home

Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I do not know if the Big Dog is fired up, but he is ready to go for Obama:

"I told him that whenever he wanted me to do it, I was ready, and so it's basically on their timetable," Clinton said. "He's got a lot of things to do between now and the convention, of which this is simply one, so I'll do whatever I'm asked to do, whenever I can do it."

Quite frankly, it is on Obama now how and when Bill Clinton campaigns for him - which I took to be Bill Clinton's message.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Where Do The Presidential Candidates Stand? | Watch Netroots Nation From Your Computer >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The best way Obama can emulate Kennedy (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    --at least at this point in the game -- is to embrace the Clintons the same way Kennedy embraced Lyndon Johnson, Adlai Stevenson and other members of the "old guard" in the Dem party.  

    Conversely ... (4.20 / 5) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    the best way he can emulate Gore (the candidate, not the avatar of renewable energy) is to distance himself from Clinton and try to keep him locked away out of sight "like an idiot child" (as Julia in Brideshead Revisited put it).

    [ Parent ]
    and we all remember (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    how well that worked

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    didn't it work well.  This is Bill Maher and the grade school group speaking.

    [ Parent ]
    That's my point (none / 0) (#42)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. (none / 0) (#176)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    Misinterpreted the irony!

    [ Parent ]
    I guess you weren't the only one ... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:38:43 PM EST
    but I hardly expected to be troll-rated for it.

    I guess my larger point is the fatal attraction Democratic Presidential candidates seem to have for losing strategies.

    [ Parent ]

    I did catch your irony right away but (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by andrys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:06:20 PM EST
    I think the person troll-rating you just didn't.  Maybe the person will notice this but we seldom go back to older threads.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting point about (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST
    JFK bowing to tradition and the old guard in taking LBJ.

    If Obama were up 10 points in the polls, I am convinced he would select Sebelius.  He really wants to go there.  She is pragmatic and cautious as is he, and he is used to strong females (his mother, grandmother, and Michelle) and his perhaps closest friend is Valerie Jarrett. And, I think it was a woman partner who was his mentor at the civil rights law firm.  Sebelius would not upstage him and he would feel good about trusting her.

    Hillary as VP may be more of an issue of Bill, just as Obama told Hillary's supporter.  Maybe it is a competitive thing with Bill, or the practical issues of his library contributors, and his having been POTUS and not being a shrinking violet.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Why is he so worried all the time (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    About being upstaged?

    Does he not feel he can hold the stage on his own?

    Just sad.  

    "No No!!!!!  I can't be on the same stage as Joe Montana," said Steve Young, "He might upstage me."

    Actually.  Steve never said that because Steve  isn't afflicted with some inferiority complex.


    [ Parent ]

    It will be hard. . . (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    for the CDS-impaired to make something out of this statement.

    But not, I'm sure, impossible.  I can't wait.

    Any action by the Clintons (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    is now read to be a move for 2012. That's the common CDS interpretation.

    [ Parent ]
    Amazing, isn't it? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    They've already moved to assuming Obama either loses this year or is such a disaster that he will have competition for the nomination in 2012.  But, hey, none of their Obama love had anything to do with misogyny or CDS.  Nope.  Not at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't bet on it (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:55:15 PM EST
    3 arguments, from a Daily Kos diary on the subject.

    1. Bill Clinton is trying to steal the spotlight
    2. Bill Clinton will actually pretend to support Obama, but will subtly undermind him in order to ensure that he loses.
    3. We don't need him, he's too angry and no longer an effective speaker anyway.

    There were also many supporting comments, some with backhanded compliments (I didn't like his nastiness during the primary, but he's useful with rural whites). The "anything to win" people are out full force. The common theme seems to be that Bill Clinton was a terrible person, but now that he's supporting Obama he is welcome back to the fold.

    [ Parent ]
    Ohio (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:16:17 PM EST

    There hasn't been any recent polling from there for awhile.....If Obama is having trouble there, the Clintons look a lot better.

    [ Parent ]
    That's easy (none / 0) (#46)
    by Just another person on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    "If Bill Clinton really cared about party unity, he'd be out there pro-actively campaigning for Obama rather than waiting for word on what he should be doing."

    At least that's the first thing that came to mind when I read that - the CDS-impaired are going to be all over this because Clinton didn't volunteer to go actively campaign for Obama in the rural farms.

    [ Parent ]

    And I'm sure (none / 0) (#120)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    somehow Obama will be held at fault for not doing-- I don't know-- SOMETHING at this point to have already employed Clinton earlier, especially if he wins the election by less than 15% (we know Hillary would have won by 20). I mean, BTD's comment that "Now it's on Obama" is obvious-- everything in the campaign is ultimately now on Obama. Obama has said numerous times he wants Clinton to campaign, and you can bet he'll want him a lot. Obama won't be making the "Monica made Bill toxic" mistake.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd love to know how potent Obama's request (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    was to Bill.  If it was anything like the lukewarm (at best) request he made to his supporters to help Hillary pay off her campaign debts then it would be no wonder if Bill wasn't gung ho about getting out there campaigning.  

    [ Parent ]
    Big Dog is a party guy all the way. (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    The Clinton's have more class than anyone.  

    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    First class all the way, although I still kinda hope the KMA story was true.

    [ Parent ]
    Linkypoo for KMA story, please. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    KMA (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:37:45 PM EST
    As requested.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. Great article. Especially the part where (5.00 / 16) (#14)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    they say Bill is still "bitter" and "needs to get over it."  Where have we heard that before?  My personal opinion is that Obama should kiss Bill's a$$ whenever and wherever he says he wants it kissed.  

    [ Parent ]
    If I was the Big Dawg (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    I would "scratch my face" at least once during every speech while mentioning Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Brilliant (none / 0) (#239)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST
    scratchin and shoulder flicking!

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#115)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    Sadly Folds First Lady Dress Back Into Box

    [ Parent ]
    Ha (none / 0) (#178)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:52:16 PM EST
    Funny!  My wife found it sort of creepy though.

    [ Parent ]
    re KMA: Pretty useless "journalism" (none / 0) (#245)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:32:11 AM EST
    senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "ki$$ my a$$" in return for his support.

    So this senior Dem is telling the reporter 3rd party info, that Clinton said this, NOT to the anonymous senior dem directly (dubious source in the first place), but to "friends." When did this quotee work for Clinton? Were those referenced "friends" friends of Clinton or friends of the "senior Dem" ? What is the antecedent for "he" as in "he recently told..." ? He, Clinton, or he "the senior Dem" ?

    Sloppy. In the words of Billy Connoly, times may change, but standards must remain.

    What's the rep. of the Observer as a newspaper?

    [ Parent ]

    The Sunday Observer was a traditional Liberal (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by laurie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    paper. My Dad used to get it all the time when we lived in England.
    This is The Telegraph, which used to be a serious Conservative paper. However it seems to be now printing a lot of stuff pro Obama lifted straight from the NY Times. (his bio, his strong single mother on food stamps, etc).

    The Telegraph became part of the Hollinger group which also owns among others the Chicago Sun-Times. (See Sun-Times Media Group in Wikipedia). Following a further take-over at the Telegraph Group, by the Barclays brothers, over 100 journalists were made redundant in 2006.

    However I do feel that only an Obama spokesperson could have said this:

    "You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
    "Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill."

     

    [ Parent ]
    The Sunday Observer used to be a very good liberal (none / 0) (#262)
    by laurie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    paper. My Dad used to get it all the time when we lived in England.
    This is The Telegraph, which used to be a serious conservative paper. However it seems to be now printing a lot of stuff pro Obama lifted straight from the NY Times. (his bio, his strong single mother on food stamps, etc).

    The Telegraph is now part of the the Express Group, where Richard Desmond knows that his papers will not (and cannot) survive his ownership. He uses them explicitly as a cash cow, drawing down on them so ruthlessly that that their only function has become to enrich their owner.

    However I do feel that only an Obaman surrogate could have written this:

    "You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
    "Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill."

     

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    Was JFK classy? Or FDR? Or Eisenhower?

    [ Parent ]
    JFK (none / 0) (#233)
    by Realist1450 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:26:37 AM EST
    Jfk didn't flaunt his extra cirr. activities (funny how the presss did'nt report it either), Clinton seems to revel in it


    [ Parent ]
    Helen Thomas said... (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:20:52 AM EST
    (did you hear and see the thunder and lightening just now at the very mention of her name: that was the approval of GOD) that the reason the press -- who obviously knew about JFK and his dalliances -- never said or wrote anything about them was that there was a kind of gentleman's agreement among the press that such personal topics were inappropriate and off limits.

    [ Parent ]
    Gentleman's Agreements (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    Even if the press were inclined to honor something like that today, the legions of other wired media in the hands of the rest of us (including cell phone cameras etc.) would make it very difficult to keep a juicy story quiet.

    Plus, the press never seemed inclined to extend that kind of courtesy to Clinton even before he was president, when he was running. In addition to different eras, could it be a (social) class bias? Kennedy, the patrician son, Clinton the regular guy coming up through the ranks?

    [ Parent ]

    Bygone era (none / 0) (#244)
    by Mike H on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:30:06 AM EST
    Now personal scandals are all the rage, especially if you are a Democrat.

    Given the media frenzy of the Lewinsky thing, I'm a bit surprised that more recent GOP scandals didn't have more legs.

    Funny how the Republicans get all skittish about "respecting privacy" when it's their own boys caught with their pants down.

    [ Parent ]

    this the kind of voter (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    obama values more than me.

    Until Obama can show that he values my vote as much as he values m even's I will not be giving Obama my vote.  

    And if I was bill this would also be a condition of my support.

    The tent does not need to be that big.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh good lord (none / 0) (#55)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    rolls eyes

    Who cares?!? It has nothing to do with the way this campaign has been conducted. Jesus.

    Not to mention, as the pther poster says, it's non of our business and never should have been.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice Move (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    And quite appropriate. The onus is on Obama, where it should be. This shows that the big dog can and will behave. I hope Obama gets it and uses Bill's tremendous talents to our advantage.

    Good sign for Hillary as VP, imo. Full disclosure, I have lost objectivity on the dream ticket because I want it so bad.

    the word behave (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    crushed your unity moment.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by miguelito on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Cultism? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    Or is it deity worship? The thread is about Bill putting Obama in charge. If that is not behaving, especially after all the nonsense you spewed about KMA, I do not know what is.

    It must be hard for your worship to see Bill taking orders from Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    so much for horizontal power structures.  From what I heard Clinton wasn't big on telling everybody exactly what to say and do.

    Sounds like Obama is a step in the wrong direction.  Pretty dictatorial I guess.  

    I think Clinton will give it a try.  I'd love to see carvlle tell Obama where he can stick his leash.

    [ Parent ]

    The best and strongest leaders work (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    "with" people, rather than having the people work "for" them.  The best and strongest leaders know how to tap into the resources that each individual on the "team" has, and knows how to utilize each individual's talents without constraining them. The best and strongest leaders understand that most things require a "team" effort and that it's not about who gets credit, it's about the end result.

    Sounds like Bill could teach Obama a lot.  If only he would listen....

    [ Parent ]

    A quote (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    that I've always loved, and Obama would do well to emulate:

    I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.

     - Woodrow Wilson


    [ Parent ]

    Non Sequitur (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    And quite the straw man. This is about a very powerful ex President officially sanctioning the rival of his wife. Bill is saying that he can and will be a team player. Huge asset for us to have him with as needed.

    [ Parent ]
    Tough one that Bill (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    He'll do what evah it takes to get BO elected. I wonder, would that include post-triangulation triangulation?

    Maybe something like (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    "You'll be very lucky to get Barack Obama to work hard for what you believe in! I assure you that no person would be better for the job."

    [ Parent ]
    ha ha ha ha... (none / 0) (#238)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:33:54 AM EST
    That is so funny! I was on a grad committee for a student who did a year at Oxford. When he returned to Japan with this mega-thesis to present before us, he also brought a letter from a highly respected scholar who had also sent a "letter of recommendation".

    The one page letter was one of the most brilliantly written non-recommendations I had ever read. Still I felt so sorry for the young man as another member of the committee unraveled the truth of the letter to the committee at his Defense.

    [ Parent ]

    Your post-triangulation triangulation! (none / 0) (#213)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    Is what exactly?

    Example sentence please!

    [ Parent ]

    See misspeach2008 above (none / 0) (#215)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    that'll do just fine.

    [ Parent ]
    Not for me. Sorry! n/t (none / 0) (#219)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I can't wait! (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    The Big Dog on the hunt again.  

    It's good seeing the Democrats healing their rifts.  It's long past time for regrets and recriminations.

    This (4.50 / 6) (#28)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    will do nothing to heal rifts.  Hillary's people will bristle at seeing Bill endorse Obama and Obama's people are totally brainwashed to believe Bill Clinton is Hitler.

    [ Parent ]
    Some, Not All (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    on both sides.

    Still, rift healing will take time...

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's people? (none / 0) (#66)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    The last I checked, they were down to a small minority of grumblers.  Hillary and Bill are supporting Obama, as are all of their former surrogates.

    What's wrong with the grumblers?

    [ Parent ]

    Simple difference... (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    ...the Clintons are pols and will survive to fight another day, while

    ...the so-called 'grumblers' are voters.  We don't have to make awkward compromises to keep our future careers and political coalitions alive.

    We are free agents.  Individuals.  Voters.

    In short, we are the deciders.

    [ Parent ]

    If you (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    have to ask, to don't understand politics or democracy.

    [ Parent ]
    We're still "bitter." (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What's 46% of 18,000,000? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    Has anything happened to lower those numbers in the last week or so?

    [ Parent ]
    8,280,000 A really, really small number of (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    grumblers.  

    [ Parent ]
    Still grumbling... (none / 0) (#205)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:39:53 PM EST
    and will still be grumbling even if I vote for him, which I'm still not sure I will.

    [ Parent ]
    It's much less.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by DYBO on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    There are more people that believe in UFO's than there are holding a grudge against Obama.  Heck, even 28% of the country still supports Bush.

    There's just no accounting for people that have an emotional tie to a cause that's long gone.

    [ Parent ]

    See that's a misunderstanding on your part... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:35:48 PM EST
    ...many, many of those grumblers simply do not like Obama and would not like him even if Hillary was not in the picture. I'm not saying that they are right or they are wrong to feel that way. I will say, however, that everyone is entitled to their own feelings and impressions. As someone who is planning to vote for Obama but finds him to be quite lacking in many ways, every time my lack of enthusiasm for Obama is attributed to "clinging" to the Clintons, it ticks me off a bit, frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    That's because we WANT (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
    so much for our country. I wanted Gore. I wanted Kerry. I wanted Hillary. My country did not want them enough. Now there is no one running that I want. Still, I keep the ties as part of hope for a better future.

    [ Parent ]
    8 million versus.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM EST
    2 (Bill and Hillary) plus their surrogates -- what's that, a coupla hundred, maybe 1000, even if you count those who're playing the game but secretly thinking a big STFU to Obama?

    Hmmmm....

    [ Parent ]

    Last night, eavesdropping, I overheard (5.00 / 13) (#21)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    an obnoxious middle-aged smarty-pants guy holding forth, loudly, at the next restaurant table. This is in my corner of ultra-liberal Brooklyn.

    "Everybody knows that the Clintons are only in it for themselves, for ego and power. I mean, they did some good things, I guess.."

    The guy pauses, but quickly recovers his certainty:

    "But the talk is they're holding on until the convention, because they think they can still steal the nomination away from Obama....

    "I've just written something about this on my blog"

    Oh, dear lord. I resist the temptation to "accidentally" bump his table and knock over a glass of wine on my way out.

    I just don't get it. I was out of the U.S. for most of the 6 months leading up to the primary, and I came home to a full-blown storm of Clinton Paranoia Hate. Which, apparently, still rages.

    It ticks me off, and I was never especially a Clintonista. Anyway, I would be surprised, really surprised to see Bill Clinton doing any heavy lifting for Obama.

    He'll only use Bill if he's desperate, IMO. (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    And he might be heading down to Desperate Town already.

    Ras today: 46/46 with leaners (44/42 without)
    Gallup today: 46/44

    Ok, ok, too early for Desperate Town yet, I just wanted to be able to make the joke.

    [ Parent ]

    maybe not Desperate Town (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    just yet but definitely in the suburbs of Flop Sweat.

    [ Parent ]
    KO dines in Brooklyn? (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    Who knew?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:15:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (5.00 / 14) (#22)
    by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    I'm surprised that Bill would have the time to campaign for him, what with soaking the beams for his crosses in gasoline and planning his slave hunts in Africa.  Maybe Barack will have Bill repaint Reagan's ranch since Barack thinks he was such a brilliant President, much better than Bill who only balanced the budget and put our govt. back in to some kind of order.

    Bill's most likely role will be that he is caged on the stage in Denver while Donna and Dean and the rest of their acolytes throw rotten fruit and Taser him for the unforgivable sin of campaigning for his wife.  What a d*ckhead move that was, eh?  We should have all just fallen to our knees and declared Obama's nomination by unanimous consent, I guess.  God forbid we talk about issues during the Primaries when all we need is a marketing plan for our product.

    BTW, this was snark.

    Jackson

    Jackson (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    you sound bitter.
    the same has been said of me if its any consolation.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, and you know what? (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    I AM bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#184)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:55:57 PM EST
    Love you comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#234)
    by Realist1450 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:44:52 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was definitely the savior of our country. He balanced the budget on the backs of all taxpayers with the largest marginal tax rates in history while cutting the defense budget, and sitting idlely by while we where attacked time after time. Yeah, all we need is another appeaser. Obama Qoute "This is the Greatest Nation on Earth, Join me in CHANGING it." Think about it!
     

    [ Parent ]
    Realist? (5.00 / 3) (#246)
    by Mike H on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:37:09 AM EST
    There's nothing "realistic" about that rather twisted interpretation of the Clinton presidency.  The budget was balanced, people were employed, the economy was strong, we were respected around the world, and compared to now there was global peace, and no, we weren't attacked "time after time", certainly not any more than we are being now.

    However, luckily most Americans realize the truth of it -- that Clinton was a very good president, especially when compared with  the two Bush failures.

    Dollars to donuts that most Americans would prefer another Clinton presidency to another Bush one!

    [ Parent ]

    Dude, you've come to the wrong place (5.00 / 3) (#261)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    Folks here actually know history.  They didn't just mainline internet smears in Obamaland Grade School.

    [ Parent ]
    I also (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    interpreted the remarks to mean that Clinton is not wild to campaign for O, but he will if he's asked and if it fits into his schedule.  Of course, the MSM had to make it sound like there is bad feeling between the Clintons and the O because Bill Clinton "portrayed Obama as too inexperienced to be president."  Which, of course, is exactly right, but not at all the cause of the bad feeling which is O's denigration of fellow Democrats as racists and other epithets that are anathema to liberals.

    But the media always have to make O out to be The One while everyone else, especially the Clintons, are the devil.  

    It might help him win, but it's disgusting beyond words.

    The was no "portraying" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    of Obama's record.  It is what it is.  What there is of it.

    I give some slack to the slackers who haven't been involved in politics before, and to the younger set just reaching voting age, for their shock and awe at the revelation that political campaigns are about candidates talking about why they're best -- that being a comparative that requires that it be pointed out that other candidates just aren't as qualified.

    But when the media pull this crap, it's clear as day that they're just pulling crap.  They have seen campaigns before.  They saw other Dems doing this at the start of the primary.  They certainly saw Repubs competing with each others.  

    So it's clearly CDS on the part of the media, evidenced also by their inability to get over it.

    [ Parent ]

    Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Realist1450 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:47:33 AM EST
    Oh, How quickly the Dems turn on their beloved

    [ Parent ]
    Yep! (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by Mike H on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:40:12 AM EST
    There's nothing Dems like better than turning on their own, or turning victory into defeat... or compromising their principles even when it's clear they're right and the GOP is wrong.

    It gets a bit frustrating, time after time.  Not quite frustrating enough for me to sell my soul and vote GOP, but certainly enough to make me seriously think about independents, Greens, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    re-read the quote (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:51:20 AM EST
    the part where it says he's got many things to do between now and the election...  is a quote  Bill Clinton talking about Obama's schedule not his own.  If Clinton was talking about his own busy schedule the quote would have said I have many things to do between now and...

    Clinton has said exactly the right thing here.  He certainly can't go out campaigning on his own without doing what is asked oh him and going where he is asked and when he is asked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if Bill just planned out his own campaign schedule for Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    I Suspect This Will Be a Theme (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    Putting things onto Obama.  Makes sense, that's where they belong.  But it also takes the onus off Clinton.  He'll do what he's asked.  If he doesn't do enough, well, that's because Obama didn't ask.  And it also means Obama has to ask.  Bill isn't going to make a bunch of suggestions to the campaign.  If Obama wants help, then he's going to have to ask for it.  Which, as I said, is how it should be.

    It has to be that way (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    You are right. Can you imagine the uproar if Bill went off campaigning on his own with no direction from the Obama campaign?  I do like the thought of Bill getting Axelrod on the phone everyday and offering unsolicited advice.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how I read it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    it's up to Obama, not Bill  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I agree completely (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    Bill is saying that if Sen. Obama wants to lead, then he should lead. If he wants Pres. Clinton on the campaign trail, he'll be there.

    Otherwise, Bill has some Foundation work to catch up on -- not because he's planning for 2012 or bitterly clinging to his guns, but because it's not his choice to make.

    Sounds about right.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Bill is trying to get OUT of (none / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    campaigning for Obama, indirectly.


    [ Parent ]
    I think you're both correct. Bill is telling (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST
    Obama to lead even though Bill really doesn't want to campaign for him.  Bill's doing it for the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST
    Bill is not an Obamatron. He's a Democrat. He didn't like Gore either (or so I've read) but he was itching to campaign for him in 2000. He rose from his hospital bed to campaign for Kerry. He believes in the party.

    [ Parent ]
    The Party (1.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Realist1450 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:50:48 AM EST
    Bill, and Hill, only do whats good for Bill and Hill. Don't you get it?


    [ Parent ]
    Except (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by Mike H on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:43:49 AM EST
    That is no more true (or false) of Bill and Hill than it is of Obama, McCain, Romney, Rudy, Ronnie, George, Dubya... politicians are politicians, their an egotistical, self-centered, power-seeking breed.  Yet most of them also have some other underlying beliefs or goals, which you agree or disagree with as you would any other person.

    The Clintons are no more or less self-centered than any other pol out there.  To single them out as somehow "specially" selfish is ridiculously naive and unrealistic.

    [ Parent ]

    No, Bill is signalling (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    to the media and other Dems. that although he's had some general conversation with Obama, he still hasn't yet been given any kind of campaign assignment.  He's making it quite clear that if he's not out there actively campaigning, it's not his choice, it's Obama's.

    He's also sending a little warning signal to the Obama camp that if they want him to participate, they'd better get going with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, he'll do it, if asked (none / 0) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:55:37 PM EST
    He's a pro.

    [ Parent ]
    At least Bill ain't asking to get paid (5.00 / 0) (#242)
    by stefystef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:11:05 AM EST
    unlike Rudy Guliani who is asked to be paid to campaign for McCain.

    Rudy was always a tacky, mean-spirited a-hole.

    Bill Clinton is a pro.  And he is smart to stay away from the future "train wreck" that the Obama campaign will become...

    [ Parent ]

    Of course he'd do it, if asked. (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    But he's saying he won't campaign unless he's asked, and perhaps he doesn't expect he will be.

    [ Parent ]
    NOBODY (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:18:41 PM EST
    campaigns for someone unless they're asked to, for heaven's sake.  That's not the way it works.  You don't go out and schedule your own campaign rallies for other pols.  It's their call whether and how to use you, and you don't move a finger until you're specifically invited.

    Bill is making sure everybody understands that he hasn't been invited to do anything specific yet, so he hasn't been able to do any campaigning for Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    OK, that's a fair reading (none / 0) (#73)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:59:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Marching orders? A novice giving marching (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    orders to the most popular Democratic president ever?  Please.  

    Unfortunately (2.00 / 0) (#210)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    Bill Clinton can not be the President, so he must take a back seat. Clearly he understands this and is accommodating Obama.

    A big move, imo. Shows character.

    [ Parent ]

    Does Michelle (none / 0) (#257)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    Take a back seat?

    [ Parent ]
    There Is A Transition (none / 0) (#259)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    throughout history in both parties where a former president, no matter how successful his term in office, no matter how gifted a leader and politician he is, stands down and stands back. Bill Clinton has made that transition, and has spoken very eloquently about how hard it was for him. It must be hard for all presidents who love the job.

    A less experienced nominee getting to call the shots and the more experienced former POTUS graciously agreeing to do what he can to get the nominee elected is how it goes, how it has always gone, if the system is working.

    [ Parent ]

    No, this is not about "handing over (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:14:44 PM EST
    Presidential leadership to Obama."  Number one, Obama isn't the president.  May never be for all we know.  And even if he does get elected, Bill Clinton's leadership doesn't just vanish.

    You are correct in that one person needs to be in charge, but that doesn't mean telling people they have to "behave," nor does it mean giving "marching orders" to a former two-term President.  

     

    Right. . . . (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    Because he's so far ahead in the polls that "teh math" says McCain can't beat him. I admire how strenuously you advocate for your candidate, but accusing someone else of being dreamy eyed makes you look a little, well you supply the word. I'm not sure if the pot/kettle thing is still pc. Bill is a loyal Democrat and he will do what he is asked to do, but if you ever think that will make Bill "subservient", than you haven't been paying attention to Bill. I offer to help other people all of the time, but that doesn't make me subservient. It makes me supportive.

    I Have Been Paying Attention To Bill (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:42:44 PM EST
    And he is saying that he will be subservient. That is big and long awaited news. And, the primaries are over, so you can drop the crap about "your candidate". I voted for Hillary in the primaries. In case you missed it  Obama is the Democratic nominee running against McSame.

    He is Bill and Hillary's candidate, GLoria Steinem's candidate and the candidate for most of the voters in the US, and yes that  includes me.

    [ Parent ]

    In case YOU missed it (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:12:26 PM EST
    Obama is not the candidate YET.

    There is still hope.

    [ Parent ]

    Hope (none / 0) (#224)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:34:21 PM EST
    Something to distract yourself with.... Must be tough, falling in love....

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like you'd know about that. (none / 0) (#226)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:23:31 AM EST
    I'm not in love. I'm too old and too smart. I know the better candidate when I see her though.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#227)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:26:50 AM EST
    I liked Hillary more than Obama too, enough to vote for her. But that is over. I have adjusted.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps you should reveal how you (none / 0) (#228)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:29:28 AM EST
    made the adjustment.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Two Seem (none / 0) (#229)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:37:16 AM EST
    Pretty much the same to me. Bad on the war, bad on crime. But basically core democrats, miles better than McSame. Obama seems like he has a good chance of winning. Adjusting posed no problem for me.

    I did not take anything in the campaign personally, and never spent any time at dkos. The only trolls/cultists I encountered were here at TL.

    [ Parent ]

    I do think the more one reads the comments (none / 0) (#230)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:45:56 AM EST
    the more the viewpoints become entrenched. Not moi, natch.  

    [ Parent ]
    Old Habits Die Hard (none / 0) (#231)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:59:57 AM EST
    Relatively new ones too, evidentially. That must be part of it for some.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#263)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    Bill = subservient

    Ha ha ha.  Even Obama doesn't believe that one.  I bet his campaign staff is seething over this one.

    Bill's saying 'It's all on you, buddy, now put up or shut up.'

    Bill's been playing this game a lot longer than Obama, and is not nearly as constrained as Hillary by political concerns.

    [ Parent ]

    That (none / 0) (#188)
    by tek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:03:27 PM EST
    doesn't mean he has to be my candidate.  He's also Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and Maria Schriver's candidate, but he's not my candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Nor is he mine. (none / 0) (#198)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not my candidate either. (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by chopper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    I'm hoping Obama totally implodes before Denver and Hillary wins the nomination and certainly the presidency because she is the more qualified of all three.

    [ Parent ]
    There's still a convention (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    and an election to go. Unless I fell asleep and it's November 5th?

    Bill Clinton: reading between the lines (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by bridget on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08:27 PM EST
    ".. but has not given any thought to whether he wants to speak at the party convention in Denver."

    Very clever said (and probably meant,too, IMHO).
    Hard to believe but it took only eight years to get to this point. Pretty sad I say.

    btw. how boring will that be without the Big Dog at the Dem convention. Bill Clinton is the Democratic Party.

    No he is not (none / 0) (#254)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was a good Democratic President.

    He is NOT the Democratic Party.  

    [ Parent ]

    Bridget, word of warning. Don't get into this (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:38:24 PM EST
    conversation.  Jeralyn just cleaned up the thread because of some bickering that was going on about this particular topic with your conversation mate.  

    thanks, Angel :-) (none / 0) (#265)
    by bridget on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    I usually avoid bickering with others on the blog and I agree that this was one of those times when I should have ignored certain comments and deleted my own response before posting.

    I apologize to Jeralyn and my fellow bloggers.

    [ Parent ]

    I can just see Obama chuckling to his aides (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    and saying that he'd really like to have Clinton campaign for McCain, to get best results.