Bush 41 Shoots Down Bill's Idea Of Involving Him In Hillary Diplomacy
Oh, well. There goes that idea.
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."...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," the statement concludes, "and looks forward to discussing their candidacy once the Republican nominee is determined."
Comments (81)
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 3:49 PM:Bill. Stay off the sauce. Seriously, dude. Seriously.
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 3:50 PM:He says that now......later too much pressure would be applied for him to say no. His son made this mess.
cms wrote on December 18, 2007 3:50 PM:Hysterical. I can't imagine it will hurt HRC that 41 says No, Thanks. But it does make JWC look a bit ridiculous.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 3:54 PM:And that will be the key to recovering our goon name, right Kefa? Just send around old Herbert Walker!
I think that abandoning the neocon preconditions-based approach to diplomacy is a little more realistic. Of course, Hillary has made her positive view of that approach quite clear, so I guess Herbert Walker is her only hope. After all, she can't do it herself because she's afraid she'll "be used for propaganda" (and yes she put it that way herself).
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 3:57 PM:Kefa, not only are you wrong, but if Bill keeps this shit up, she's not going to be in office to send him on any mission.
This will get a ton of media play for the next couple days at a time when, for Hillary, no news is good news.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 3:59 PM:Woops:
"her positive view of that approach"
should be:
"her negative view of that approach"
Doh!
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 4:00 PM:So ...you read out of this....it makes Bill look bad to try to correct the problems Bush 2 has done by being rejected by Bush 1???? You need to get your thinking straight. Bush 1 looks bad not Bill.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 4:01 PM:Hahahahahahaha, shot down!
That's gotta hurt, I guess the Clinton's didn't pass their little superfriends idea by ol' Papa Bush first huh? Oops. There is the first "from day One" policy that has flopped.
Golly, I sure hope this little thing doesn't hurt HW Bush's standing as one of her favorite past presidents, that would be unfortunate. Okay okay, I'm sorry, I'm sure having one of her heroes shoot her down publicly has to hurt deep, I'll not make fun of it...the wounds are too fresh, the hurt is too deep..
Hahahahhaaaa!
Damn.
ihatebeets wrote on December 18, 2007 4:04 PM:Two questions come to mind - who is Bill playing to by telling the world Hillary will involve him in America's PR mission? It isn't the Democratic Party, so who? Independents?
Secondly, doesn't this play right into the fear of the Bush-Clintin-Bush-Clinton dynasty? Is this what the Clintons mean by getting two-for-one: the Clintons and Bush 41 joined at the hip? This has to be seriously injurious to Hillary's campaign.
Michael wrote on December 18, 2007 4:05 PM:Nice memory Jeremy.
Paul Krugman didn't slam Hillary for "using GOP talking points" when she said that (propaganda purposes). Funny that.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:06 PM:bridoc wrote: That's gotta hurtHurt who??? And why??? della Rovere wrote on December 18, 2007 4:06 PM:
there's always Colin Powell and Rupert Murdoch to call on.
Fartsie wrote on December 18, 2007 4:08 PM:Whoops. Uh, Bill, dude.... you need to get back in the box. Seriously. Back. In. The. Box.
No, not THAT box, Bill. No Bill no....
phil james wrote on December 18, 2007 4:09 PM:When are Democrats going to learn that the thug party has absolutely no real interests in common with them, none, zero, zilch? Anything Democrats hear to the contrary or think they hear to the contrary is a con and ends up making the Dems involved looking naive, gullible, foolish. (See also the Mukasey confirmation hearings, the Roberts confirmation hearings, the last 100 statements of Harry Reid) The thugs still believe they can resuscitate their dream of thousand-year Reich. And that possibility is what the Dems need to fight against with every fiber of their collective being until the last feeble twitches of the "Reich's" foul corpse.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:09 PM:Bush 41 declares to the world that he’s not willing to help President Hillary Clinton to clean up his son’s mess even if she politely asks Bush 41 to. And this hurts Clinton with the voters… how??????
Michael A. wrote on December 18, 2007 4:10 PM:Gee, that took all of five minutes. If she wants to win, she better send him to bora bora.
It's that clintonian triple speak (nice way of saying lying) that we are all tired of. It's kind of like what the definition of is is. He keeps reminding people, over, and over, and over again. It is way too funny. It's definitely the gang that couldn't shoot straight. And they want to get back in the white house in this time of "crisis," where we need a study hand to direct the ship of state. Too funny.
lestatdelc wrote on December 18, 2007 4:11 PM:Where did this Bill Clinton do with the canonized "political" genius Bill Clinton which is so fondly invented?
Did Bill Clinton really think the GHW Bush would really sign on to lynching his son in the media by saying he would be open to the idea of fixing his son's messes under a Hillary Clinton administration in an election season?
Aside from the notion that it was a fundamentally stupid idea on the merits alone, politically, this is staggeringly dumb notion to put out there which even a hack who kid who ate lead paint chips like Fritos could have seen there was no way in hell GHW Bush would bite on this in any way shape or form.
Now HRC's campaign gets stood up in the news cycle by Bush Sr.
Wow, marvel at the brilliance.
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 4:11 PM:No Kefa, here's what I read out of it. It's stupid to put words in another person's mouth. Especially if that other person is an ex-president from another party, and even more so if those words are "go on a diplomatic mission at the request of my wife in order to clean up the mess your son created."
Further, I 'read out of it' that this is an incredibly stupid mistake that, like the Shaheen statement, will rightly or wrongly be attributed to Hillary and further dent her "flagging campaign."
waka waka wrote on December 18, 2007 4:20 PM:Bill's up to his old tricks again, bamboozling, talking out of his ass, just making $hit up. You know, up until 3 weeks ago, I was a major fan. I never thought I'd see just how awful this couple could be until they whipped out the Rove playbook and started sliming a respectable, honorable Democrat.
And yeah, so much to Hillary's "inevitability" and "electability" and Bill's political "genius." If it hadn't been for Ross Perot and a recession he'd just be an also ran. LOL! Pass me the popcorn.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:21 PM:lestatdelc wrote: Did Bill Clinton really think the GHW Bush would really sign on to lynching his son in the media by saying he would be open to the idea of fixing his son's messes under a Hillary Clinton administration in an election season?Of course not. Did you or anyone else here think so??? Now that’s just plain stupid. Austin Cooper wrote on December 18, 2007 4:22 PM:
George Herbert Walker Bush?
The same guy whose father, Prescott Bush, admired European fascism, did business with nazis until five minutes after Germany declared war on the United States, and could have been hung for treason, after his 1933-34 involvement in the 'Liberty League' coup d'etat plan?
Bupalos wrote on December 18, 2007 4:22 PM:"Hurt who??? And why???"
Duh. Hurt. Clinton.
Why? Because it makes them look clueless, when they are supposed to be so darned in the know. They just tried to sleep with the enemy and he doesn't want anything to do with them and has to bite to remind them that he is the enemy. The point of the comment was to show how ready they were to rule again "day 1" and now their very first (and very stupid) day 1 FP plan is DOA.
Clintons : We will command Bush I to admit Bush II is a loser and parade the conquered papa down Pennsylvania avenue in a cage.
Bush I : Suck it, captain America! While you're wondering how you lost to a dirty colored, I'll be floating in a warm tub of $105/barrel Texas T.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:24 PM:waka waka,
Oh sure, your support was in the bag for Hillary... riiight...
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:09 PM:
Bush 41 declares to the world that he’s not willing to help President Hillary Clinton to clean up his son’s mess even if she politely asks Bush 41 to. And this hurts Clinton with the voters… how??????
Well, to answer your question, let's take a look. First, it hurts Clinton because not only has she previously stated that H.W. Bush and Reagan are among her favorite presidents of all time, but then they say H.W. Bush is going to be part of the face of the "new" (like any of this could be new by any stretch of the imagination) America. This is bad for them because it shows Democrats that she wants to keep Bush's in her administration to help her, and also hints at the fact that her foreign policy really isn't that different from Bush Sr's.
Now, Bush Sr. shooting Bill down is back for the Clintons because it shows the aren't very smart if they come up with plans to have a Republican ex-president tour the world speaking against his own sons policies, at the bidding of a woman that the majority of his party views as the anti-Christ, and then go ahead and announce the plan to the world, WITHOUT ASKING BUSH SR FIRST!! So they look like political amateurs. But really, the best part is, the irony, since this is coming from the couple who thinks they are political masterminds who know how to smooth operate everything political. Apparently their combined experience didn't prepare them for, dum dum dummm!: checking with George H.W. Bush first?
Hehe, see? It's funny!
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:30 PM:Bupalos,
You can’t possibly believe that Bill Clinton expected Bush 41 to ambush his own son, now can you? You seriously believe that Bill Clinton’s been sitting waiting for Bush 41 to come on board burying Bush 43???
It’s all about projecting an image for the General Election. You can question the wisdom in running for the General when there is a competitive primary going on, but Hillary Clinton probably have good internals and think they can well afford it.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:34 PM:bridoc wrote: Apparently their combined experience didn't prepare them for, dum dum dummm!: checking with George H.W. Bush first?You too believe Bill Clinton actually believed Bush 41 to be willing to aid and abet him in burying Bush 43. You’re not too subtle, are you? bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 4:34 PM:
Haha, oh now DemAC, you are really reaching now!
Oh, and I think Clinton needs to get through the primary in one piece...and it turns out Democrats don't like their nominee looking to appoint the enemy on her "Day One".
Ahh, I can't stop smiling..
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:37 PM:bridoc,
Smile all you want. Meanwhile voters (in Iowa and NH too you know) see Clinton discussing attitudes to world policy with President Bush.
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
DemAC,
You're right, that's what they see. Then they see President Bush saying, "Are you crazy? There's no way in hell I'm working with you." Good message.
And in response to your question as to whether I believe that Clinton really expected Bush to bash his own son...no, of course I didn't expect that. Which is why it was so incredibly stupid for Clinton to suggest it.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 4:54 PM:DRinOH,
Perhaps you’ve read a poll or two on the Bushies’ approval ratings…
Never mind: you’re betting that President Clinton is dumb as hell. I’m however betting that he isn’t. I like my odds.
Bill looked into George's soul and saw his own reflection. Sorry, Bobo, they tolerate you and you mistake it for affection.
Threegoal wrote on December 18, 2007 4:59 PM:I can't imagine why Clinton said this, even if it was true or potentially true. Why would he expect GHWB to be part of an fairly obvious public slam on his son?
I also would think the same thing theoretically could have happened if Obama were to become President, on the premise that a more bipartisan foreign policy is likely to follow these 8 dark years.
To me the best case outcome for Bill (GWHB agrees or is silent) is to make GWB look bad, and the worst case outcome is it makes Clinton look bad and therefore less relevant as an advocate for his wife.
Even at its best it does nothing to distinguish Hillary from Obama, because you would expect ex-presidents to come to the aid of the national interest in dealings with other countries if asked, present incumbent excepted.
Radio Head wrote on December 18, 2007 5:00 PM:kefa: Hillary said to stop pretending to speak for her campaign. You're making them look clueless.
acf wrote on December 18, 2007 5:06 PM:What do you think Poppy (Bush 41) is going to say, "I know junior is a dickhead and has screwed up US foreign policy, and squandered US reputation worldwide, on a monumental, historic scale"? It's unbecoming for a former president, certainly painful and, even more, unlikely for a father, even this one, to say say about another president while he is in office.
john mccutchen wrote on December 18, 2007 5:09 PM:Wake up Democrats. Hillary's campaign is ALL about Bill.
Do you want Bill Clinton wandering about the WH with nothing to do just like he's wandering about Iowa?
fillphil wrote on December 18, 2007 5:12 PM:Wanna bet he won't go if asked? These guys love this s---! That's what makes them what they are.
JHo wrote on December 18, 2007 5:12 PM:What direction are the Clinton's going in right now? Talk about scattered. The big question - will the Iowa voters see through all of this crap?
CornBred wrote on December 18, 2007 5:17 PM:Yeah, as if anyone needed that article to tell us what Poppa Bush thought of that idea.
I'm starting to think that Hillary should have just shut Bill up COMPLETELY through this nomination process and through the election too. She should have run on her own merits. He almost seems to be trying to sabatoge her campaign on purpose. No campaign manager in the freakin' world would have thought this Bush 41 things was a good idea. At least not while trying to get the Democratic nomination.
This one is utterly mystifying.
CalD wrote on December 18, 2007 5:21 PM:Getting crotchety in his old age, isn't he? Tee-hee.
Gotta love primary season though. When else can you see hardcore partisan Democrats cheering on George H.W. Bush for making a statement in support of W's disastrous foreign policy? (The enemy of my enemy is... yuck!)
JR wrote on December 18, 2007 5:28 PM:DRinOH is spot on. Whatever you think of the Bushes is irrelevant. This speaks to Bill Clinton's arrogance. Surely, he did not run this by Bush 41. Believing whatever he wants will be so, Clinton ran off at the mouth.
This most certainly affects his wife's campaign. First, it's a ludicrous assumption. Ridiculous, really, but it speaks to the danger of having WJC out there running at the mouth.
HRC is renowned for her control but something tells me this statement was not run by her. If she's half as smart as I believe she is, she'd have shot the idea down. If she DID know of it, it speaks to her blind spot where her husband is concerned. The man cannot and will not be controlled.
The upside? Before a vote has been cast, we're reminded of we'd get with the Clintons back in the White House.
Liam wrote on December 18, 2007 5:29 PM:I am a starting to worry about President Bill Clinton. He has been really off his game lately.
How on earth did he expect that Bush Sr. was going to tour the world to apologize for what his son had done as president.
Regardless of politics, it just was a very strange thing for Bill Clinton to promise, especially without having first asked Bush One.
Would he find it OK for Hillary's Mom joining up with Bush Jr. to go on an apology tour for what Hillary has done, or might do as President.
I think they need to put Bill out to pasture. He is really starting to look like he thinks that he should be treated as the candidate instead of his wife.
Dump him from the campaign Hillary, before he wrecks it for you.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 5:45 PM:Dear Bill,
Dude, keep me out of this.
Your pal,
George
Man, doesn't this just show that no matter how much "moderate" Democrats kiss Republican's asses, Republicans will never reciprocate?
Just like how Monica thought she was Bill's "girlfriend" - when in fact she was just servicing him.
It's like Monica expecting to Bill to show up when she invited him to meet her parents. Uh, sorry honey, I guess you misunderstood the nature of our, uh, relationship.
Maybe 41 will wear one of the special ties Bill gave him at his next photo op, to signal that he still loves him.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 6:16 PM:phil james
Please say what you mean and get right to the point.
john mccutchen wrote on December 18, 2007 6:20 PM:"Do we really want Bill Clinton wandering the halls of the White House with time on his hands?" George F. Will
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 6:21 PM:
I know we all had some input about wanting the candidates to take some time off the trail to come back and help Dodd on the FISA filibuster, we'll here's another chance:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/mccain-chooses-senate-over-stump/#more-3861
It would be nice to see our candidates (Hillary, Barack, Biden, no matter who you support) come back to Washington for this important vote, though something tells me we can all prepare to be disappointed.
ps. And frankly, kudos to McCain. For anyone wondering why he'd be such a tough candidate in the general, here's why.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 6:49 PM:Ben.
Well to be fair, Bill Clinton was asking Bush to agree in public that his own son has been a foreign policy disaster. Regardless of ideology or even personal friendship, that is asking a bit much of any father.
cleter wrote on December 18, 2007 7:04 PM:Memo to Hillary--
Jimmy Carter isn't dead. Nor did he sire history's worst president. If you want to talk to ex-presidents, why don't you give him a call?
Well, it's interesting, because those of us who support Clinton believe this was a win-win for Hillary, and those of you who are not Clinton supporters believe she will take a nosedive over this.
I think this was brilliant.
We'll see in about 8 weeks.
Just as an alternate possibility, consider that Herbert's the only living president the GOP dares to trot out at their summer convention.
So, early and often, tie him to his son's policies, first, by making him NOT repudiate Junior's policies and results, and then do it over and over, in more ways, domestically and internationally, until two things happen:
A) No BUSH is invited to the Minneapolis convention. (Age will be the Elder's excuse.)
B) No nation or international operation will (publically) affiliate with anything BUSH, (Sr. OR Jr.) leaving our next president a clear field that Bush's can't interfere in.
Frankly, Bill's carrying water for the whole party, and whoever the nominee is. Watch for more of these hand-buzzer handshakes from Bill once the GOP nominee is chosen, just to stick them fully with the responsibility for Junior's debacle.
Radio Head .....you are clueless. With that comment.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 7:50 PM:Or Bill might have been ad-libbing, and then he said something unhelpful.
Again, it is not like that would be surprising.
Trainwreck wrote on December 18, 2007 8:05 PM:Cal Damage,
In order for your theory to work, Hillary would have to get the nomination. So you're saying that when Hillary's campaign is in the toilet and she might place third in Iowa, Bill's still planning for the general? Not a very good strategy, eh?--either arrogant or clueless.
Just because Bill was a good politician doesn't mean he is a good politician's spouse. Great athletes often don't make great coaches.
Ethan wrote on December 18, 2007 8:10 PM:Maybe now we know why Al Gore said: "Don't campaign for me."
Very disappointed in Bill.
Poopy's quote of the day got me laughing tho, that he "wholeheartedly supports the President of the United States, including his foreign policy."
One-a those it's funny, but really not that funny. Good gawd what a disaster.
Jan wrote on December 18, 2007 8:19 PM:Cal Damage wrote on December 18, 2007 7:22 PM: "Just as an alternate possibility, consider that Herbert's the only living president the GOP dares to trot out at their summer convention. So, early and often, tie him to his son's policies, first, by making him NOT repudiate Junior's policies and results, and then do it over and over..."
EXACTLY!!!
Bravo, Cal.
EC staff, how come we don't have one of those quick responses on this from the Hillary campaign? Did you contact them?
wookie wrote on December 18, 2007 8:52 PM:I dont think it was particularly nasty for 41 to say that. So Hillary isnt hanging out with an old GOP dude? Good. But what is said in private is probably very differet and Bill was stupid to think 41 would own up to it. But think how much harder it will be for 41 to back another kid after saying he is proud of the mess this one made. Instant shrug - move on to the adult portion of the menu.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 18, 2007 9:00 PM:Does anyone else feel that Her Royale Crownship has brow-beat her man into helping AND his heart ain't in it?
Ni Daye wrote on December 18, 2007 9:12 PM:i want to apologize to Eric Kleefeld. Never though Bush 41 would reject Clinton's suggestion outright like this. this man, elder bush, is either a man without conscience, or is too old to sensile to realize how his son has ruined his own reputation and the country's almost beyond repair.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 9:41 PM:Bill Clinton lied? Tell me it isn't true.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 9:45 PM:Ni Daye,
Or he is a typical parent.
Bush & Clinton Forever wrote on December 18, 2007 9:56 PM:Well, we are a bit disheartened by the fact the George H.W. Bush didn't wanna help clean Dubya's little mess up, but we believe there will be many chances over the next 40 years of back-to-back Bush-Clinton presidencies for the families to work together.
http://www.bushandclintonforever.com
Poor Poppy, playing Tiberius to George W's Caligula.
Doro Bush better watch herself.
-GSD
Clayton wrote on December 18, 2007 10:20 PM:Its actually a very brilliant strategy. Bill basically said "Hillary wants to improve America's image abroad and shes willing to reach across party lines to do it." Bush 41 said he wasn't interested in helping improve America's image. Now they can show that Hillary is trying to help, but is being obstructed by Republicans. This will help them solidify the idea that if you don't want to cooperate with Hillary you are like the Republicans.
Remember, Bill is not stupid. He has been carefully drawing a line between him and his wife. There was a lot of criticism initially that electing Hillary would just be electing Bill. They have both shown that they have significant, non-trivial disagreements about policy. Bill has helped to show that he and his wife are distinct political entities, while also serving as her bulldog.
All this HWB story has shown is that HWB, and thus Republicans, are not willing to step up to help America and that they are delusional about America's image abroad. No one is going to blame Bill for "assuming" the HWB would want to help America. Isn't he a patriot after all?
RaymondA wrote on December 18, 2007 10:24 PM:Now I finally know what Hillary was talking about back in July when she said a President should not talk directly with hostile foreign leaders because "they might try to use you for propaganda purposes." It was classic projection. Billary just tried to use George HW Bush for propaganda purposes, and of course it did not work.
Enough of the Clinton Arrogance.
amber wrote on December 18, 2007 10:44 PM:Rupert Murdoch...check!
Karl Rove...check!
George Bush...Doh!
Ni Daye wrote on December 18, 2007 10:45 PM:You can be hopeful and you can be wishful. I choose to be realistic. I am happy with a GE and I don't mind missing goog, as it may well be another Yahoo.
I go for the proven entity. My vote goes to Mrs. Clinton. She's my senator and we are proud of her. She will do America proud!
DM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:24 PM:Ni Daye,
"She's my senator and we are proud of her."
Hopefully, you will continue to be proud of having her as a NY senator for many years to come.
Let's turn the page. We've already had a Bush or a Clinton on the presidential ticket for the last 28 years. There are 300 million people in the United States, and you're telling me our leaders have to come from two families?
No to Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton
prostratedragon wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 AM:One while there, whenever Whatshisname needed someone to go out and give the notion that he cared about a human event some legitimacy, who did the Bushes call?
Bill Clinton.
Tsunami relief (BC had just had heart surgery then AIR).
A Pope's funeral.
Katrina relief.
Under those circumstances, would it not seem natural for the Clintons to posit that the favor might be returned? That it seems unlikely to happen does clear some things up, I'd say, including perhaps Bill's calendar.
GSD: Think she hasn't guessed?
kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 4:50 AM:As predicted. Bill, quit while you're ahead, or at least stop digging.
Ni Daye - get a clue. Your support is so vapid, it may as well be your favorite Spice Girl.
Clayton - that's a brilliant theory, but don't forget the part about elves and unicorns.
kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 4:57 AM:btw, for entertainment purposes from the resident genius Ni Daye:
"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!"
***
lol. Good one Ni Daye. Way to get everything wrong, and with a total lack of style.
Are you trolling in an attempt to be funny or just get attention? Or really that stupid? Either way, pretty pathetic, and you should find a better use of your life.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:58 AM:Ni Daye said " My vote goes to Mrs. Clinton. She's my senator and we are proud of her. She will do America proud!"
She's my Senator too, and "WE" wish she'd do her job. Hillary hasn't spent 5 min working on New York since her re-election. I am not proud but embarrassed that my Senator voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq and commmit the most devastating foreign policy blunder in American history.
Hillary Clinton is dishonest, Ni Daye, poor and simple. And I've had more than enough of a dishonest president elected because of family ties and corporate dollars. We need change, honest leadership, vision, and a capacity in the president to unite the nation not divide it deeply and bitterly.
Ni Daye. "YOU" may be proud of Hillary, the dishonest, pandering, coprorate- status-quo-serving, Republican-lite poplitician. But don't say New York and "we".
I am rolling in the floor. Today's (12/19/07) NYT has an article describing Bill and Hillary's "Likeability Tour" her in Iowa. If Hillary is so wonderful, so independent, so strong, so ready, why does she need Bill to make her case... so badly?
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/us/politics/19clintons.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
The article poses the profound question haunting Hillary's staff, "Have efforts to make Hillary likeable come too late?" Quick answer, "yes, about 61 years to late" Two phrases come quickly to mind: "Silk Purse" and "Sow's Ear."
Hillary is not likeable. Polls have shown that forever. Hillary Lovers keep saying but but but, when voters get to know her, the sky high negatives will disappear. Wrong. State by State -- IA, NH, SC, NV, now CA -- as voters approach their primaries, and take a real look at the candidates, Hillary's negative remain and her support drops fast.
Most voters, including many of her "supporters" don't think she's honest.In 2008, following 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, there are many traits the nation needs in its president, but none more than HONESTY.
And dear Bill, her "loyal" spouse, the brilliant political strategest, is out there every day reminding local voters and the nation of how dishonest the Clintons are and have been.
The NYT piece by Patick Healy describes Hillary's "warm-and-fuzzy tour, blitzing full throttle by helicopter across Iowa to present herself as likable and heartwarming, a complement to her 'strength and experience' message that the campaign felt a female candidate needed first."
My thought is she needs to be authentic and sincere. Neither the "strength and experience" message or the "likeablity" message are honest or true.
Calculated, misrepresented, disengnous, pandering, eqivocating, focus-group-tested, poll-serving, LIES. Ladies and gentleman, the CAMPAIGN OF HILLARY CLINTON. Believe her and support her if you dare, but be ready to be surprised and ill-served if she enters the White House.
Well, again, either you think this is political strategy or you think it was unplanned.
I can see, yet again, that those who don't support Clinton just cannot see that the Clintons are trying to move GHWB into the GWB box (as someone already noted... for ALL D candidates), so GHWB is no longer the elderly GOP statesman (and he never was a stateman, but the younger voters probably don't even know that anymore).
OK, like I said, we'll see in about 8 weeks.
-----
re: "There are 300 million people in the United States, and you're telling me our leaders have to come from two families?"
DM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:24 PM
Why in the world do you think this is an intelligent comment in a DEMOCRACY???
There are a handful of people in America who want to raise their flag and run for President.
Are you trying to tell us that, in a democracy, we should take someone's NAME into consideration when deciding who we think would make the best President?
Next you'll be telling us we have to take a candidate's religion into consideration in our democracy.
Geesh!!!
Absolute idiocy. "We have 300 million people participating in our democracy. I'm asking 300 million of them to refuse to vote for someone because of her last name."
Ya know, if Bush-Clinton-Bush had all been miserable failures, I might be able to understand this mentality a bit.
But Clinton was a SUCCESSFUL President, and the most successful DEMOCRATIC President (in terms of approval for his policies) in half a century!
Why do Democrats want to throw the name of their most successful President right into the mix with the GOP's two LEAST successful Presidents?
Sorry, I just find this mentality to be utterly stupid.
I'm voting for the candidate who I think would make the very best President. I don't care what her name is, but, hey, it happens to be CLINTON.
Get over it.
random wrote on December 19, 2007 6:34 AM:Concerned in Iowa said: "And dear Bill, her "loyal" spouse, the brilliant political strategest, is out there every day reminding local voters and the nation of how dishonest the Clintons are and have been."
Bill's current absurd statements are reminders of a long string:
"I didn't support Iraq, Poppy Bush and me traveling around the world, didn't inhale, no sex with Monica, nothing improper about Chinese cotributions and quid pro quo policy reforms, nothing improper about quid pro quo pardons, nothing improper in unrealeased, hidden White House documents, nothing improper in hidden Clintion Library/"Foundation" donor list, nothing improper in multi-million dollar "consulting" contracts.
Please! Hillary Lovers love to call their opponents "idiots" and "morons", but do they really think anyone is going to believe Bill and Hillary on ANYTHING?
Jan,
The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dominance of the American presidency is dangerous for Democracy because the same Corporate special interests are funding and benefiting from it.
And the Clinton/Bush era of mean, deeply divided politics in America has meant there has been no substantial American majority to move the nation forward on criticial issues like health care reform, immigration, tax reform, enery, the environment, preditory lending, port and border security, social security, campaign finance reform, Congressional ethics, Iraq and Middle East relations, Katrina recovery and on and on.
Our natio has been divided by the Clinton/Bush style politics into warring camps that can't agree on anything. THE WINNERS ARE THE PROFITEERING, MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS,whose interests directly conflict with the best interests of the American people. Just look at the decline in health care and employer contributions to help average joes get basic coverage. Look at the relaxation of import controls and safety standards for foreign food and products that are DANGEROUS for consumers.
Jan, don't preach about the Bush and Clintons deserving to be re-elected again and again as being in the interest of democracy.
Hillary now, Jeb is next. American voters, end it now. We don't need the Bushes or the Clintons. We need to move forward as a nation.
Jan wrote on December 19, 2007 7:21 AM:re: "Jan, don't preach about the Bush and Clintons deserving to be re-elected again and again as being in the interest of democracy."
I WILL NEVER PREACH ABOUT ELECTING A BUSH. I HATE THE BUSHES.
If you don't like Clinton, DON'T VOTE FOR HER.
My point is, telling Americans not to vote for someone because of the candidate's last name is completely idiotic.
To then to gone on and use the excuse that it somehow "hurts our democracy" is a load of shit. That kind of statement just shows that you have NO IDEA what a democracy IS.
In a democracy, I GET TO VOTE FOR THE PERSON I THINK IS THE BEST CANDIDATE.
I think Hillary Clinton is BY FAR the best candidate.
And, for the sake of our DEMOCRACY, you're begging me not to vote for her because of her LAST NAME??????
...sigh...
DTM wrote on December 19, 2007 7:42 AM:Just an idle thought, but I think events around the world in the last few years, including in places like Russia and the Middle East, have taught us that just because people are voting for something in a democratic fashion doesn't mean that something is good. Indeed, this has been true throughout history. For example, it has always been true that sometimes people will be willing to vote dictators into power, and sometimes people will be willing t vote theocrats into power, and so on.
So of course in a democracy, people have the right to vote for a series of people from just two increasingly interconnected families if they so choose. And it would not be particularly surprising: "dynasties" have been common in history precisely because they have a certain appeal to some people, just as dictatorships and theocracies have a certain appeal to some people. But again, none of that means that extended rule by such dynasties is actually a good idea, regardless of whether or not people are willing to vote for them.
Jan wrote on December 19, 2007 8:32 AM:re: "And it would not be particularly surprising: "dynasties" have been common in history precisely because they have a certain appeal to some people, just as dictatorships and theocracies have a certain appeal to some people."
DTM, can you name one of these dynasties, dictatorships or theocracies that you are referring to that were voted into existence by the citizens of a free country like America?
re: "So of course in a democracy, people have the right to vote for a series of people from just two increasingly interconnected families if they so choose."
And, of course, they also get to look at eight Democratic candidates and pick the *ONE* that they think would make the best President.
Is there someone out there saying, "Ya know, I think Hillary Clinton is the very best candidate, but that NAME! If I vote for THAT NAME, even though I think she's the very best candidate, it will hurt our democracy! Oh, my! I can't hurt our democracy by voting for someone with THAT NAME"?
If that kind of thinking doesn't seem idiotic to you, DTM, then it is no wonder that we do not support the same candidate.
You have a different criteria than I do.
"Name?" isn't one of mine.
