Bill Clinton: Hillary Will Call Upon Bush 41
Bill Clinton might have just done it again — saying something in the home stretch that will cause Hillary's campaign a whole lot of trouble.
"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill," Bill told reporters during a stop in South Carolina, "the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again."
A president certainly can do that. But Bill is saying that George H. W. Bush would agree to participate in an assignment predicated on his son being publicly acknowledged as a failure — and all Bush 41 has to do now is say that he wouldn't. And beyond that, do Democratic activists really want to hear that someone named George Bush will be recruited to assist in Hillary's foreign policy?
Comments (137)
LJ wrote on December 17, 2007 10:37 PM:..."the first thing she intends to do..."
Yeah, that can't really play well at the campaign. The first thing Hillary will do as President will be to send Bill out to fix everything for her. Not quite the image they've been trying to project.
Lis wrote on December 17, 2007 10:38 PM:Goodness but someone ought to put a gag on this poor man, no?
tarheel74 wrote on December 17, 2007 10:40 PM:compared to Tom Coburn with whom Saint Obama wants to work if he gets elected, Bush Sr. is the epitome of rationality. BTW I am still waiting for TPM to followup on the planted questions by the Obama campaign, but I forgot this is the unofficial St. Obama campaign site (together with Huffington Post).
CalD wrote on December 17, 2007 10:40 PM:At what point do we finally just admit that we really do have too much time on our hands?
larry wrote on December 17, 2007 10:45 PM:great, the Bush/Clinton legacy to continue...ugh
moondancer wrote on December 17, 2007 10:45 PM:Why not? Shes GOP lite anyway. If Jomentum can snuggle with McCain, why not dynasty C in a circle jerk with Dynasty B? I think its cute, our two Royal Families getting so chummy. Too bad their is no male heir to marry the families closer.
DM wrote on December 17, 2007 10:47 PM:Bill claimed on Charlie Rose that Hillary had only decided to run for president and told him about it last January. Yeah, right. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that is complete BS. Why not just admit that she decided long before January? There's no shame in that. It's truly an insult to spew that kind of crap and expect people to believe it.
The last seven years have been political hell, but who wants to go back to the 90s? Who wants Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? Better yet, why don't we just slate Jeb for 2016 and Chelsea for 2024? I think I'm going to be sick.
There's a great democratic field this time around--lots of good choices--and most of them would be better than HRC.
Barry Champlain wrote on December 17, 2007 10:47 PM:So basically, The Carlyle Group will do a World Tour, reassuring sheiks and robber barons everywhere that the other sheiks and robber barons are now out, and these other sheiks and robber barons are now IN?
Um... where do We The Goddamned People fit into the great scheme of things, vis-a-vis The Amurcun Dream, and all that red, white and blue fairy tale rot?
And most of all... at what point can we just get rid of all these people, for once and for all?
ProDemocrat wrote on December 17, 2007 10:47 PM:What's up with Bill? Is it possible he might be smoking those funny cigarettes again?...No, that couldn't be the reason why he continues to act incompetent - he doesn't inhale, remember?
ninguno wrote on December 17, 2007 10:52 PM:that's it! if she even comes close to that 41 yuppie swine . . . no way in HECK will I vote for her. Never.
Ni Daye wrote on December 17, 2007 10:59 PM:Eric, you are an idiot. Given the good rapport between Bush and Cliton, would bush say outright that he will not help her and the U.S. to rebuild reputation. Hillary said she would recruit Colin Powell to help her out. Colin has not said no. Normally, people would say it is premature to say yes or no given that Clinton may not win the presidency at all. How can any president say no flat-out to his successor.
How far will you go to undermine the candicay of Mrs. Clinton? Eric, you are clearly a moron!
Poppie wrote on December 17, 2007 11:00 PM:Bill is getting desperate and reveals how "in touch" he is with the American people. Time for the HRC campaign to find him someone in a blue dress.
Ni Daye wrote on December 17, 2007 11:01 PM:For your information, it sounds you are such an idiot, GHWB was cited as a president Mrs. Clinto admires. Is it really such a bad idea to have respect to a President from the other party?
TB wrote on December 17, 2007 11:02 PM:That's just weird. I know Bill and HW have become chummy (and that's a good thing), but still, just a very odd thing for Bill to say in the context of a dem primary campaign.
It will be interesting to see if HW does, as Eric suggests, come out and undercut this in some way, because Bill's suggestion is plainly predicated on the notion that W has been a failure. If HW doesn't respond negatively to this in some way, that may be revealing in light of the MSM reporting that W has concluded that the next president is probably going to be a democrat and that, if that be the case, W's preference is Hillary.
Mark from NY wrote on December 17, 2007 11:04 PM:Well, they don't call it "silly season" for nothing.
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 17, 2007 11:04 PM:Tarheel:
Maybe TPM didn't follow up on the "planted" question as it wasn't a planted question by the campaign at all, but simply a question about taxes that an 18-year-old high school senior came up with ON HIS OWN at an event he decided to attend ON HIS OWN for a report he was writing for his local paper about the Obama event from a youth perspective.
Personally, I prefer Obama working with Tom Coburn on making government spending more transparent than giving Bill Clinton control over U.S. foreign policy just so he can repay the Saudis for all the donations they made to his presidential library.
END THE BUSH-CLINTON DYNASTY NOW!
JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin wrote on December 17, 2007 11:11 PM:Is Bill insane? Yes.
"Bipartisanship" and/or "Centrism" are not good words. If people loved Republicans so much Bill, they would have voted in another GOP congress.
sometimes I think Billy Bitch was hoping the GOP would hang onto Congress, so he could talk about "reaching across the aisle".
Tough shit, Bill. If you hate the Dems so much, leave the party.
Ni Daye wrote on December 17, 2007 11:23 PM:JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin wrote on December 17, 2007 11:11 PM:
Is Bill insane? Yes.
--- Jane, I think you are insane. It is your beloeve pretender who has been saying he can unite people togetehr, who can work across aisle. Why your beloved pretender has been talking the talk, Hillary has been walking the walk. She has establshied good will with many people across the aisle.
did you miss that Steve Clemons found that your belove pretender was negligent with the only job he could have learned something about foreign policy? He has not even held one single hearng on European issues?
Tim wrote on December 17, 2007 11:27 PM:I can't remember how long ago I said this:
Hillary uses rovian tactics, hangs out with Murdock, takes money from corporations, refuses to admit a mistake, and has a husband that hangs out with Poppy Bush...
Increasingly Hillary is the new W...
And now this.
He, the great political maestro of our time, just stepped right into it.
CalD wrote on December 17, 2007 11:30 PM:Quote of the day. From Kos:
The candidate wars are now being fought in the Recommended Diaries. Here's a little secret -- no one is being convinced by those diaries to support your candidate, but many are sure being turned off by them.dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 11:48 PM:
CalD wrote on December 17, 2007 10:40 PM:At what point do we finally just admit that we really do have too much time on our hands?
Eric, Bill Clinton might have done exactly what, again?
My Gosh! What has this campaign come to?! I am about to quit being interested in politics because things are now getting mindless and petty beyond belief!
The last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, and although in it there are people who align themselves with political entities named Dem and Repub parties, folks belonging to these two entities still do get together regularly in bars, worship together in churches, go together to enjoy America's favorite past-time in baseball fields, share college dorm rooms, and, yes, fight side-by-side in wars against enemies of America. Has the present political campaign changed any or all of that?
The only thing "wrong" with Bush-I is that he was a lackluster POTUS due to an economic downturn ("the economy, stupid"). Other than that, the man served America very honorably and courageously, including being a downed fighter pilot during WW II. Poppy Bush has shown himself to be a force for good, most notably when he teamed up with Bill Clinton to help in the relief efforts in southeast Asia following the large tsunami that had devastated millions of lives in region. Finally, despite having been opponents in the 1992 presidential election, in which Bill had defeated poppy Bush, the two came out of it with dignity intact, and have forged what appears to be a strong friendship regardless of their politics and an often nasty antagonism during that campaign!
Therefore, all those who've been applauding Obama for his desire to bring people together should be applauding Bill Clinton and GHW Bush for setting a good example for how people with different views can achieve common ground to move the interests of America forward! The Son also rose, but fucked up Big Time; however, the sins of the son are not those of the father...unless you are willing to turn hereditary genetics on its head!
Give this one a rest; it is petty, ridiculously mindless, and beyond the pale! Poppy Bush, Fmr SecDef Cohen and Colin Powell, and many people from the other side who've served America with dignity over the years still enjoy a great respect around the world and it should not be heresy for America to tap these folks to be "ambassadors for peace", who would to try to repair the damage that's been done over the last 8 years by the Village Idiot and his crew. I suspect that poppy Bush would be honored to serve his country if the next president, a Dem, came to him and asked him to be such an "ambassador for peace."
GOPsmurderedconscience wrote on December 17, 2007 11:54 PM:Eric what is the point of this article? Is it just another crime committed by HRC and one more proof she deserves the death penalty?
Sheeeeesh.
They're still employing a general election strategy. They may no longer have that luxury.
GregNYC wrote on December 18, 2007 12:04 AM:This place is Hillary hater central.
This used to be an objective place and now it's like Andrew Sullivan's annex.
White sexist men looking for anything to malign her.
You people make me sick.
NJ Lawyer wrote on December 17, 2007 11:58 PM:They're still employing a general election strategy. They may no longer have that luxury.
Took the thought right out mind...
WWNPHD wrote on December 18, 2007 12:06 AM:Another awesome little win for Obama. I think Bill, deep down, wants her to lose.
whit wrote on December 18, 2007 12:11 AM:A hint: Notice we're not at war with Iran? Now why would that be? Is it because 41, through Gates and his connections at the CIA is now in charge of foreign policy again? 43 surely remains a puppet, as he's always been. But the puppet master has changed.
The Clinton's are in on this; and we should all be grateful to 41 for this great service.
Gus wrote on December 18, 2007 12:13 AM:So the Clinton campaign's response to Edwards' call for a more agressive posture by the Democratic party towards big business-backed, free-for-all-trade-driven foreign policy is to ...promise to appoint the guy who went into Iraq the first time to go tell the world "we're open for business."
How is this different from the first thing Romney would do as President?
Gnopple wrote on December 18, 2007 12:17 AM:This place is Hillary hater central.This used to be an objective place and now it's like Andrew Sullivan's annex.
Wait...this was HillaryLandOnline about two weeks ago!?
Maybe these stories are actually, you know...news stories. Oh well.
amber wrote on December 18, 2007 12:19 AM:Hillary's opponents have already pointed out how lock step she is with George W. Bush, so what difference does Bill's comment make. Hillary was for George Bush before she was against him. She voted for Iraq and Iran like her good buddy Joe Lieberman who the Clintons endorsed in the last election.
At least Bill's comments weren't laced with the veiled-smiley-faced anti-semitism and racist message that the Clinton campaign put Bob Kerrey up to yesterday. That was ugly and is something that I'd expect to come out of Sean Hannity's mouth. But that's the dirty politics that is Hillary Clinton.
norris morris wrote on December 18, 2007 12:19 AM:Obama is a roll of the dice.
slb wrote on December 18, 2007 12:26 AM:"Bipartisanship" and/or "Centrism" are not good words.
I thought that's what St. Obama was supposed to be all about -- a "new" politics without "partisanship" and "confrontation," something we stupid old baby boomers just don't know how to do.
Dunno how he expects to deal with the kamikaze Republicans without confrontation, but hey, he's supposedly the political genius, and I'm just a stupid baby boomer.
prostratedragon wrote on December 18, 2007 12:30 AM:"Yo, brushboy, nice Poppy you have there ..."
I don't know, still seems a bit, shall we say, daring. But it could fit in with the not going to bomb Iran after all stuff.
For the record, I'd sure like to see some other family in the White House some day.
jeanruss wrote on December 18, 2007 12:33 AM:UGH! I just never want the names Clinton and Bush to be on anything official anymore-they are two sides of the same coin-the country is in crisis because of the actions of these two families-we might as well become British citizens again-even the English were able to dump Tony Blair.
norris morris wrote on December 18, 2007 12:35 AM:This blog reminds me of right wing, andrew sullivan and Arianna of HuffPo, who trashed Gore and got all the Naderites to throw 80,000 votes to Nader.
We are headed down the same path by the hateful and destructive Hillary hate framed by the right, and by left liberals and indies support of Obama as egged on by Arianna H. who trashes Hillary as she did Gore. Naderites are repeating themselves and would rather lose than support anyone they perceived as not "pure".
Naively making an idol of Obama is fatal.
He is not only untested, we know NOTHING of his part time? State Senatorial votes and accomplishments(?) in Illinois for 8 yrs?
Why not? Obama tells us he never thought this would be important and it's too costly to retrieve?
One year in the Senate. Lots of absent votes. What did he do in Illinois that is compatible with his current positions?
And read Paul Krugman in todays's NYTimes as to how naive his HealthPlan is. His OPED on Obama and Edwards Healthcare is examined and explained very clearly.
Edwards has by far a superior plan, but Obama is fantasizing that he plans to work with the Insurance Companies in forging his plan?? Yes, sure, they'll lay dowwn for Obama and eat him alive.
Krugman's fine analysis details both healthplans and brings reason and specifics to Obama's flawed thinking and unrealistic expectations. i urge you to read today's OPED.
scuseme wrote on December 18, 2007 12:37 AM:Bill's spent a lot of time with George HW. Methinks Bill just let it slip that Bush41 has admitted privately he thinks his lesser spawn is a screwup and hopes to make amends by fixing the mess.
Richard wrote on December 18, 2007 12:57 AM:I think that the pairing of the words "Bush" and "open for business" is what should make everyone uneasy.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 1:01 AM:If you were a prolific adulterer would you want your wife to be President?
Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 18, 2007 1:02 AM:I'm totally dizzy from all the spin. Let me just add. Hillary has something she wants you all to know. She’s just too shy to tell you herself, and the liberal media wants none of it. Do you remember (sounds of harp music), after the fall of the old Soviet Union, the 1990s economy was driven by massive military cutbacks. The Clintons were savvy enough to plow lots and lots of that dirty old money into the US Department of Education. Hence, the always charming Teachers Union already onboard with Hillary. Beating swords into plowshares, the “peace dividend,” it was a job of work. Then, in 1995, Bill & Hillary founded the incredibly lucrative West Coast Finishing School for Thugs. The rest is history. But again, Hillary should be telling you all this: http://theseedsof9-11.com
DM wrote on December 18, 2007 1:04 AM:Robert Reich clearly showed that there is not a big difference between the health plans of the top three democratic contenders and that all three plans would be a big improvement over what we have now.
Reich also showed that it is disingenuous for Clinton (and her supporters such as Paul Krugman, whom Reich names by name) to act like there is a big difference.
Clintonistas need to manufacture differences like this because if the primary elections come down to the Iraq war vote, character/trust, and real plans to limit lobbyist influence, Obama or Edwards wins.
Also, check out Fareed Zakaria's article in newsweek about why Obama's foreign policy experience compares favorably with Clinton's (not to mention Edwards' lack thereof).
DM wrote on December 18, 2007 1:04 AM:Robert Reich clearly showed that there is not a big difference between the health plans of the top three democratic contenders and that all three plans would be a big improvement over what we have now.
Reich also showed that it is disingenuous for Clinton (and her supporters such as Paul Krugman, whom Reich names by name) to act like there is a big difference.
Clintonistas need to manufacture differences like this because if the primary elections come down to the Iraq war vote, character/trust, and real plans to limit lobbyist influence, Obama or Edwards wins.
Also, check out Fareed Zakaria's article in newsweek about why Obama's foreign policy experience compares favorably with Clinton's (not to mention Edwards' lack thereof).
CornBred wrote on December 18, 2007 1:14 AM:Calling on Bush 41 for this would be a brillant tactic in the general election (assuming Bush 41 was in on it), but I just don't see how this helps Hillary now in the primaries. (And if Bush 41 ain't in this right now, this is going to bite.)
It's almost impossible to believe Bush 41 is in on this because it's bashing his son while still in office. Granted the kid deserves to be bashed, but I don't think Poppa Bush has got the heart to do it.
This just seems weird. I'm almost starting to wonder if Bill actually wants her to lose so he can finally divorce her, because his game in this campaign is seriously "off". He's drawing so much attention to himself, and reminding people what "Clinton Fatigue" was all about.
Motive for him to not want her to win: His life is freakin' killer right now. He's got 30 or 40 million bucks. She's stuck in the Senate (back and forth between DC and NY) and he gets to run around the world with his rich, cool (and hot) friends and do whatever he wants. If he's first-husband, his life changes for the worse. He's gonna have to be spending lots of nights at the WH and traveling with her and stuff. He knows too that if he gets caught with another woman while HRC is President, he is in deep trouble. Like the deepest trouble that any dude has EVER been in. I'm telling you, something's weird here.
CalD wrote on December 18, 2007 1:23 AM:Actually, George H.W is an internationalist and not a dumb guy at all. I'd bet deep down, there's probably nothing he like to do more than help clean up the mess Junior made. Would look a little odd though, you have to admit. Anyway, the man is over 80. Maybe we should let him rest.
Sean Q. wrote on December 18, 2007 1:25 AM:Nobody is catching this yet - but Clinton just handed a golden opportunity to Obama.
What if Obama says, Bill Clinton would be a great worldwide ambassador, and I would ask him in the service of his country to do the same thing.
Game, set, match Obama. What can Clinton do, sulkily refuse? If he says he would only do it for his wife he looks like a complete ass. If he says he would also of course go for Obama as well, then it makes the Clintons look incredibly silly for trying to use this as a point of differentiation.
C'mon Obama! Take this gift!
anon wrote on December 18, 2007 1:29 AM:Eric,
You're a fucking idiot!
CornBred wrote on December 18, 2007 1:41 AM:Well it's on the top of Drudge now (12:40 PM CST), so I guess we'll all find out tomorrow if the world thought this was a good idea. I'd bet a six pack the Clinton campaign is PRAYING that Bush 41 is out of the country on a four-week backcountry expedition.
Don't Worry, Be Happy wrote on December 18, 2007 1:44 AM:Angry Anon,
Eric didn't do this; Bill Clinton did. Eric is just reporting what happened.
Doesn't seem like the Clintons are "ready for day one," does it?
Maybe Laura Bush should run for Senate . . .
Don't Worry, Be Happy wrote on December 18, 2007 1:45 AM:I hear Kay Bailey Hutchison is retiring.
Julian wrote on December 18, 2007 2:10 AM:So tomorrow the headline will Clinton surrogate calls Obama the Islamic Manchurian candidate. Hillary's idea of change is bringing another bush in the white house. There goes all her mo from the DMR endorsement. I love how every time they start to get momentum Bill manages to screw it up. I think he is secretly for Obama, that would explain why he kept comparing himself to Obama in the Charlie Rose interview.
Based on her campaign performance, i think the idea that her experience has prepared her for anything is a joke. How can she manage the country if she can't even manage her campaign.
desider wrote on December 18, 2007 2:16 AM:Well, aside from whether Bill or George are on the trip, this is exactly what I'd expect her to do.
Saying Bush Sr. would be on the trip is an amusing touch. Plus it can attract some moderate Republicans. Though I know Hillary should only worry about Iowa and New Hampshire.
Firstthingwedo wrote on December 18, 2007 2:40 AM:Are you people nuts? There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Bill Clinton is saying here, and if it happened, it would help the US image both here and abroad. This cannot possibly hurt the Clinton campaign.
It would inspire a lot more faith around the world that things were turning around than anything other candidates could do.
And, for the record, Hillary is about choice #3 or 4 for me.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 2:41 AM:Clinton the "change agent" causes Clinton fatigue already.
Ruth Bethinger wrote on December 18, 2007 2:41 AM:Bill Clinton's comments about Barack Obama are interesting in light of what he said in 2003 about supporting the war (and particularly, his comments about those that opposed it):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp5bkUUupAQ
Mike wrote on December 18, 2007 2:49 AM:This would make a funny SNL sketch if the writers weren't on strike. Bill making gradually more and more outlandish statements about her presidency at a press conference while Hillary tries to shut Bill up.
hwc wrote on December 18, 2007 2:58 AM:TPM:
You are embarrassing yourself. Hillary Clinton has only been promising to send respected emmissaries from both parties around the world (including former Presidents Bush and Clinton) for the last six months -- at virtually every campaign stop.
Maybe the media should try covering what the candidates actually say so that bloggers, such as yourself, don't embarrass yourselves.
Sean Q. wrote on December 18, 2007 3:06 AM:Firstthingwedo - that is kind of the point I think people are missing. Of course there's nothing wrong with it. That's not the point - the point Bill Clinton is trying to make is this is an example of why you should vote for Hillary and not her rivals. (If you're Obama you don't respond to the part about Bush 41, because who cares?)
The argument is: Hillary is the Wisest Foreign Policy Person because she'd know to send me and Bush 41 out on a diplomacy mission.
That's why if Obama says, I'd send Bill Clinton too, it's a no-brainer, it completely checkmates the whole argument. He looks like he's putting the country's needs over any personal dispute they may have (particularly after the Charlie Rose appearance), he also punctures the notion that there is some secret formula to making foreign policy decisions (that you need a special sauce of experience).
But again, it puts Clinton in a no-win bind. Now he gets asked by the media, would you go on behalf of an Obama presidency? If he says no (he would never say no) then he looks ridiculously petty and selfish. If he says yes, he completely destroys the whole message of vote for Hillary not Obama because of how much foreign policy wisdom she has.
There's such a nice jujitsu opportunity here, I really hope Obama's people see it.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 3:16 AM:amber wrote: At least Bill's comments weren't laced with the veiled-smiley-faced anti-semitism and racist message that the Clinton campaign put Bob Kerrey up to yesterday. That was ugly and is something that I'd expect to come out of Sean Hannity's mouth.Wow! Just wow! Shame on you amber!
Bob Kerrey is no racist! Bob Kerrey praises Obama’s diverse background saying, and I quote Kerrey to the word: “people are acting as if he’s an Islamic Manchurian candidate. And I feel it’s actually a substantial strength. He is a Christian. Both he and his family are Christians. They’ve chosen Christianity. But that connection to Indonesia and a billion Muslims on this Earth I think is a real strength and will add an awful lot of value in his foreign policy efforts.”
And this is a racist anti-semitic message!? And, if that’s your genuine reaction: then you must surely agree that we cannot under any circumstances nominate Obama. If it’s off limits to praise his diverse background and you can’t even mention his family or his upbringing then he absolutely positively cannot handle the General Election campaign and must be weeded out in the primaries.
MNPundit wrote on December 18, 2007 3:19 AM:D'ya think he secretly supports Obama?
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 3:21 AM:What is this story and thread anyway? President Clinton points out that the new President Clinton will make a running start retrieving American foreign policy from it’s neocon kidnappers. In that job she’ll make use of ex Presidents and elder statesmen willing to lend a hand rebuilding America’s standing in the world. And this is outrageous to anyone but GWB and Cheney because...??????
York wrote on December 18, 2007 3:24 AM:Sure, it's a good idea (in theory) for Bush41 and Clinton to go around the world making friends for the US and smoothing over the disasters created by Bush43/Cheney.
However, the problem (and the reason Bill's comments are news) is that we are currently in a dynastic narrative.
Normally, former presidents can be a great asset--look at Jimmy Carter in his diplomatic work and even Richard Nixon in his foreign policy advice to subsequent presidents.
But it's different in this case because Bush43, who has screwed things up, just happens to be the son of Bush41, who will supposedly be going around to (try to) clean up the mess. And it's different because Clinton42 would just happen to be the first spouse of a hypothetical Clinton 44.
So, yes. Cooperation=Good.
However, dynastic rule=bad.
The British figured that out a long time ago.
We do not need a Clinton 44, or a (Jeb or Laura) Bush 45, or a (Chelsea) Clinton 46.
Bill Clinton is proving to be a liability for Hillary's campaign. What makes anyone think he would be anything else as first spouse?
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 3:25 AM:MNPundit,
Bob Kerrey is an honorable Democrat. He has to my knowledge no beef with any Democratic candidate. Kerrey is known for his candor and honesty. He’s among the last persons on the planet I’d accuse for hidden subtexts, or “racism” for that matter.
Me thinks camp Obama is getting a tad bit desperate.
anon wrote on December 18, 2007 3:44 AM:I don't read EC often so maybe I'm missing something and everyone already knows this but the subtext of this story, unless I'm missing something, is the deal Bill made with 41 (or 41's team) to drop investigation of various 41 crimes in exchange for a (seemingly) smooth transition. The deal was brokered by Baker or Clifford or the Clintons and nothing official (like the strangely forgoten paperwork Clinton signed at the end of his term.) I'm sure there's a Waas or Parry article some place with the details and IIRC one or more of the players has written about the deal. They'll try the same thing if Hilary's elected and why not? They have more leverage this time and whatever deal they make they can still litigate.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 3:58 AM:York wrote: Bill Clinton is proving to be a liability for Hillary's campaign.Not in the least. That’s just another fidget from the mind of an increasingly desperate Obama campaign. Bill Clinton’s wildly popular among Democrats of all ages, races and sexes. The only thing you have against him really, is him campaigning for Hillary. Had he hit the stump for Obama you’d purr like kittens. kozmik wrote on December 18, 2007 4:11 AM:
Wow. Kleefeld really nailed that one.
What the hell is Bill thinking? Is he thinking? For the multiple reasons Kleefeld listed, that was pretty stupid on a number of levels. If HW Bush does it it looks like a double dose of Clinton and Bush family Nepotism.
And if he doesn't want to humiliate GW Bush and backs out, or worse, if he just set Bill up and played him for a fool, then it looks even worse for Billary.
kozmik wrote on December 18, 2007 4:18 AM:"Bill Clinton’s wildly popular among Democrats of all ages, races and sexes. "
Relative to GW Bush, or HW Bush, or Reagan, sure. But objectively do people really like Clinton a lot? No.
He's nostalgically a symbol for the prosperity of the 90's, which he had nothing to do with, but when people actually look at his policies, like NAFTA and the botched HC reform because he ignored good advice, and Lewinsky, and not inhaling, and such, actually he's not that popular.
He was relatively good for blacks compared with the Bushs and Reagan, but NAFTA has really hit the working class which of course hits the poor first.
He was relatively good for women, again compared with Republicans, but the botched HC reform has really hit families hard.
He's more like the distant relative who's maybe better than some other relatives, but you're also glad you only see him once a year or so.
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 18, 2007 5:08 AM:"In that job she’ll make use of ex Presidents and elder statesmen willing to lend a hand rebuilding America’s standing in the world. And this is outrageous to anyone but GWB and Cheney because...??????"
DemAC - Poppi Bush GAVE US CHENEY. Cheney was his defense secretary and W. is HIS SON WHO SHARES HIS NAME.
How is this going to accomplish anything to show that America has changed at all since George Bush stopped being president by continuing to send out a former president named George Bush to the rest of the world as a representative of ours?
"Mike wrote on December 18, 2007 2:49 AM:
This would make a funny SNL sketch if the writers weren't on strike. Bill making gradually more and more outlandish statements about her presidency at a press conference while Hillary tries to shut Bill up."
Sadly, it appears the Clintons are getting their ideas from OLD SNL sketches as the show has had a long-running series of Robert Smigel cartoons that imagines "the X-Presidents" of Poppi Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford as superheroes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH7iDbutQ0I
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 5:50 AM:While substantively I don't think there is anything wrong with reaching out to senior statesmen (women) in either party, I think optically this is a bad move for the Clinton's. Clinton fatigue is real. Bush fatigue is real. Why would you push the Bush-Clinton Rinse Repeat line to the front of people's mind?
Personally, I think Bill Clinton DOESN'T want HRC to win the nomination. For 35 years he's been the focal point of their relationship. Now he's not only expected to step aside, but expected to actively participate in the usurption of his with the pull of a lever? Seriously, other than the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment, what will people actually talk about if HRC becomes the first woman POTUS? The sheer act alone will get her mentioned, if not memoralized in bronze, marble or stone (think Rushmore).
Given the clear meglomanic Bill Clinton must be, is it really far fetched to believe that he's having trouble getting his arms this reality? It certainly helps me understand his antics in support of his wife's candidacy. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
joejoejoe wrote on December 18, 2007 5:51 AM:Nothing like two mediocre ex-Presidents who like golf touring the world and asking for a mulligan. Fore!
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 5:58 AM:As an aside, just so people know, the Kerrey story has been extended for the indefinite future because he just claimed on CNN that Obama attended a "secular madrassa" in Indonesia. People have since tried to defend Kerrey on the grounds that perhaps "madrassa", an Arabic word, is also just a generic Indonesian word for "school".
It turns out, however, that accordinging to online English-Indonesian dictionaries, "madrassa" is not a generic Indonesian word for school. Rather, "sekolah" is the generic Indonesian word for school, and in fact Obama attended a "Sekolah Dasar Nasional", which means "School Elementary National". So it appears Kerrey had no justification for his claim that Obama attended a "madrassa" (secular or otherwise).
Anyway, I agree that former Presidents of either party can be useful assets for the United States abroad. But it is a little odd to propose that the current President of the United States would actually send a former President of the United States of another party abroad on a mission (e.g., does anyone recall Bush II sending Bill Clinton on any diplomatic missions?). It is even odder to suggest that such a President would agree to go on an explicit mission to fix the diplomatic mess caused by his own son. And finally, I also agree it is questionable politics at this stage to emphasize the fact that the last three Presidents have been Bush-Clinton-Bush, and that Hillary Clinton is trying to continue this pattern.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:16 AM:Is Bill Clinton intentionally trying to sabotage Hillary or is it just subconscious?
Nice litttle bomg to set off in the middle of a Democratic party where many very weary and wary of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. And nice little gift to hand dear pal "Poppy Bush" just in time for the Bush Family Christmas.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on December 18, 2007 6:18 AM:Come on people, you don't think having Pappy Bush repudiate Sonny Bush wouldn't be the most effective way to neutralize the sins of the son, as well as be the most humiliating thing possible for the son?
BRILLIANT!
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:22 AM:re: "Bill Clinton might have just done it again — saying something in the home stretch that will cause Hillary's campaign a whole lot of trouble."
Sorry, I absolutely disagree.
I think this puts Bush I on the spot, although I predict "no comment" forever.
You guys, you can hate Bill Clinton all you want, but have you heard about a billion people say that he's the greatest political mind of our time?
Is the greatest political mind of our day going to be "saying something in the home stretch that will cause Hillary trouble"?
Seriously, the problem is, some of you just don't understand politics, or maybe don't even LIKE politics. This is politics. It's war.
Maybe it's because my family is ex-military or something, but there's a strategy to politics, just like there's a strategy to war.
Not being a Democrat, I'm beginning to realize that:
(1) Democrats have zero idea what their strengths are (BC is #1, but there are many, many others), and
(2) Democrats as a Party have no idea how to come together as a TEAM.
imo, This is NOT trouble for Hillary. And, btw, if Democrats would listen, this is not trouble for any Democrat, no matter who wins the primary.
I consider this an intentional dig straight at the heart of the Bush family.
I consider it Delicious.
Sorry, that last Anonymous was me.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 6:31 AM:It doesn't put Bush on the spot. It makes Clinton look like a pompous ass. He's proposing to speak for another former President. I'm sure there is a decorum about those things and putting words in the mouth of another President isn't considered good form. Moreover, he just ruined whatever goodwill existed between he and 41. All around a bad move IMO.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:31 AM:GregNYC said "This place is Hillary hater central. This used to be an objective place."
The "Hillary Hater" mime is very old. What you are seeing reflected on EC is the growing opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy among Democrats, progressives and independents. It is reflected progressively in every state poll as voters focus on specific primaries. The "Mrs. Bill" factor of early support fades fast when voters look at Hillary as a candidate and potential president. Many who should be supporting a Democrat do not want her and will not vote for her. Call it Hillary Hate if it makes you feel better. But resistance to her nomination and election and to the contiuation of the sick, anti-democratic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession plan are REAL and GROWING fast.
Call it Hillary Hate if it makes you feel better. It's called enlightened voters in a democracy.
Thank goodness, before any primary votes are cast, we're getting a fair taste of what a Hillary presidency will look like.
Bill will be running amok making illogical, inconesistent, self-serving pronouncement that contradict Hillary's carefully contrived propoganda. And he will be collaborating with Poppy Bush to be sure the global profiteering corporate agenda that they have both sold their souls to will be advanced worldwide, at taxpayer expense.
And the White House staff, if the campaign staff is fair test, will be in constant disarray, spewing dishonest propoganda, and in mean-spirited attack mode against anyone who dares to disagree. Hmmm sounds very familiar. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton continuity.
We don't need Hillary, we need real change.
Doc Rock wrote on December 18, 2007 6:41 AM:Either there's a big tent in the Democratic Party or there isn't. Bill Clinton's administration reached across the aisle for cooperation, who was his SecDef, y'all recall? Rebuilding bridges with the rest of the world wouldn't be so bad after eight years of Cheney-Bush, would it?
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 6:44 AM:What in the world is wrong with you folks?
Who would you send? Some new people. Some folk singers. Maybe A rock Star Get real. BHO and or JE has got to send established people to talk with world leaders to get this situation straight. This is what Bill is saying. Even if we change leaders here
the world we have to deal with wants to deal with people they know and trust. Get with the real world. If you folks are a sample of BHO and JE then they are not ready to lead this country thru these times.
Anybody besides me wonder if most of the netroots are the same people who commit acts of vandalism at world trade conferences. I detect a similar tone and rationality in the comments here.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:52 AM:Annonymous/Jan wrote: "You guys, you can hate Bill Clinton all you want, but have you heard about a billion people say that he's the greatest political mind of our time?"
Yep Jan, I've heard it. Bill Clinton is supposedly a master, brillant "politician." But we don't need a politician, who by definition are calculating and dishonest. WE NEED HONEST LEADERSHIP.
Bill Clinton is doing damage to Hillary's campaign. I am grateful to him. I hope he says much more and very often.
Kefa,
There are, of course, plenty of seasoned diplomats any Democratic President could send on such missions. And of course the President should also send him- or herself.
And seriously--is there a recent precedent of a President sending a former President of another party on a diplomatic mission? I can't recall any off hand, but I am curious to see if anyone else can come up with something like that.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:53 AM:Kefa, if Hillary was the REAL president, maybe she would GO herself.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 6:57 AM:There is so much damage done by this admin is gonna take a boatload of people to right this ship.
random wrote on December 18, 2007 6:57 AM:CranialRectalLoopback said "Come on people, you don't think having Pappy Bush repudiate Sonny Bush wouldn't be the most effective way to neutralize the sins of the son"
Too funny. If the nation starts believing Bill Clinton, we are REALLY in trouble.
Cut to the White House, 2011. Bill wandering in the Rose Garden, a leash trailing behind him on the ground, drool pouring from his mouth, his pants down around his knees.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how it ends.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 7:02 AM:This country was doing pretty damn good when Billy was runny things. We weren't in the shitpile we're in now. Too funny my ass. The world was doing alot better, then now with Bubba Bush. Funny Boy. Alot less Dead US Vets and Rights removed.
bp wrote on December 18, 2007 7:04 AM:I am disappointed in some of the recent TPM offerings. But this site looks like Obama Heaven. If Bill and the GHWBush can get together and do some repair work with our friends abroad I will find that helpful. Every little hit piece on Hillary is so peurile as to make me wonder about the brain power of some commenters. Can anyone point to Obama's senate campaign againt the delusional Keyes as a tough sled. It was a cake walk. Why has Obama never held a single meeting of his fp sub-committee? Look if we want to be evenhanded then let's judge each candidate on what they and their suporters said and not forget context. Bob Kerrey's remarks were unexceptionable if one reads what he said in whole. But it is easier to distort and attack. Kos did that about a Clinton remark yesterday. He had the grace to apologise and left his mistake on post to remind him about how easy it is to misquote.
The nastiness and irrationality in some posts shows that the left netroots is infected by the same nonsense of the Malkin world. TPM should not be a place for this.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 7:04 AM:This is just an aside, but I think the claim that Bill Clinton has the greatest political mind of his generation is somewhat suspect. What is beyond dispute is that he is incredibly talented as a politician. But that does not mean he was always tactically smart.
To give just the most notable example, Clinton regularly mishandled his sexual affairs, and his mishandling of the Lewinsky affair led to him actually being impeached. I think it is difficult to look at a self-inflicted political disaster like that and claim that the person responsible for the decisions that led to that disaster is without exception a brilliant politician.
So personally, I don't find it at all that surprising that Bill Clinton has been gaffe-prone as he campaigns for his wife, because he has always been prone to saying unhelpful things. But I guess because he ultimately recovered from those mistakes (although arguably not at all completely), some people seem to have forgotten how much Bill's mistakes contributed to those problems in the first place.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 7:10 AM:I voted for Bill twice, but winced at his lack of honesty as president. I am really concerned that most of what Bill is saying on the campaign trail is untrue, more self-serving spin, an effort to re-write history for his own glory. It also seems damaging to Hillary because it is constantly getting her off message, and reminds voters of of the Clintons' reputation for being "truth challenged." Is Bill trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign to serve his own ego?
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 7:15 AM:bp,
thanks for repeating today's talking points fron Hillary central, including TPM as "Obama Heaven" and those wild "left netroots". There is a Thesaurus free online. At least add some variety to the way the message is crafted. Hillary's Mean Machine is currently too programmed to be effective.
goldberry wrote on December 18, 2007 7:20 AM:You mean like Bush 43 sent Bush 41 and Clinton 42 to Indonesia after the tsunami? You mean like *that*?
'Cos I don't think there's anything wrong with this plan. I think we've seen that even if Bush 41 was kinda a sneaky bastard, he actually knew enough to not break the government.
Now, consider who Clinton is speaking to. He's in frickin' South Carolina. Presumably, Democratic voters are a bit more conservative there.
We have to remember that we are a bit different than the general public. In some cases, such as when it comes to our command of information and current events, we are wayyy ahead of them.
But we also occasionally suffer from lack of perspective. There is a huge difference between the Bush's. One i a professional, the other a jerk.
Ni Daye said "Eric you are clearly a moron"
Sounds like dcshungu. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, dimwit, moron.
Grow up. We live in a democracy. This is a political comment board, not a children's sandbox. If you can't debate without demeaning your opponent, step aside.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on December 18, 2007 7:24 AM:Is the goal of the endless mis-characterizations of Bill Clinton's statements, the over the top headlines about Bill Clinton and his statements, for example about Obama, all designed to show it is not just the main stream Media that doesn't know what it is doing?
Why should this statement about Bush 41 have any negative impact whatsoever?
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 7:25 AM:goldberry said, "Now, consider who Clinton is speaking to. He's in frickin' South Carolina. Presumably, Democratic voters are a bit more conservative there."
Well then, that makes it better.
Hillary can just say, "Rest of the country and thee workd, forget what Bill just said, he was only pandering to gullible, conservative voters in S.C. (whose Democrats are now leanig heavily to Obama).
Not very convincing analysis, goldberry.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 7:29 AM:dcshungu posting as "Daniel A. Greenbaum " said "Why should this statement about Bush 41 have any negative impact whatsoever?"
Because American needs change, not more of the tired, self-interested, corporate-serving Bush-Clinton agenda. Many Democrats and independents don't want to go back to the 1990s and even 1980s. We don't want a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession plan.
Is that concept really so hard to grasp?
biff diggerence wrote on December 18, 2007 7:46 AM:Wow.
The Hillbillers have a real ace in the hole now.
Poppy.
Fucking Great.
As if the last 7 years haven't been enough.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 7:52 AM:It isn't really news...Hillary is on record as saying that her favorite presidents include Bush Sr. AND Reagan, so of course she wants the neocons around to help her out. Yeah, more of the same, more of the same.. Too bad Reagan is dead, she'd probably ask him to be an adviser. So much for the candidate of change.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 7:59 AM:goldberry,
Actually, Bill Clinton was named by the United Nations as its envoy for tsunami reconstruction. But you are right that President Bush played a role in those efforts by asking former President Clinton to aid in private sector fundraising and also asking him to join a tour of the region. So I agree that is a fair example of President Bush enlisting former President Clinton in a diplomatic effort, albeit not quite in the way I meant.
michael valentine wrote on December 18, 2007 8:17 AM:Is Bill saying that there are only two families that can do the job?
Bill and Hill are moderate Republicans anyway.
jvill wrote on December 18, 2007 8:31 AM:I don't get all this bafflement over the fact that politically progressive sites (yes, like TPM!) tend to attract supporters of the more progressive stripe.
It's generally acknowledged that Hillary is the most conservative of the Dem candidates, right? This isn't a values judgment, I'm just saying politically she's more conservative than the other two major candidates.
So...
A) Why are people surprised that this generally progressive site is attracting the generally more progressive Obama supporters?
B) People are aware that there are plenty of sites where Hillary's support is stronger, right?
C) Obama Heaven? HillaryLand? Good God I hope you people aren't writing copy for political ads this season.
This sniping is ridiculous. And I'll tell you, you're only convincing me more that candidate A or candidate B's supporters are putzes and jerks with every name-calling post.
Landmine wrote on December 18, 2007 8:38 AM:If Hillary wins, I expect Bill will become a much more troublesome pet for her to own. She will be endlessly apologizing to her friends and neighbors...and perhaps bailing him out of the pound.
gtash wrote on December 18, 2007 8:42 AM:But seriously folks,
A sitting president can ask a lot of former presidents and get compliance. Bill maybe talking out his ass again, but I am not sure if push came to shove Daddy Bush wouldn't do it.
bp wrote on December 18, 2007 8:59 AM:Anonymous: thank you for your advice. As an Edwards supporter I guess I shouldn't wonder that you assumed I was Hillary's fan. We are all too ready to ascribe bad motives to others while seeing ourselves as blessedly free from such a weakness. Would it be correct to assume that if Obama does not win the primary you are going to take your ball home and leave us without one in the playground?
aleks wrote on December 18, 2007 9:08 AM:So for once Bill was the last to know instead of Hillary?
RaymondA wrote on December 18, 2007 9:10 AM:Let's do the time warp again. I tell you Bill and Hillary are trapped in the 1990s. I used to think that that was just a glib way of dismissing them, but there's increasing evidence that it's true.
Sending George HW Bush and Bill Clinton out to tell the world that America has a new approach toward the rest of the world is almost as bad as sending out Karen Hughes!
The person with the most potential as a "public diplomat" is Obama himself!
RaymondA wrote on December 18, 2007 9:13 AM:Hey folks, show some understanding and compassion here. Bill and George HW have a lot in common; the first leg of their trip can be to Saudi Arabia so they can personally thank the royal family there for contributing heavily to both HW's and Bill Clinton't libraries! Anything less than a joint statement of thanks to the sheiks would be unsporting, since the Saudi royals have treated both families so well.
grover_rover wrote on December 18, 2007 9:19 AM:Almost every time I see a Hillary supporter on here they accuse Barack of being too accommodating to the other side of the aisle, based solely on his talk of rejecting old Washington politics as usual, yet how can they say such things when Hillary, starts by naming Reagan and H.W. Bush as among her favorite presidents of all time, and follows it up with putting a Bush out there as a representative to the whole world that we have "changed". Who seriously thinks that the world is going to see a Bush, especially one that played a big role in why the Middle East has hated us for a long time, as our envoy to the rest of the world. This is INSANE!!!
Am I taking crazy pills here?
the real cookie wrote on December 18, 2007 9:25 AM:this post is dumb - Hillary supporters dont hate 41. And you may have noticed that 41 and Clinton have worked well together the last few years - my guess is 41 will not say anything too nasty - he has no dog in the 2008 fight.
DonnaG wrote on December 18, 2007 9:27 AM:I think Bill Clinton said what he said out of nothing more than self-referencing.
He knows how dependent Hillary is on him because he built and nurtured the dem establishment insider base which they are now using to catapult them both back into the White House.
I think he knows that she cannot handle governing by herself, and he is busy planning the specific ways in which he will work the controls behind the scenes should she become president. In short I think Hillary is the hard worker-follower and Bill is the overseer handling the 'vision'-leader.
BTW, after Kerrey pulled a Sheheen on Obama, I been wishing that an investigative reporter could peek into the New School scene enough to determine the history of connections developed there that tied Norman Hsu, Bob Kerrey and Hillary Clinton into each other's orbits. New School was of intersecting interest for all three, and it has occurred to me that Bob Kerrey might have developed a bit of a taint himself which would put him in need of a protective bargain with Hillary.
There's a lot of invective here; how about some synthesis. No, it's not a terrible idea for one president to call on his or her predecessors to send people from other parties or former presidents on diplomatic missions. Obama would not say such a thing. The real problem with Bill saying this, right now, is that it emphasizes Obama's theme that we are in such bad straits internationally that we need a President who, himself or herself, conducts personal diplomacy and has credibility as a messenger of the message that the US is now different and taking a fundamentally different approach to world affairs. This HW/Bill Clinton world tour as the very first act of a Hillary presidency is a terrible idea if we want to send a message that there's been a fundamental change in attitude; it's a decent idea perhaps for much later. Remember, precisely because W himself -- mister partisan -- send HW and Bill Clinton on a foreign humanitarian mission, the idea seems stale and not calculated to tell the world that Hillary would be a break from the past.
So I disagree with the Obama supporter who above who thinks it would be great jujitsu for Obama to say that his first act as President elect will be to send Bill C and HW around the world. Use them instead later for a more discrete mission.
Sorry to get substantive and take the policy aspects seriously. I'll get back to sarcasm in my next post.
Lincoln Duncan wrote on December 18, 2007 9:31 AM:For all of you who think this site is now pro-Obama, I would note that for a while the instant any poll came out favorable to Hillary it got the full headline treatment.
Today, USA Today has a poll that for the first time shows Obama beating the leading Republicans -- all of them, not some as in the past -- by a wider margin than Hillary.
I've been skeptical of all these horse race polls, but if TPM is going to give credence to some, it ought to get this one out there ASAP to show it's not biased.
Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on December 18, 2007 9:35 AM:That link to CNN is broken. The Times and Democrat has the story.
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2007/12/18/news/12875337.txt
Isn't it amazing how when people disagree with HRC, her fan base plays the "hate card" almost by reflex?
HRC's won the all-important troll primary over at Kos, and believe me, those people are almost as unpleasant to deal with as the Loyal Bushies, and for much the same reasons. Remember "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? Absolutely the same mindset.
In the most charitable interpretation, HRC is not well served by her supporters.
In the least charitable, the Clinton and Bush organizations are really just two sides of the same coin -- which a Grand Tour of Bill Clinton and Bush 41 would tend to support. Eh?
Lincoln Duncan wrote on December 18, 2007 9:38 AM:Here's the money quote from the USA Today story:
"In hypothetical matchups for the general presidential election, Clinton and Obama each led Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Romney, although at times narrowly. Obama was somewhat stronger, besting Giuliani by 6 points, Huckabee by 11 and Romney by 18. Clinton had an edge of 1 point over Giuliani, 9 points over Huckabee and 6 points over Romney."
Susan Page the author uses "somewhat" stronger as her adjective, but it's an average of eight points! That's pretty big.
Mark Penn, who has relentlessly been flogging national poll numbers for Hillary when convenient, was reduced to saying, "These poll numbers are too early to be meaningful, because the public does not yet know a lot about Senator Obama--except that he used cocaine."
OK, I confess, I made up the words from "except" to the end. Everything else is accurate.
Michael A wrote on December 18, 2007 9:53 AM:Duh, I say she should still send him to bora bora until after the primaries. That would evidence good judgment, which she obviously doesn't have. He must be going senile. Well, at least the other dem nominees won't have to worry about him screwing up when one of them beats clinton II, especially obama. He has pretty much burned that bridge.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on December 18, 2007 9:53 AM:Penn makes me feel dirty. He reeks of sleaze and I can't help but imagine him as the next Rove. Shudder.
Ethan wrote on December 18, 2007 10:11 AM:I've been a Bill/Hill supporter since this race began... This is getting to be too much for me. I don't want to EVER see the name 'Bush' again ANYWHERE. I wouldn't trust a Bush to tie their own shoes. If this is for real, I think I may have to completely write her off as a candidate.
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 18, 2007 10:23 AM:I'll take another candidate besides either Clinton or Obama (or Edwards).
Ethics wrote on December 18, 2007 10:23 AM:Nothing like Bill telling us if his wife becomes President the Bush/Clinton Dynasty will continue...Forever.
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Jeb/Chelsea/End of the World.
Yep, Bill's inhaling these days.
onceler wrote on December 18, 2007 10:30 AM:reading this thread I'm struck by how reactionary and full of bile Hillary's supporters seem to be. y'all are just plain nuts, for real. first of all, this post isn't some cheap hit job, it's just making note of an interesting statement by Bill Clinton, a statement which sort of puts the Clinton's 'out-of-touch-ness' into high relief. does Bill Clinton really think what the world wants to see right now is his wife and the father of our current failed President parading around together as some fake-ass show of unity? I've given Obama some flak about his over-willingness to reconcile with the Republicans, but whereas he aims at regular voters, HRC is ready to reconcile with the worst of the worst. I still don't understand what exactly anyone thinks Hillary's foreign policy experience is. let me put that another way - she doesn't really have any. of course, according to Bill Clinton, there is no better experience than being able to watch Bill Clinton make decisions, so in his mind she's uber-qualified. but the country has moved well beyond what is or isn't Bill Clinton's mindset, and we have much more important and pressing problems than nurturing their egos.
Jan wrote on December 18, 2007 10:31 AM:Gosh, first of all, for any of you saying that Bill Clinton's problems were self-inflicted...?
That's why we worry about your naivete regarding Obama.
If you don't think the Rightwing Slime Machine is going to stab Obama with a bunch of "self-inflicted" problems as both candidate and President, then you are highlighting exactly why so many of us will NOT be voting for Obama in the primary.
Why aren't the Republicans making Rudy's entire life a self-inflicted scandal?
Because Rudy is a Republican!
Clinton's impeachment?
That's the day I stopped being a Republican. Were YOU in favor of the Republican Party impeaching a twice-elected President (whom I never voted for) because he got nine blow jobs a couple of years before, and didn't want his wife and daughter to know?
I rest my case.
---
Sean, this is uninformed:
Sean Q. wrote on December 18, 2007 1:25 AM: "Nobody is catching this yet - but Clinton just handed a golden opportunity to Obama. What if Obama says, Bill Clinton would be a great worldwide ambassador, and I would ask him in the service of his country to do the same thing. Game, set, match Obama. What can Clinton do, sulkily refuse?"
Sean, Bill Clinton already agreed to go on the same mission for any Democrat who asked.
---
re: "Many Democrats and independents don't want to go back to the 1990s and even 1980s. We don't want a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession plan. Is that concept really so hard to grasp?"
What do you do about the many Democratic and Independent voters who DO want to go back to the 90's?
BC left office with 70% of the nation thinking we were headed in the right direction.
If you're are not part of the 70%, so be it. But 70% is THE MAJORITY, my friend. Somewhere along the line, you actually need to face that fact, instead of spreading Republican propaganda.
Why do Democrats have such a hard time accepting that Bill Clinton is one of the most popular Presidents of all time?
Do Democrats always just simply spout off every word the Republican propagandists tells them to believe?
LOTS of us want another Clinton to clean up after another Bush.
The Clintons have proven themselves to provide our nation with smart government. The Bushes have proven themselves to be miserable failures.
Is THAT concept REALLY so hard to grasp?
I never used to give credence to the Bush Clinton/ Bush Clinton dynasty claims.
I guess I was wrong.
Bill Clinton just confirmed that it is real.
They all work together as a power perpetuating clique.
Elijah Trotsky wrote on December 18, 2007 11:18 AM:wow....look at all the bored cubicle people with too much time on their hands.....who here doesn't drink Starbucks and whine..
JimBob wrote on December 18, 2007 12:10 PM:These poor bastards are in a no-win situation. Every word out of their mouths is subject and open to interpretation, application into theoretical circumstances and generally to be used as a bludgeon against them. OTOH, if they're painfully careful about what they say in order NOT to have their own words shoved back down their throat, they're "calculating" and robotic.
No wonder the Best and the Brightest stay the hell out of politics.
Firstthingwedo wrote on December 18, 2007 12:21 PM:Sean Q.
I disagree. If Obama goes that route, he looks like he has no ideas of his own, that his whole foreign policy is "me too!" - in which case, why bother voting for him?
Saying he'd have Hillary advise him in the middle of a debate is amusing. But, if he starts wholesale adopting what she's proposing, then his credibility as an alternative doesn't last.
Bupalos wrote on December 18, 2007 12:46 PM:Does anyone here honestly not have at least a little Clinton fatigue? And we are at what point in the election?
Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton....and now Clinton wants to make use of Bush? Come on people. There is no reason to even be considering this. HRC's campaign is going to implode under the weight of history. The only question is whether it happens in the primary or the general. The time bomb which she is trying to suggest lies in Obama's camp is clearly ticking away in her own closet.
Ronny Jim wrote on December 18, 2007 12:52 PM:It's lunch time, EST, so more cube folk come out - like me. Inexpensive conciliatory gestures like Bill's are probably a good thing, because of the elephant in the room (pun intended) that hardly anyone in this string has referred to: the pervasive Republican criminality and contempt for constitutional government that will have to be addressed, messily, soon after inauguration day. Of course, some cases are already afoot (Jack A., Ted Stevens, et al.) but the big ones will have to be tackled - real criminal prosecutions of Cheney, Gonzalez and the rest of the crew who look on their power as divine right. Many of their toadies already are trying to portray the coming truth and reconciliation adventure as "revenge." So co-opting people like Grassly, for example, or other Republicans not obviously in on the big scam is probably wise. And even though HW has still not answered for Iran/Contra, and really has to be neutralized and marginalized, nevertheless, Bill's comment about using HW as an ambassador of good will (which really entails no commitment, only a warm fuzzy speculation)sets the neccessary bipartisan tone which will have to color the really tough and unstinting battle to restore constitutional government, get the wrong-doers out of power (down to the moles in the 5th tier down in the bureaus), and keep them out of public life from now on.
Liam wrote on December 18, 2007 1:16 PM:Elijah Trotsky wrote on December 18, 2007 11:18 AM:
wow....look at all the bored cubicle people with too much time on their hands.....who here doesn't drink Starbucks and whine..
Thanks for telling us about your miserable existence. You appear to not realize that you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about.
What a Maroon!
desider wrote on December 18, 2007 1:20 PM:Let's just say sending #41 and #42 to the Middle East would be a better idea than sending Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, Bremer and Petraeus.
bartcopfan wrote on December 18, 2007 1:38 PM:I don't have a dog in this fight. Haven't picked a candidate yet.
But all the sudden complaints about "dynasty" were nowhere to be heard in 2000 when W was taking the first bite at the dynastic apple.
Once again, Dems are asked to do what Republican'ts demand.
I say no! May the best Democratic candidate in 2008 win. Period.
yo yo yo wrote on December 18, 2007 1:51 PM:Is Bill trying to lose the election for ya, Hill? Cuz he's doing a bang-up job so far. Time for a word to the not-so-wise: STFU already!
CalD wrote on December 18, 2007 2:59 PM:Looks like Drudge kind of struck out on this one. Not much ululation to be heard on the wires.
RobbyLove wrote on December 18, 2007 4:09 PM:Well, Bill sure is blowing their cover isn't he?
It's a well known fact that there was a secret pact made in the early 90's to create a Bush-Clinton dynasty. GB 41 was supposed to go 2 terms, but they figured out that the timing would be all screwed up, so he intentionally threw the election to Bill in '92.
That set the stage for 24 years of Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and an arranged marraige between Chelsea and Jeb's boy, George P.
George P will be 40 in 2016, and will be elected President with Chelsea as his Vice President to form a truly imperial Presidency that will span an incredible **44 years** once Chelsea is elected and re-elected in 2024 and 2028.
Leave it to the dumb hick from Arkansas to blow it for everyone because he can't keep his mouth shut.
We're on to you, Bushinton!
votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 4:54 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
What more confirmation do we need that Hillary will be nothing but BushCheney-lite when it comes to policy?
that is what WJClinton's comments brought to mind the minute he said them on Rose.
Hillary is BushCheneyLite...when it comes to policy...Barack said this months ago, when Hillary was trying to insist that he was 'naive and inexperienced' on FP
Bill simply confirmed it. Hillary is BushCheneyLite!
I agree with Obama...Hillary needs to be one of his advisors.
Jim Martin wrote on December 19, 2007 3:29 PM:dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 11:48 PM:
Eric, Bill Clinton might have done exactly what, again?
Uh, say something stupid in a futile attempt to boost his wife's candidacy.
Moreover, BCCI-Bush 41 has poured cold water on Bill's little fantasy.
From the CNN political ticker:
Former President George H.W. Bush has shot down his successor Bill Clinton’s idea of a diplomatic mission under a Hillary Clinton presidency that would send him and other notables abroad to assure other nations that “America is open for business and cooperation again.”The move came one day after Bill Clinton made the suggestion on the campaign trail in South Carolina, in response to a question from a supporter about his wife’s “number-one priority” upon reaching the White House.
In a statement sent to CNN Tuesday afternoon, former President Bush’s chief of staff Jean Becker said that he “wholeheartedly supports the President of the United States, including his foreign policy. He has never discussed an ‘around-the-world-mission’ with either former President Bill Clinton or Sen. Clinton, nor does he think such a mission is warranted since he is proud of the role America continues to play around the world as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy.
“President Bush is excited about several of the excellent Republican candidates running for president, and looks forward to discussing their candidacy once the Republican nominee is determined.”
Still want to defend BCCI-Bush, the man who (as both VP and President) was instrumental in providing military aid to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, as someone who "served America very honorably and courageously" and as a "force for good"?
It is becoming increasingly clear that George (H.W.) Bush, operating largely behind the scenes through the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy.
That was Ted Koppel from a 1992 Nightline report.
Poppy Bush followed a long-standing tradition: Arm them, then destroy them later. We did it with Osama, we did it with Saddam, and so many more. It's a win-win-win: we get to use them against our enemy du jour (and never mind those pesky human rights abuses), then we get to destroy them (and claim the moral high ground, and never mind those pesky human rights abuses), and best of all, your friends in the military-industrial complex profit hand over fist, all the way through. Yippee!
"Force for good," my ass.
My Gosh! What has this campaign come to?! I am about to quit being interested in politics because things are now getting mindless and petty beyond belief!
Oh, what a terrible, terrible loss to all of us that would be...
