You dittohead.

Is it me or do you ONLY post on blogs that have to do with Bill Clinton, it's almost........creepy.

I'm from Jonestown, where you from?

In this case I'm just asking that the concept be Rec'd, not me personally, since likely those 120 somethings Recs for "Lying Bill is Destroying Mankind" or whatever it was weren't exactly appreciating either his style or diversity in party. For such a big house it feels awfully parochial sometimes.

Are you suggesting that Clinton is being "used" in a certain way, by which I mean, he is being employed in a coordinated fashion to make this particular appeal to the "persuadable" voter?

That seems highly dubious especially compared to the alternative: that his appearance coincides with his own publicity tour, that he is giving his own take on the election.

That some people think it is more or less effective does not mean this is some kind of strategy.

Ouija Board

What eastside said...

And yes, I'm agreeing and rec'ing a Desidero post. Does this mean that one of us was hacked? I can't say for sure, but I am definitely the reel ondio1ine...

I understand your logic. And, if you check my blog and comment history, you'll find I was VERY unhappy with Bill throughout the primary.

That said, there are a few things to consider.

(1) Is Bill working with the Obama campaign? Answer: Yes. Both he and the campaign have said so repeatedly, and there are no leaks that the campaign is unhappy with him since the convention.

(2) What's Bill's target audience? Well, he doesn't need to reassure pro-Obama voters. And he can't possibly be aimed at Republicans - they hate him with a passion. So, if he's going to be targeted at anyone, it would be independents, undecideds and Dems who are not sold on Obama.

(3) Why would he say nice things about McCain? First, it probably reflects how he feels. Clinton and McCain worked well together during Clinton's eight years. Second, it's in line with Obama's general campaign strategy when talking about McCain. Obama hits him on the issues, but retains his "nice guy" cred by saying good things about McCain the person.

(4) What has he said bad about Obama since the convention? Nothing, as far as I can see. What I get out of Clinton's public appearances is this:

I think John McCain is a great man and a great public servant. Barack Obama is young and doesn't have much of a track record. But you know me, I'm the "economy president". I think McCain's on the wrong track about the economy. I think Obama's got the right ideas, and he's smart. He learns quickly, and will continue to progress as a leader.

What is so offensive about this? Why should we spend so much time bashing a guy delivering this message? When Clinton says that McCain gave everything but his life for his country in Vietnam, he's right. Praising him in that way does not devalue Clinton's support of Obama. McCain is a flawed man, obviously. But he is a great public servant. Just like, say, Ted Kennedy.

Clinton can deliver that message all day, because it's honest, doesn't bash McCain, and draws the contrasts between Obama and McCain on the #1 issue in this election. All of that should resonate with '08 undecided voters - many of whom went for Clinton in '92 and '96.

I give the Obama campaign enough credit to have hashed out a message (and a target audience) that both sides liked with Bill before the convention.

Your first paragraph stated off fine. There is no way to tell what his motivations are.

I think it is stupid to suggest he is actively trying to undermine Obama. We saw his convention speech which was unequivocal and extremely well argued. To contradict himself, even subtly would, be damaging to himself not Obama.

The question is, what is going on with Bill? Why is he choosing the words he is choosing that have made any number of observers, including many who are not at all open supporters of Obama, take notice.

des thinks it is just Bill's brilliant way of speaking to the undecided voter who likes McCain/Palin but needs to be reminded that liking someone is less important than the policy direction the country will take...and by the way the new guy, who I barely know, has plenty of talent.

That's reasonable, and I think listening to the Brokaw interview and to the convention speech it is clear Clinton has respect and admiration for Obama's qualities as a candidate and potential leader. My own interpretation is that Bill sees a great deal of himself in Obama which has him conflicted. Super competitive people have a hard time acknowledging that someone else might be as good or better than they are (especially when one is the veteran and the other is the new guy).

In this context it is important to note that Bill does not see himself as competing with McCain. McCain's "greatness" (Bill's word) comes from his personal experience that Bill could never match--basically his perseverance, and physical courage. If someone where to ask Bill if he thought McCain were more honest, or more patriotic, wiser or more knowledgable about the world than Bill, I think you would see him push back pretty hard.

So what else is going on. It's fair to say that Bill has never believed in personally denigrating his opponents. that is a quality I think he shares with Obama, and I think it is admirable.

I think he is partly conflicted about Obama. He thinks Obama should be elected rather than McCain, but I he thinks other Democrats would be better than Obama.

A few things to note:
1. Hillary is not taking the same tack as Bill in her campaigning, so if this is a brilliant strategy intended to win over the undecideds, he hasn't shared it with her.
2. It is strange that a president who never won more than 50% of the popular vote is considered the expert on how to win the undecided middle.
3. Bill, if he wanted, could be extremely effective in demolishing the notion of Palin as being qualified to be President without making it personal, and without resorting to he purely philosophical or policy level. After all he is one of only 4 people on earth who knows what it takes to be president.
4. None of this matters. the numbers of people who are going to be convinced by Bill is miniscule compared to the number who will be convinced by watching the debates and becoming comfortable with the idea of Obama as a plausible President.

Indeed, part of their base has migrated into the indie column, which is one of the great big stories of this election. Obama has had his eye on those folks for 2 years. They're the ones who made him the winner of the debate, and they're the reason that he's not yelling at McCain. They're also disproportionately white women, if you read poll internals.

As electoral strategy they *have* tried to win the center, but they govern from the extreme right. That is why our country is so fucked up, and it is why they are losing the election.

That and John McCain can only run on his personality not on a coherent set of core beliefs, because he has none. Or he keeps switching them so he is too confused to articulate them. He sacrificed character at the altar of expediency, so what does he have left? Anger, pique, desperation. We'll see if he goes full fledged feces flinging nasty (as in Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, Rezko)in a few days.

But Palin is an amateur. What's wrong with pointing that out after her predicted crash and burn this Thursday? And who cares if TPM has some mouth-breathing idiots who recommend nasty posts? It's a blog, on the intertubes, where freedom and grotesque humanity go hand in hand.

Might I suggest putting away the broad brush? You may see some details that go against your hypothesis.

Just sayin'.

In the spirit of Yom Kippur, I would just like to apologize to the cafe for my "tedious and mind-numbingly irrelevant post." I reject and denounce the recommendations which were obviously unrelated to the quality of the work. I further apologize for rhetorically asking Gasket whether she "speaks for the fencesitters" in another post, which was very nasty of me.

PS I further apologize for employing sarcasm in this comment.

PPS I further apologize for employing sarcasm in the PS.

PPPS I further...oh, never mind. Happy New Year folks.

Um, *don't* want an Obama win. My first post, and I already screwed up. :)

Chinese kids' parents aren't working for nothing - they're working for steadily increasing wages. They'll be riding to school in bullet trains while Amtrak goes unfunded. Education's improving in China, opportunities are improving in China. It's a country that's still largely socialist, so benefits are often dolloped out by the government rather than appearing in a personal paycheck, but Chinese lifestyle is improving and improving. Hey, isn't the largest bank now Chinese?

As such, we have a partnership. The Yanks handle the sales & marketing & most of the finance/stock exchange stuff and keep most of the profit, but since the amount of production is so great, the Chinese still keep a good amount even with much lower margins. If the Chinese want to install a judicial and banking system that works, they can keep even more. Unfortunately we're giving away our banking system, but our judicial system still pretty well works for business litigation.

So yeah, we're tied at the hips - it's the future for all the kids, red and yellow black and white, they're stock options in his sight, Buffett loves the little children of the world.

The Democratic unity bit was only whether people could get it together enough to figure out that Bill was still serving a good purpose on the talk show circuit, even if not done exactly as they would have done it. And that's what they seem to have done, and that's what I interpret the Recs to be.

As for McCain, I don't think Bill's recommending him nearly as highly as he's recommending Obama. He's baselining McCain about the same place that many fence-sitters and many Republicans see McCain, and then placing Obama quite a bit above, not because of experience but because of Obama's natural talents. It's a workable equation - the natural talents will pay off for us, they're hard to attack the way you can attack experience.

Now, whether this is some grand focus strategy on Bill's part or just fits closely with how he sees it so he uses it? I'd vote for the latter. Bill knows his comfort zone, and when he's in it, he can tweak those emotional buttons.

Regarding the 8 years, the Republicans were in attack mode and would have found a way to bog down anyone. And blame the NY Times for bringing dead horses back to life. Look at all the people tied to huge S&L gains, and did they get 10 years of surveillance & court appearances? But lose $100K or so in Arkansas, and you've got your future set. Compare Bush's Harkin insider trading bit, for example. No one cared, not even the NY Times, even though it was blatantly illegal. Nope, instead we got stories about Bill going for a jog to line up $40K of side work for his Yale lawyer/Fayetteville law prof wife.

The Republicans wasted 8 years for us, and we're still blaming Bill. And we as a party have Reid and Pelosi at the helm who are intent on just being enablers for Republican government. Just how stupid are we?