home

Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama

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

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

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

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

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

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

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Parent

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

     

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Just sad.  

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

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


    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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


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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    The tent does not need to be that big.

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

     - Woodrow Wilson


    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    Example sentence please!

    Parent

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

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


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

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

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

    Parent
    Some, Not All (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    on both sides.

    Still, rift healing will take time...

    Parent

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

    What's wrong with the grumblers?

    Parent

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

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

    We are free agents.  Individuals.  Voters.

    In short, we are the deciders.

    Parent

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Hmmmm....

    Parent

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

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

    The guy pauses, but quickly recovers his certainty:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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


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

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

    BTW, this was snark.

    Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Sounds about right.

    Parent

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


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

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

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


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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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


    Parent

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


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

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

    A big move, imo. Shows character.

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

     

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    There is still hope.

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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


    Parent
    Not my candidate either. (1.00 / 0) (#208)
    by chopper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    I'm hoping Obama totally implodes before Denver and Hillary wins the nomination and certainly the presidency because she is the more qualified of all three.

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

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

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

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

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

    He is NOT the Democratic Party.  

    Parent

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

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

    I apologize to Jeralyn and my fellow bloggers.

    Parent

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

    McCain is screwed. (none / 0) (#45)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    The Clintons didn't stay mad at Obama long enough, and now President Clinton is going to be out there working his magic for Barack.

    Beautiful.

    But is he a good witch (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    or a bad witch? It's important to keep your eye on the sky for falling houses.

    Parent
    lol. (none / 0) (#76)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    I still think Bill Clinton is a good guy, even though I've supported Barack from the beginning.

    I never really bought the whole Bill-effed-it-up-for-Hillary meme in the primaries. People love the guy. He's a 100% asset, imo.

    Parent

    More historical revisionism (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    Oh, what happened to being reality-based, even when there is a blog record. . . .

    Parent
    It would be fun to see (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    Bill get into his irate finger-pointing mode on Obama's behalf, and have Obama standing there coolly with his hand on Bill's shoulder 'OK, big dog, good job. enough.'

    At least that's how I envision the New Yorker cover of the scene.

    Parent

    Bill is the master of the back-handed compliment (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by lmv on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    BO should be careful what he wishes for when it comes to Bill campaigning for him.

    I suspect that's why he hasn't asked - that and his voracious ego.  After all, isn't BO the one who modestly predicted that the more the voters get to know him the more likely they are to vote for him?  (I think he said that right before OH/TX ...)

    Who needs Bill when he has Himself?

    Parent

    Slowly, we're being told who the VP choice will be (none / 0) (#48)
    by SamJohnson on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:41:17 PM EST
    and by August it will be clear that no one does politics better than Hillary or Big Dog. Hillary will be on that ticket. As VP, I assume. Who's to say with what the next four years will be like that isn't actually the better place for her on the ticket?

    and they wonder why (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    we dont roll over, bite the pillow and embrace the horror.

    Bill Clinton's good works re malaria: (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST
    AP

    It is entirely my speculation (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
    But VPs in general are not supposed to upstage the Presidential candidate, and are supposed to be a team player, work from the same play-book, not draw a penalty on the team for being offsides,...... and add whatever other sports metaphors one may like.

    Also, I was talking about Sebelius--and "not upstaging Obama" is the polite way of saying she is dull as dirt.  I was trying to see the glass as half full.

     

    Well it shouldn't be that much of a problem (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:29:24 PM EST
    If Obama is truly such a presence in and of himself.

    And people keep talking about it.

    We can't do this, Obama might be upstaged.

    We can't do that, Obama might be upstaged.

    I know Gore was kind of bland sometimes himself, but I think Obama has room to shoot higher than dull as dirt.


    Parent

    dull as dirt is a nice safe (none / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:47:38 PM EST
    demeanor for a women in second position . . .

    Parent
    Maybe HRC jumped a notch in the VP polling (none / 0) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:38:27 PM EST
    Maybe this is why Big Dog is going out there - another candidate may have bitten the dust.  Joe Biden made some interesting news today...

    ABC News

    Reed of RI sd., not me. (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:44:46 PM EST


    Parent
    What is this about? Are you joking? Read the (none / 0) (#169)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    headline:  "Bill Clinton 'Ready to Go' for Obama"

    Bill is ready and willing to campaign, he's just waiting for Obama to let him know when/what/how.  Simple.  

    Uh (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM EST
    Waiting for Obama to tell him what to do. Follow the leader? Ever play?

    Parent
    Waiting for Obama to ASK Bill, not TELL Bill. (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    Not waiting for marching orders, not waiting for Obama to "tell Bill how to behave."  Waiting for Obama to take the lead and ASK for Bill's help, and to ask for it in a courteous and respectful way.  

    My last post on this so if you don't get it now you never will.  

    Parent

    I Get It (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    You think that Obama is unqualified for POTUS. He is a novice. You couldn't be clearer in your dismissiveness.

    "your candidate" kind of sums it up, no?

    Parent

    I have not used the words "your (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    candidate" or "my candidate" in any of my posts.  You need to read the thread correctly and reply to those comments in the correct place.  As I said earlier, you must have failed reading comprehension.  I did use the word "novice" in a post as it related to experience, Bill Clinton versus Barack Obama.  Yes, IMO, Obama is a novice when compared to Bill Clinton.  You continually try to put words in other people's mouths, use straw men arguments and other silly tactics to try to score some points.  I won't be baited by you.  I know exactly what I write and what I mean.  You are trolling here.  

    Parent
    Anyone who can't see that Obama is (5.00 / 0) (#260)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    a novice compared to Bill Clinton, a two term president of the united states, is not being honest.

    Parent
    He isn't my candidate so (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    "our" would not be the right possessive pronoun for me to have used. It wasn't dismissive. It was correct grammar. I have no horse in this race.

    Parent
    Does Michelle Play (none / 0) (#255)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    Follow the leader?

    Parent
    I think Bill could do magic for Obama, (none / 0) (#201)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM EST
    because the media won't be able to neutralize him, as they knew they had to do when he was campaigning for Hillary.
    But all I really care about is that the democrat brass have learned how to govern from the Clinton record. Obama already swiped their entire policy agenda in the primary, the spectacular agenda they devised when Bill was a leading intellectual in the dlc. If Obama runs with it, with the Clintons advising him, we'll be in fat city. It would be so sweet.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com
     

    Thread cleaned (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    of bickering, off topic comments, insults and in particlar, way out of bounds gossip and rumors.

    This post is about one thing: Bill Clinton campaigning for Barack Obama. Please make sure your comments refer to that.

    Someone here (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    Has a real vision to see Bill running around on a leash with Barack carrying the leash.

    That's, I think, offensive to many, and I, for one, will take whatever rhetorical means I think necessary to prove what kind of idiot thinking that is.


    Parent

    After trashing Clinton's presidency (none / 0) (#211)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    What can Obama  ask Bill to do? Bill spoke the diplomatic words that are read between the lines as: I don't care to help you.  It's what I say when I don't want to help: Tell me what to do.  Yup, it works every time.  I get the thanks, and do nothing or the minimum.  When I want to help, I get moving and figure out ways to help.  BC is a great fundraiser. Just his presence brings money, but Obama burned that bridge.  Expect BC to do nothing or near nothing.

    What Bill Meant? (none / 0) (#212)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    Unlike you he seems to be focused on the best way to take back our country from the GOP, and will do whatever our Democratic nominee asks of him.

    Parent
    I agree with your post n/t (none / 0) (#241)
    by stefystef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:04:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Bill can't be bothered really (none / 0) (#240)
    by stefystef on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:03:37 AM EST
    but he's is putting it in  Obama's court on what role he should/would play.

    It's a brilliant move on Bill's part.  It's all on Obama now.  If he doesn't use Bill Clinton, then when Obama loses, it won' be the Clintons' fault because they were willing to campaign for him.

    Obama wishes he was as smart as Bill Clinton.

    Ummmm (none / 0) (#251)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    I don't know why some of that was bolded. I am not very technological.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#253)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    If that means what I think it means.

    Clinton myth (none / 0) (#266)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:48:54 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was a crappy president when he had a Democratic Congress.  He was a fine president when he could counterpunch the Republican Congress and steal their issues (balanced budget, welfare reform) while making them look like fools.  In 2008 there will be another Democratic Congress.

    Bill Clinton 'Ready To Go' For Obama | 154 comments (154 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment