Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bush to Hillary Clinton:
I'm Truman, You're Ike


President Bush told a group of broadcasters that he was impressed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. (AP).

Karl Rove may not think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances of winning the White House, but it sounds like President Bush is less sanguine. At an off-the-record lunch a week ago, Bush expressed admiration for her tenacity in the campaign. And he left some in the room with the impression that he thinks she will win the election and has been thinking about how to turn over the country to her.

The topic came up when Bush invited a group of morning and evening news anchors and Sunday show hosts to join him in the executive mansion's family dining room a few hours before he delivered his nationally televised address on Iraq last week. Bush made no explicit election predictions, according to some in the room, but clearly thought Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and talked in a way that seemed to suggest he expects her to succeed him - and will continue his Iraq policy if she does.

As Bush was describing his thinking about Iraq and the future, he indicated he wants to use his final 16 months to stabilize Iraq enough and redefine the U.S. mission there so that the next president, even a Democrat, would feel politically able to keep a smaller but long-term presence in the country. The broadcasters were not allowed to directly quote the president, but they were allowed to allude to his thinking and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News later cited the analogy of Dwight D. Eisenhower essentially adopting President Harry S. Truman's foreign policy despite the Republican general's 1952 campaign statements.

"He had kind of a striking analogy," Stephanopoulos said of Bush on air a few hours after the lunch. "He believes that whoever replaces him, like General Eisenhower when he replaced Harry Truman, may criticize the president's policy during the campaign, but will likely continue much of it in office."

It is, in fact, a striking analogy, and of course Bush has been positioning himself as a latter-day Truman for a while, particularly in the sense that Truman was reviled by the public toward the end of his presidency but later earned the respect of history for his leadership at the beginning of the Cold War. Not surprisingly, Bush critics consider that wishful thinking.

Either way, even though he has repeatedly forsworn playing "prognosticator in chief," Bush offered the broadcasters some assessment of the race to succeed him. According to people in the room, he said Clinton was formidable and will raise a lot of money. He seemed particularly impressed that she has held up so well under the enormous pressure of the campaign trail, noting that running for national office is extremely hard. Just as he had the advantage of having seen it up close during his father's four national campaigns, he noted that Clinton benefits from being on the frontlines of her husband's two presidential elections. Bush added that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) was impressive in his own way but the president seemed dubious the freshman senator could win given his inexperience in high office and national campaigning.

On the Republican side, according to people in the room, Bush expressed surprise that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has managed to remain the frontrunner despite his liberal positions on social and cultural issues normally critical to the party base. That's a sign of how important the terrorism issue is to Republican voters, Bush said. But he cautioned against ruling out Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), saying he had managed to get up off the mat after a campaign implosion earlier this year.

For a guy who says he doesn't want to dissect the campaign, Bush sounded a little like he was auditioning for a pundit job after his term ends.

-- Peter Baker

By Post Editor  |  September 21, 2007; 5:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: AFL-CIO Budgets $53 Million for '08
Next: Edwards Unveils
Education Plan

Comments

As stated above, this photo was taken 2 days after 9/11. Take it down now, or you're just another shameless shill for the Bush Administration.

Posted by: the.simulacra | September 29, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

You really need to take this photo down if you want to retain any remaining credibility. As already pointed out earlier by commenter jamusco, and now writ large by Michael Shaw over at BAGnewsNotes, the photo was taken 2 days after 9/11 and had nothing to do with the meeting in the story.
If you can't do anything true, don't do anything at all.

Posted by: kjshaw238 | September 27, 2007 8:18 AM | Report abuse

I smell a conspiracy. First there was Bush Sr who started the march to outsource the country. Then, there was Bill Clinton who issued NAFTA and Exec Order 13166 starting the march towards turning over the country to Mexico and China. Then, there was Dubbya who continued Clinton's push with his own SSP and an attempted amnesty for 25 million illegals.

Now Bush calls Hillary and says - "it's time for your White House transition debriefing so you can finish what the two dynasties began". Damn presumptive of him.

It is time to terminate the dynasties - Anyone But Hillary in 08!

Posted by: Patriot1 | September 26, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The court Jester speaks. You know Bushco is pushing a Rovian agenda in any comments he makes. However I do believe he realizes , but does not admit publicly that he will be viewed historically as the worst President the US has ever had. So he is brown nosing or voicing support for any candidate that can help his future iamge when they become President. Unfortunately for him no one can prop up his Presidency to sway history to view him in any light other than that of his complete failure to accomplish anything during his presidency except complete abject failure . Is it 09 yet?

Posted by: raniehausj | September 26, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time that President Bush made a prediction about the future that turned out to be correct?

Uh, little help??

Posted by: piper190 | September 25, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Phew! As expected, this is a very controversial topic: Bush giving his input about not only what he has done in the past, but what he predicts to happen in the future. Its a touchy subject because of the a) party differences, b) controversy about the war, and c) the many opinions of Hilary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

I would like to point out that, no matter who wins the election in 08, BUSH WILL BE OUT OF OFFICE. It will not matter for too much longer what he thinks. If his successor does follow his footsteps in continuing to draw out the problems in Iraq, this country has a whole different problem to deal with. Something tells me that there would be a whole heck of a lot of angry Americans that the future president would have to answer to.

I would like to hope that all of the voters are weighing the future of the war (or optimistically, lack of war) very heavily in their upcoming voting decisions.

Posted by: MeaganCO | September 24, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Hi,
Mr. Bush and the Bushies are solely expressing what they want to happen. They believe that if Hillary is the Dem candidate in November, the Party formerly known as the Republicans (fiscal conservatism, compassionate conservatism, etc. being on the endangered species list) will have the easiest chance to win the White House, which to me has some credence.

Ms. Clinton has some baggage and not only in regards to her family. She is reticent about her voting for the war, can tend to contradict herself depending on who she is speaking to, and as recently as yesterday kept answering questions with WHEN she is President, not IF.

To do well in a variety of situations, humility, a calm demeanor, and a lack of a 'put-on' conversational tone may help.
Marc F.
Grayslake, IL

Posted by: crazy4glf | September 24, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I've been predicting for some time that because of too early start of the campaigns that many voters, even primary voters, will be turned off by the media declared "front runners". That unknown factor could provide some real surprises during the primary. Wouldn't a "brokered Democratic Party convention be really interesting?
>>>Finally who cares what GWB "thinks"?

Posted by: geraldsutliff1 | September 24, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Mud wrestling and Opera, Emily Post and Jeffery Dahmer, President Truman and Bush. See the connection?

The idea of Bush using Truman / Churchill comparisons should always start out with ..."once upon a time."
It is a dream (wish) that this hapless President hopes will be penned by historians. It is uncomfortable to even compare the battlefield promoted Truman to the runaway Nat. Guard airman, who left a trail of empty obligations and bottles as his legacy.
Truman's decisions of dropping the atom bomb to save American lives, and sending troops to Korea were huge. Compare that to the dropping of Haliburton on Iraq, and the wasting of American lives in an endless quagmire of backroom oil deals and deceit.

The Rove Republicans have decided that Hillary offered the best opportunity for the use of "wedge" issues in the coming elections, and they had Bush try to start the ball rolling.

Posted by: ARJAY614223 | September 24, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I read most of the comments, and realized there is nothing more worth commenting on.George Bush is a man only a mother could love, and an American that no intelligent person could can even like.He and his administration are the scum of all former administrations.

Posted by: phred11 | September 24, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Bush is concerned about who the next president will be because he doesn't want to be brought up on war crimes charges and he doesn't want to be held accountable for ANYTHING least of all the mountain of lies he told (and keeps telling) the American people, for example, that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, and how Bush turned a blind eye to the people who really did attack us on 9/11, which basically was the Saudis maybe due to his and/or his father's personal interest in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Royal Family of which Bin Laden is a son.

Posted by: lindalovejones | September 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm. I guess the moral of this story is that if your own party's wanna-bes for presidential nominee don't want your support, give it to the enemy! I doubt that Romney, et Al., are eating their hearts out.

Posted by: jfredman | September 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Democrats Take NOTE and beware: When the GOPERS are picking your preferred candidate, grab the Vaseline because you're about to take it up the butt. The GOPERS want Hillary as the Democratic candidate, really, really bad, because they know she cannot deliver the Democratic mandate that will spoil their personal pillage party at the US Treasury. Celinda Lake poll from August, that was just released (why Hillary?)finds that Hillary or Obama would lose the American swing districts to Giuliani and lose the election.

Edwards can deliver the swings as well as the Democrtic districts and he is the best Democratic candidate who is most likely to deliver the mandate for real change that we so desperatly need. So D's: lets get behind Edwards and give Bush and his crooked cronies the ass whipping they rightly deserve.

Posted by: visiblelv | September 24, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Idiot Bush thinks he is like Truman!! Truman joined the army and then worked for a living....duh!!! See any similarities yet?? Hopefully Bush will be remembered for the stupid, stubborn,spoiled brat that really he is!!

Posted by: nhgal28 | September 24, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The discussion is interesting and fun to follow. One thought does occur.

Once the party faithfuls pick a candidate, those folks recede into the background and the attention turns toward the Independents and the less than fully faithful of the opposition.

Seems the majority of the political discussion at this point in time should be internal party options, directions and agendas. One of those old fashion bits and pieces of the political process called 'the party platform' maybe. And things like how each hopeful can best further the party's platform.

For some time now it's sounds like the only plank in either of the party platforms is "Beat Democrats" or "Beat Republicans", and that's all folks. With each hopeful trying to out Madison Ave. all of the others, opposition party included, for just the party's nomination.

Then they will repeat the rhetoric - rehashed, repackaged and regurgitated for our re-consummation for 'the really big one'.

As the one and only member of the American Independent Moderate (AIM) political party - AIM High the motto - I have concerns that either party is up to any sort of problem solving - save maintaining the status quo of a smoke and mirrors rhetorical existence. (Ross, this old country sure could use a you again)

(the ever present always undefined) They say 'things must get worse before they get better'. I thought we had hit the nadir, could only wishful thinking be the foundation of that assessment, desire, hope, prayer?

Posted by: EuroAm | September 24, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

'Well, I guess we'd better limber up our vocal chords just in case the old pinch faced bag becomes prez. Everyone ready:
"Heil Hillary". "Heil Hillary". "Heil Hillary".'

I'm amazed you're not hoarse already after having shreiked 'Heil Bush' for the last 7 years...

Posted by: claudialong | September 24, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I think you are falling for Briar Patch Politics by letting a Republican predict the Democratic nominee as if they don't have an agenda in an easily leaked background briefing.

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2007/09/briar-patch-politics.html

Posted by: yellojkt | September 24, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Mr. President, but you're no Truman and you know it. You're a Bush. Your performance will go down in the political lexicon as a synonym for failure. Later presidents will tell their successors, "You may not agree with me, but we both know I was no Bush." You can smell the stench of it, which is why we've been getting this media blitz for the past 2 years comparing yourself to an unpopular president who was later recognized as one of the country's better executives. The sad thing is, you could have done at least an average job, but you let your own laziness get the better of you.

Posted by: enkidu1 | September 24, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Hillary - Republican-lite? will continue Bush's war? shocking! ;>

Perhaps Republicans will vote for her - since Rupert Murdoch is $upporting her and the corporate media is promoting her - but but LOTS of Democrats won't!

Posted by: annefrank | September 24, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

I see two underlying reasons for his statement. First, Bush is trying "revisionism", W may think of himself as Harry Truman. Truman's poll numbers were in the basement when he left office in January of 1953. Now Truman is ranked as one of the great Presidents in U.S. history.
The second underlying message is the Republicans want Hillary as the Democratic nominee. This is one fire-tested method of getting the GOP base out in the general election. W and Rove probably talked about this a few hundred times trying to reason how a GOP candidate could possibly win in 2008.
As to the analogy itself, I see the LBJ-W comparison only as it relates to the war. LBJ, with his many faults, came closer to anybody to win a war against poverty. LBJ like W listened to bad intelligence and judgument. W has no domestic legacy to leave behind. If Hillary has any since of history, she might want to accept the Ike tag. Ike governed through a period of prosperity and ended an unpopular war.

Posted by: rogden71 | September 23, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

And people should trust his (Bush) judgement, WHY......

For that matter since they came to the same conclusion on the war (going in) I guess they share the same judgemental ability. so we should trust her WHY.....

Posted by: dsmith2 | September 23, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

And people should trust his (Bush) judgement, WHY......

For that matter since they came to the same conclusion on the war (going in) I guess they share the same judgemental ability. so we should trust her WHY.....

Posted by: dsmith2 | September 23, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, yeah, yeah! We can hear "If Hillary becomes President, she will..." until next year. Put your crystal balls away because YOU DON'T KNOW JACK and all of your forecasting isn't going to change my vote one bit. From what I've seen in Washington since 2001, I'd rather have a "bleeding heart, liberal Democrat" in office than a "blood-for-oil, the Constitution doesn't matter RepubliCON" any day. RepubliCONS have ruined this country and Bush has been the worst president in history.

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | September 23, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Originally posted by: egc52556

"This may be one of the few intelligent assessments Bush the Lesser has ever made. Should I trust him now?"

Hey, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again.

Posted by: jeo | September 23, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

GOP's "Rovian Plan". Hillary gets the nod; Norman Hsu starts "singing like a canary" and, presto, it's "Swiftboat" all over again.

Wake up fellow Dems! Hillary's a great Senator, but as a nominee, she'll split this country in two and we'll have four more "Elephant Years". Again, we can't go through another term like both of Bill's. The stakes are too high.

Posted by: travelgallery | September 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

A-L-L-E-N, Intelligent Virginia always has AND always will appreciate the great strides you made in education, commerce, labor, and employment...Keep it up!

I pray for you each and every day -- that you'll make a sweeping comeback to politics and that Virginia will come to realize the grave mistakes it made in the '06 midterm elections.

Posted by: bava84 | September 23, 2007 3:49 AM | Report abuse

Nice misleading headline and file photo.

Headline: 'Bush to Hillary Clinton: I'm Truman, You're Ike'

Photo: Old file photo of Bush with Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure Andy Card and George Allen are long gone from DC.

Caption: 'President Bush told a group of broadcasters that he was impressed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. (AP).'

So Bush didn't tell Clinton anything. He had a boring conversation with a bunch of millionaire anchors and told them A) Bush is steadfast, like Truman (what is he supposed to say? he's a historic failure?), B) the candidate with the 20 point lead is going to win.

Good thing Bush told these savvy insiders the straight dope so they could share it with us rubes out here in the hinterlands!

Posted by: jamusco | September 23, 2007 3:42 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone concerned that Baker and other journalists are carrying water for the GOP by parroting these GOP talking points. There is a pro-Hillary campaign among the right because the see her as beatable.

I (and many others) call it Briar Patch Politics:

http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2007/09/briar-patch-politics.html

Posted by: yellojkt | September 22, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

G.W. may be inarticulate, misguided, and lacking in curiosity, but he is no dummy as my Democratic brethren like to think.

Hillary is going to be the 44th president of the United States, and Bush is smart to recognize this.

Posted by: femalenick | September 22, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

By the way, two absolutely key differences between the Korean War fought on President Truman's watch and Dubya's military adventure in Iraq are that the Korean War was forced upon the U.S. by DPRK troops invading South Korea, while there was no reason whatsoever for the U.S. to invade Iraq. Truman also won the legitimate cooperation of the international community, while Dubya presides over a what could justifiably be called a coalition of the similarly blinded.

Posted by: nicoline | September 22, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The Idiot-in-chief's comments on Hillary's prospects are rather a two-edged sword. Her chances seem good at the moment, but only because the Republican field is so uninspiring and because he made such a mess of things that nobody wants another Republican in the White House. Another danger to the Clinton campaign is that they may begin to think that the nomination and indeed the presidential election is in the bag and become complacent in a way that turns off potential Democratic voters. Since Democrats still don't have anywhere near the grassroots organization the Republicans have, there's a real danger that she'll still manage to lose because of lower turnout in heavily democratic areas. Personally, I would prefer to see an Obama-Edwards ticket for the 2008 election!

Posted by: nicoline | September 22, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

George Bush has repeatedly stated that he thinks his reputation will improve when he leaves office. As many have pointed out, however, Bush has done absolutely NOTHING in the domestic or international field to justify such expectation. To the contrary, nearly everyone knows now that Bush is a habitual, incompetent and ill-tempered liar (and criminal) who believes his desired ends always justifies the means. When a Democrat gets into office and uncovers and exposes all of the many crimes and incompetence that Bush has so far managed to conceal -- plus he loses the huge microphone and power of the Presidency to spin and influence the news -- his already dismal reputation is going to take a nose dive. Mark my words.

Posted by: kgproperty | September 22, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Campaigning is Bush's best subject, his calling, his career, which may explain his showing rare academic interest and genuine grace toward Dem candidates. (Rove and Cheney, on the other hand, have grabbed such opportunities only to take pot shots.)

Posted by: jhbyer | September 22, 2007 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Birds of the same feather flock together.

This is a good time for George Bush to start sucking up to their anointed successor (since Clinton's family is the next running family of America). This way, most of his administration's blunders that will lead to big embarrassment can be covered up by Clinton, just like he (GWB) helped the other Clinton.

Posted by: ztlogic | September 22, 2007 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Ha - Bush is Truman - right. Truman really fought (and led) in a real war -- elected as a company commander by his own men, too -- World War I, that would be; and then he had some real jobs, including breaking his butt for many long, hard years on a real farm, back when farming was really, really, hard -- not chilling out on some dude ranch for a rich guy with a chain-saw hobby. And when Truman failed in business, it was Harry Truman who was left holding the bag, not a bunch of his daddy's campaign donors. Harry Truman made the call and took the rap for Hiroshima, not "shock and awe" in camelville with a sideshow for drive-by freelancers. Harry Truman hung with Churchill and Stalin, not Prime Minister Poodle-Boy and Reputie the Beauty. Harry Truman rebuilt Europe, he didn't break the Treasury franchising out Iraq to a bunch of do-nothing "contractors." Harry Truman was a real man. George Bush ain't worth a tick on Harry Truman's a__.

Posted by: pressF1 | September 21, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

This seems to be part of the campaign ploy of the republicans who want Hillary to be nominated, because of all the opportunities for highly negative campaign advertising smears. I have been struck that almost every potential nominee and many of the republican spokespersons constantly refer to Hillary Clinton (hoping to rev up the fear factor among their constituents and getting them to vote). This just seems like more of the same message.

Posted by: lillianwexler | September 21, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

You wrote: "Karl Rove may not think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton's chances of winning the White House, but it sounds like President Bush is less sanguine."

Didn't you mean "more sanguine"? You report that Bush is more confident that Clinton will prevail, not less confident.

Posted by: rmkelly2 | September 21, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess we'd better limber up our vocal chords just in case the old pinch faced bag becomes prez. Everyone ready:
"Heil Hillary". "Heil Hillary". "Heil Hillary".

Posted by: birvin9999 | September 21, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

YAWN- Is it 2009 yet? Is there any money left in the U.S Treasury that Halliburton somehow overlooked?

Posted by: ka0mr | September 21, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the neo-con 2008 agenda? Get blue voters to think Clinton will win when in reality she doesn't have a chance in red states. Rudolph isn't popular, but up against Hillary and he is bound to win. Bush knows this and is strategically making comments to influence voters in this direction.

Obama can guarantee a win for the Democrats and will be a real threat to the neo-con agenda (which is completely different from a Republican, small gov't agenda). Therefore, neo-cons belittle him or just ignore him.

Posted by: jutz19 | September 21, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"Bush added that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) was impressive in his own way but the president seemed dubious the freshman senator could win given his inexperience in high office..." Yeah, unlike Bush the Moron with his vast experience as a failed buisinessman and second-rate governor. Good of him to share his thinking though, such as it is. He is like a disease on the face of the earth and I long for the day he is gone.

Posted by: branfo4 | September 21, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Clinton will be Nixon to Bush's LBJ.

Unfortunately for Bush, LBJ got so much accomplished domestically -- in fact, HISTORY-making civil rights legislation -- that LBJ is probably the POTUS who History will most look back on with kindness.

Bush doesn't have any domestic achievements to point to; in, fact, he is leaving both the domestic agenda and the foreign affairs agenda in far worse shape than he found them.

re: "Unfortunately, this leaves Hillary as the new Nixon -- the reluctant heir of a lost war."
Nixon was not hurt as the "reluctant" heir of a lost war... He actually got credit for doing anything that was different.
He was a "War President" without any of the baggage.

But Nixon, with the assistance of Dick Cheney, went the "unitary executive branch" direction and abused his power.
Hillary is going to be handed that unitary executive branch power, not have to fight for it. So she won't get tagged with the "power-grabbing" downside to the Nixon administration.

And she also has General Clark on her team (my prediction is SecDef) who is known throughout the military as a brilliant military strategist.
A brilliant military strategist is exactly what is missing from the Bush team as far as the current situation in Iraq.

I think Clinton will actually begin to right the war in Iraq (if such a thing is possible).
And let's all remember... By doing what he could to get us out of Vietnam -- although hardly anything whatsoever -- Nixon won one the biggest landslides in history for his second term.
I predict the same for Clinton's second term.

Posted by: freespeak | September 21, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

wow - i'm surprised that i agree with bush. hillary will win and will probably continue the current iraq policy because all the obamas in the world couldn't fix that mess.

Posted by: jtorres138 | September 21, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Slipshod thinks he can harm Hillary's chances by supporting her. That'd be in line with his Rovean politics, and reflects the value every thoughtful person puts on his judgment.

Posted by: glenbc | September 21, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Bush hasn't got a clue about Harry S. Truman or about history. Truman actually SERVED in the military and expanded Social Security and other social programs, and was much smarter than Bush. Bush comparing himself to Truman is an insult to Truman's legacy and Hillary is ten times more intelligent than Bush.
What makes Bush think that he has any credibility left?

Posted by: morningglory51 | September 21, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

w's been wrong about everything else, why pay attention to anything he says?

Posted by: gyrrab | September 21, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse


I always thought of Bill Clinton as Eisenhower (of the Left) -- a sleepy, sanguine administration marked mostly by a great economy.

That would make Bush the Republican Kennedy -- a person who also stole and election and split the country (Kennedy's administration was extremely divisive).

The follower of GW would then be the LBJ -- the person who really wants to do good domestically but gets sucked into a war that consumes more resources.

Of course, this is the year 2007 and none of that crap matters any more.

Hey, Kanye West's Graduation -- it's the bomb.

Posted by: jabailo | September 21, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If its off the record, why are you writing it and quoting him? Regardless of anyones opinions on Bush he deserves the same decency and respect that should be afforded to anyone speaking in confidence.

Posted by: jyr | September 21, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

So weird to see a picture of that loser George "Macaca" Allen sitting smugly in the White House. When that picture was taken, he probably thought he'd be taking over for Bush.

Posted by: not_that | September 21, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Geez, Bush picking Hillary to win is the kiss of death coming from King Midas in Reverse!

Posted by: whirlwind81 | September 21, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't that be MORE SANGUINE?

As in, more cheerful, optimistic, etc?

Bush is more confident that Hillary would win.

Copy editor, anyone?

Posted by: joe3 | September 21, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Time to regret those signing statements and unlimited authoritarian unconstitutional abuses under the guise of GWOT?

You a$$clown brownshirt Rape-Public-Cans have a sh*t sandwich of karma coming your way.

Posted by: dan3 | September 21, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

This may be one of the few intelligent assessments Bush the Lesser has ever made. Should I trust him now?

Posted by: egc52556 | September 21, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Trust the Moron-in-Chief to get his presidential history wrong. He isn't Truman, he's LBJ -- the narcissistic egomaniac who let his own hubris trap him into an unwinnable war. Hillary's husband is Ike, the pragmatist who made his peace with the Reagan revolution, just as Eisenhower accepted the basic outlines of the New Deal.

Unfortunately, this leaves Hillary as the new Nixon -- the reluctant heir of a lost war. Like Nixon, she's also a deeply polarizing figure who is both obsessive to and obsessed by her many critics on the right. (Even paranoids have real enemies.)

And yes, she probably will continue Shrub's Iraq policy -- and pay an enormous price for it.

History may not repeat but it sure the hell can rhyme.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | September 21, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

More fitting would be for Bush to refer to Clinton as Mobil, to his Exxon, or to Clinton as Bradstreet to his Dun.

I would vote for Sen. Clinton vs. any Republican candidate. However, I have little enthusuiasm for her politics.

I would much prefer President Kucinich.

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 21, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, for once I agree with GWB--concerning his picks in the Democratic race and Hillary's prospects.

Posted by: PrussianBlue | September 21, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company