maverick with the combover.
As long as Clinton doesn't trash Obama, and keeps saying he's endorsing him, I don't care what else he says. And all we do, by bleating about "But Bill isn't working hard enough!", is add fuel to the MSM, who loves nothing better than coming to sites like this and Kos, finding a few blogs here and there wailing about the Clintons, and spinning that into ledes like, "The lefty blogosphere is ablaze today with anger at former President Clinton...".
Jesus H. Christ on a bright blue bicycle. Seriously, we have better things to do! Clinton delivered at the convention, and I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that whatever he's doing now has been worked out with the Obama campaign well in advance.
*breathes deeply*
OK. Sorry. But I had to get that off my chest. Now that that's over, can we please get back to kicking John McCain's ass? Please?
September 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
Can you believe these haters?
Unbelievable.
Not a good way to sway Clinton voters.
But the Clintons will get the job done for the country.
September 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any way to recommend a comment?
September 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down, son. It will all be over soon.
September 25, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No calming down until we get out of the circular firing squad. If Bill Clinton is our biggest problem, Obama's going to win 500 EV.
September 25, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you and the dude on the bright blue bike, Eastside. WTF are people jabbering about here? And why?
Collective. Mental. Breakdown.
Wow.
September 26, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
19th. Baby.
September 26, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because whatever we blog about here makes such a big difference.
September 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
- said the mother hugging her child as the Titanic was sinking.
The resemblance is frightening.
September 26, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every comment on every post will start counting as the election approaches. Your comment will contribute to the outcome.
September 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your missing what's important here. He also spoke earlier this morning:
In an interview on The Early Show Thursday with co-anchor Harry Smith, the former president said, "I think that he (Obama) personally, and our party generally, tend to produce better economic results for ordinary people. And I think that, while Sen. McCain -- I like him and he's a friend of mine, and I trust him in many ways -- but the Democratic economic philosophy and Obama's specific proposals, I think, will produce better results for ordinary Americans."
Mr. Clinton said he doesn't think the election will hinge on the fate of the bailout package "because President Bush invited both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain to come back and be part of the congressional briefings, work on this together. I think they need to be attentive to it and fulfill their responsibilities in the Senate and as the nominees of their party.
"But the larger issue is, how are we going to bring the economy back? How are we going to create jobs and raise incomes? That's the long-term stability. That is, there was too much investment in housing alone. We need a strategy here that will get America back across the board that includes dealing with the energy issues, dealing in the bills people are paying for that and the job opportunities there, and dealing with health care. That, I think, those big issues I think will tend to overcome the international issues."
And it's on that "larger issue" that Mr. Clinton thinks Obama would steer the nation down a better course than McCain.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/earlyshow/main4477253.shtml
September 25, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, he didn't call McCain the Antichrist - whats up with that?
September 26, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a silly post about a throwaway comment. Get over it.
September 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton could learn a lot from George Washington about humility and grace and the necessity in a democracy for even the head of state to respect that his time in power is limited.
September 25, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there was a definite rottenness to his speeches this morning. This is the bad aspect to Bill Clinton, and why it was difficult for me to ever respect him despite his talents and brains. He's just too trailer park sometimes.
September 25, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
obawon, do not be an idiot...i didnt say that crowd wins elections...what i said is they have a brain and they use it...with that being said, the up is down theory will not work with them (me) and we will remember this slight 4 years from now, 8 years from now etc.....this is not the crowd that the republicans hold by throat and make them vote against their interest...this is a group of thinkers..they cannot win elections by themselves, but they damn sure can help you lose one if they sit on the fence!!!
it is smarter for all dems to just fall in line like a good sport...if not, all dems lose and i dont mean just this election...i am referring to many more to come...
oh and lets not forget the AA crowd...imagine if they and all other minorities sit this out going forward, the dems will be royally screwed...i am not black, but i know what i saw during the primaries and what i am seeing from the other side and it makes me quite uncomfortable...when you are an other it doesnt play nice to be reminded of your difference in a way that makes you feel like a pariah...we do it every time we say muslim as if it is a dirty word..we do it every time we say obama is an elitis as if a black man who is intelligent and college-educated is being arrogant and besides himself...we do it everytime we say he is exotic as if that makes him unamerican....these things make me, a non-white very uncomfortable and they will force other non-whites to cling to a particular candidate for identity reasons v/s policies-which is what it should be about...
not calling anyone racist, just saying bill c and hillary for that matter didnt play their cards right and it backfired....only a racist knows in his/her heart if he/she is really a racist...we can only judge by behavior....
how is obama to blame if i or any other non-white felt slighted over bill c's and company's political charades which may or may not have been genuinely racist, but polarizing enough to strike a chord with the racist? better yet, i thought bill richardson was disrespected big time ...is obama to blame also for my thoughts on this?
why are we constantly rehashing this and replaying that nasty bit of bad sportsmanship? when did obama say anything untowards regarding bill c's behavior? NEVER!!!! he didnt chide the clintons when they were doing him in during the primaries and he is certainly not chastising them now...stop ascribing bloggers actions and unaffiliated to the campaign arbitrary people's actions to obama..that is disningenuous and you all know it!
September 25, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
we will remember this slight 4 years from now, 8 years from now
---------------------------------------------------
Remembering is good. We all have things we remember, maybe things we'll remember this November.
But what ever happens, don't cry, in fact don't ever get a bit emotional. Because those tears will have to be analysed. they have to be looked at very very carefully in light of Katrina in light of other things that you didn't cry for. We simply think you are being very clever. We see a sensitivity factor something you have not been able to do up to this point. Not in response to katrina not in response to other issues that have devasted the american people, the war in Iraq.
So if Obama loses just don't cry. Because we'll ask if it was a little bit affected, your tears, that it was staged?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQV4K1eFjI&watch_response
September 26, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is doing a classic example of damning with faint praise. He may have his reasons, e.g. thinking it wouldn't help Obama to have his vocal support, but that's not how it comes across. He comes across as having no passion whatsoever for an Obama victory.
He needn't attack McCain to support Obama more persuassively. If anyone knows how to make a pitch, it's Clinton. So far, I've not seen him trying to sell Obama.
September 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton is TRYING His Level Best to Hurt Obama
NOT:
from
Bill Clinton predicts Obama will win 'handily,'
Candidate and former president meet in Harlem of Sept. 11, 2008
Question for you Clinton haters who see anti-Obama bogeymen in every utterance by a Clinton:
Obama likes and trust the Clintons, and is asking them to campaign for him and plans to work with them--so as a Clinton hater why do you support Obama and trust Obama about anything? Shouldn't you be doing something along the lines of calling him a Clinton lackey and voting in protest for someone else?
I just don't get your reasoning in trying to protect Obama from the Clintons, as he obviously wants to work with them--that would mean you think he's really dumb politically and doesn't know what's good for him, and wouldn't make a good president.
September 25, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent take on a very tortured example of base, eminently irrational, but typical Clinton hatred. Consider the source AA, and take it from there.
September 25, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if Bill has hidden motivations, but I just wish he would stop going on TV and just keep quiet about McCain. He wasn't bad on Larry King, yesterday; he said great things about Obama, including that he has the best plan on the economy, energy, health care; that counts for something.
However, I think his praises of McCain are just damaging. Somebody stop him before it becomes permanent damage.
Hillary is much better at defending Obama and her actions also prove it. I think Hillary's efforts for Obama are as genuine as they can be.
But Bill? He makes me nervous everytime he opens his mouth.
September 25, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's made the rounds of television to promote his global initiative and talking about Obama is secondary to his purpose, as it should be. I mean, I watched Chris Dodd have a press conference this afternoon about the bailout package and while he mentioned Obama and took a swipe at McCain, he primarily stayed focused on the task at hand.
September 25, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently haven't watched the interviews on the View, David Letterman, The Daily Show and Larry King. He spent a great deal of time talking McCain UP and being supportive of him -- and bragging about how Hillary's done more for Obama then any other primary canidates done for a nominee, etc...
September 25, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton explained (at least to David Letterman; I refuse to watch The View as it's below my pay grade) why he won't smear McCain.
I'm starting to conclude you're not smart enough to understand Bill Clinton, Connie. Maybe he's just over your head. I'm going with that conclusion because I watched Bill on David Letterman and Larry King, and I watched his introduction for McCain at the Global Initiative. There's no conspiracy.
One thing I do know: You're a resident anti-Clinton troll, and only the stupidest TPMers (fellow trolls?) take you seriously. You slime the Clintons every chance you get.
September 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey TPMers;
Check out Paul Slanksy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/a-note-to-bill-clinton_b_128755.html
September 25, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding write up. Great analysis. Bill Clinton OWES the Democratic party and he needs to start paying big time!!
September 25, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So everything comes back to Bill's blowjobs. The unified quantum theory of politics.
What about Ted's ride off that bridge? If he hadn't been trying to ding a campaign aide, we wouldn't have had Reagan, and thus we wouldn't have had Bush.
September 26, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. People who hate Bill should see Bill hug Obama so they vote against Obama in order to get back at Bill.
Bill isn't supporting McScame, or undercutting Obama. He is being politic in recognition of the fact that those associated with him tend to be seen as associated with a toxicity.
Bill is brilliant, and on track. He said he believes McLame wants to delay [run from] the debate in "good faith"? Bill means athe opposite, which is why he's raising that issue in the first place. No one else is asking whether McLame is acting in good faith [he isn't]? Then lest raise the "spectre" in people's minds . . .
Bill is a brilliant salesman; he just bitchslapped McLame with a backhanded "compliment", but McLame -- and a few others -- don't see it as being exactly that.
Ain't it great to see Bill Clinton being unaffiliated and objective and even handed . . . and raising the question about McLame's acting in "good faith" . . .
September 26, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's politics have always been about promoting BILL, period. He thinks of Hillary as an extension of his godly self, plucked from his own rib, and he's smarting that an uppity newcomer beat her out for the nomination, in spite of Bill's every effort to triangulate the Democratic base. Remember, much of the big legislation he championed and passed while in Washington was enacted primarily with Republican support.
September 26, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev are you racist towards AA? what in the world would you make you think AA are the only ones who are not too happy with bill c's sour grapes attitude from the primaries to today? are you saying that everyone who answered this thread and acknowledged that bill c should either STFU or stick to the DEM talking points, is African American? I think not!!!!! it is people like you who makes up that 20% of Dems who just cannot see themselves voting for a black man therefore they are undermining obama at every turn...it is you who makes up that 20% of Dems who despises everything the republicans/mccain stand for, but would rather cut off his/her nose rather than press that dial for a fellow DEm who happens to be a little to tanned...
how the hell do you think that plays for me? I am not AA but I am of a tanned race...you insult me everytime you knowingly or unknowingly villify another group of colored people....one cannot deny sexism was played against hillary during the primaries (by the media) anymore than we can deny that racism has been hurting obama as much if not more!!! if he was anything other than black, he would have won this thing already!! a clueless idiot such as mccain should have been trailing and no self-respecting Dem would be sitting on the fence when the stakes are so high...i am not saying OBama is perfect, but he is the most palatable choice for the majority of sane americans..that fact that you are so hostile towards him and so dismissive of him says more about you than it does about the AA or any other group of OTHERS out there!!!!
September 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cher, with all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? I mentioned above an ad that the Obama campaign refused to disavow that claimed Hillary didn't respect Hispanics. Thsi was before South Carolina that the race card was being played against the Clintons. If you want to have a discussion of the race card being played by the campaign we can do that but I don't think it's freaking helpful at a time when Obama is still in the general election.
The constant accusations that Clinton supporters are racist or supported a candidate they thought was race baiting is sickening. And most Clinton supporters are sick of it. Even the ones like Bruce and I that are already supporting Obama. Yet you still keep hurling racist allegations thinking you are being helpful because someone doesn't bow down to Obama as far as you would like.
You and those like you are doing your very best to make Obama lose this election and drive Clinton supporters away. I've ignored you for some time now, but please do not mention my name again accuse me of supporting a race baiting candidate because I might just respond back to you in a very detailed way that is hardly flattering of Senator Obama, his campaign or his most divisive supporters.
September 26, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks dijamo for sticking up for me, but I'm quite satisfied with my response to cher, which frankly is far more than she deserves in my opinion. I actually feel much better now. :)
All the best.
Bruce
September 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce et al.
cher was confused by your use of the abreviation AA (instead of aa) in your reply to artappraiser.
Bruce, I was struck by something you said upthread and have a question:
"I believe the division will survive the election, and I'm prepared for an intra-party squabble like never before. I'd just rather have that squabble with a Democrat in the White House. I want to have that fight because I want Democrats who have respect for all of their fellow citizens to be in control of the Party. I don't want self-righteous faux progressives anywhere near the controls of our democracy"
Your language echos that of Clinton supporters who are organizing in order to challenge Obama's ability to control the DNC and are determined to get rid of Dean and Nancy Pelosi, etc and install Clinton loyalists in positions of power.
Do you share their goals as well as their rhetoric?
September 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Lally, I don't share the goals of displacing Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi. I respect them both.
September 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not perfect? In what ways? I'd love to hear you list the ways in which Obama is not the perfect Democratic candidate. If you do that, and if the list is comprehensive and convincing, your cred will go up a little. Let me get you started.
His statement that he would meet personally with Ahmadinejad without preconditions is embarrassing, easy to ridicule, and will be central to the foreign policy debate. Ahmadinejad gets worse every time he speaks. To defend Obama, we've been forced to distort and lie about what he said, losing the without preconditions aspect of his statement and making it sound as though McCain is saying we should not talk to the Iranians under any conditions.
For people who believe Iran is a grave threat, that is a negative for Obama that has nothing to do with race.
Can you list some others?
September 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you cher.
September 26, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No time for that, Bruce. cher has a homework assignment to do. Either cher is stumped or the list is a long one. We'll have to wait and see.
I think it's helpful to give the people who are trying to torpedo Obama an opportunity to list the problems they have with him out in the open.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe for one minute that the Clinton bashers around here have Obama's best interests at heart.
September 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only regret is that I didn't give cher the benefit of the doubt that she might just be too ignorant and stupid to realize the gravity of what she wrote. Nah, she can still go f*** herself while she's doing your homework assignment.
September 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
bruce is my hero!
September 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce is consistent.
September 26, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cher, I think you misinterpreted.
The AA was for ArtAppraiser, the poster who he was responding too.
I understand how that happened because it usually does abbreviate Af-Am...but this time it was the poster's initials.
September 26, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very surprising to me that the intelligent people on this site would get themselves caught up in an argument about Bill Clinton not trying hard enough to elect Barack Obama, and give it more play than any item on the site.
Chew that one over a bit before you guys continue your little flame war.
September 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook,
That is precisely it. The Clintons are toxic. They are polarizing and this thread shows it. Toxic to the party, the nation and themselves. The Clintons are the embodiment of the 'vastleftwingconspiracy' now.
September 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pres Clinton only wants us to blog from 'our better angles'....so, Bill where is Monica, what is she up these days? Will you urge her to vote Obama/Biden?
September 26, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading this thread is like watching pigeons fly into windows.
September 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because Connie Manes wrote it.
September 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
nice job bslev!....you confirmed my point!!!!
September 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wholly disagree that Bill Clinton is trying his level best to "hurt" Obama, but I will say that if Obama can't use Bill Clinton to his advantage, then he doesn't deserve to be president. Plain and simple. If Obama is that weak that Bill Clinton is a factor to his getting elected, then he can't beat McCain.
September 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Rock loves Bill Clinton. After saying Bill Clinton is not a racist and that they are friends, he explained to Larry King:
“His wife was running for president. If you give me a choice between between pissing off a whole race of people or my wife, hey, I've got to piss off a race of people. 'Sorry, blackies. Go eat some chicken. I gotta go.' So, he had no choice.”
September 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill will be on MTP with Brokaw.
Given the venue, the upheaval of the past few days (including Palin's interview) and the debate, I would think the questions put to him will be a bit more targeted.
September 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
You haven't answered my question about supporting the goal of remaking the Dem party infrastructure by installing Clinton loyalists in positions of power.
Perhaps it's just an oversight on your part. Because this thread is so unwieldy, you may have missed it.
I'll try again:
[Bruce, I was struck by something you said upthread and have a question:
"I believe the division will survive the election, and I'm prepared for an intra-party squabble like never before. I'd just rather have that squabble with a Democrat in the White House. I want to have that fight because I want Democrats who have respect for all of their fellow citizens to be in control of the Party. I don't want self-righteous faux progressives anywhere near the controls of our democracy"
Your language echos that of Clinton supporters who are organizing in order to challenge Obama's ability to control the DNC and are determined to get rid of Dean and Nancy Pelosi, etc and install Clinton loyalists in positions of power.
Do you share their goals as well as their rhetoric?]
Also, do you think your use of "AA" to designate "artappraiser" may have been a source of confusion for the poster "cher"? I was puzzled by her response to you and couldn't see any other reason for her assumptions. Here is your post that I believe to be the source of "cher's" faulty conclusions:
"Excellent take on a very tortured example of base, eminently irrational, but typical Clinton hatred. Consider the source AA, and take it from there."
September 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi lally,
Thanks for a response that answers my so eloquently stated question to Cher above:
I didn't realize cher was misterpreting Bruce's abbreviation of artappraiser to launch her "are you a racist?" diatribe towards Bruce. But in all honesty, cher has leveled these racist and race baiting charges repeatedly at Clinton supporters and I've never seen her once apologize for it. I've made apologies before where I've been out of line or misinterpreted someone. Not in this instance though.
September 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Djamo.
You at least get credit for addressing the issue of cher's misbegotten rant. None of the others involved in the pile-on, including Bruce, bothered to say squat. Kneejerkery rules.
BTW, your claims that your perceptions of cher's past posts justify whatever behavior you decide is appropriate can be applied to your track record as well.
You want to go there? Fine. But don't expect anyone to grant you immunity from being wacked with your own petards; even if they have nothing to do with the current issues under discussion.
No one gets a freebie in this Cafe.
September 26, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cher usually gets freebies on this blog. Who knows why.
September 26, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally, see above. I'm not into displacing Pelosi or Dean. I respect them both, and both of them, like Obama, have earned their current spots in the Democratic hierarchy the hard way.
September 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
See WHAT above? Your words are echos of the justifications utilized by the activists who want to impose their own Clinton loyalists in the Dem party infrastructure? Some of the Hillraisers are involved in these efforts.
Perhaps it would be better if you actually explain what you mean by...."I want to have that fight because I want Democrats who have respect for all of their fellow citizens to be in control of the Party. I don't want self-righteous faux progressives anywhere near the controls of our democracy"
.....rather than pointing vaguely off into the ether.
September 26, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally,
You will never accept that in order for Senator Obama to win the Democratic nomination, rightly or wrongly, his campaign and his supporters had to marginalize, to other, a whole loyal swath of the Democratic coalition as, among other things racists or supporters of race-baiting. Accept it or don't; this cher whom you see a need to come to the aid of is Exhibit A. There must be resolution of the damage that has been caused. I don't care who controls the Party, Dean or whoever, but I do want those folks to recognize that people in this Party who supported Hillary Clinton are a necessary part of a fragile coalition. How that manifests itself in policy, on this or that issue, remains to be seen. But I don't take kindly to what happened, and I will forgive in the form of supporting Senator Obama, but I will not forget. I'll never forget the feeling of being othered by political allies for the first time in my life.
And lally, telling me I sound like this or that group of activists rings hollow with me. It's creepy lally; it's like you think I'm some kind of plant from an organized group spreading some dogma, or that I'm writing down some group's talking points. I don't play by those rules. I reserve the right to express myself, even if to you and maybe even others I sound in like kind to some group that you believe is dangerous to the Republic.
September 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
Your self-justification for being a part of the mobbing of cher says it all.
Lady Justice is weeping for her prodigal son.
September 30, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment