Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bubba Re-Emerges: Still Bitter?



Former President Bill Clinton reappeared on the political scene -- and off the Democratic message -- during his Global Initiative meeting this week in New York City. (Getty Photo)

Lost amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the collapse on Wall Street has been the re-emergence of former President Bill Clinton in the public eye.

The former commander-in-chief has largely stayed out of the political arena following his wife's loss in the Democratic primary, emerging briefly to offer a classic stem winder in support of Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, but generally avoiding the limelight.

But, the kickoff of his annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City this week has sparked a series of high-profile television interviews for the former president -- including an extended chat with the King himself, Larry King, last night -- in which the former president has come off, at times, as decidedly off the Democratic talking points.

Among the gems he offered up during his sitdown with King:

• On experience, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain: "The experience issue, at least in the Democratic primary, was virtually irrelevant to people . . . maybe prior public service and hard effort, making hard decisions, maybe doesn't amount to anything."

• On his wife's (and his own) support for Obama: "If you look at what Hillary has done, she has already done more for him, notwithstanding the unusual circumstances of this primary, than any runner up has in a nominating process in 40 years."

• On his role in the campaign: "I just don't believe that, you know, getting up here and hyperventilating about Governor Palin or Senator McCain, for that matter, is a productive use of a former president's time, and is not a vote-getter."

• On the Palin pick: "I think that she and her husband and their kids come cross gutsy, spirited and real. . . . I think it's best to say that Senator McCain looks like he knew what he was doing. He picked somebody who gave him a lot of energy, a lot of support."

To be fair to Clinton, he also made clear his support for Obama during the interview; he described the Illinois senator as "charismatic...really smart" and a "very disciplined candidate who has handled himself, I think, by and large, really remarkably well."

But, for someone, like The Fix, who follows Clinton's every move (yes, we are obsessed) very closely, it wasn't hard to see the ongoing struggle within the former president's own mind about the man who might be the next Democratic president of the United States.

It's clear Clinton remains unhappy about the way in which the primary process played itself out. He has made no secret that he was unhappy about how Obama framed his Administration's accomplishments during the primary season and how the Illinois senator's campaign had "played the race card" against him.

And, it's also readily apparent from both his statements during the primary as well as his interview last night with King that Clinton genuinely likes and admires McCain. In describing their relationship, Clinton said of McCain: "I like him and I admire him." He went on to note that the Arizona senator had helped him normalize relations with Vietnam and fight the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The best way to summarize Clinton's position in this race is a sort of clinical support for Obama. While he may well feel more personal warmth to McCain, Clinton -- as he said last night to King -- disagrees with the Republican nominee on the war in Iraq and the right fixes for the economy and health care.

Obama's positions on all of those issues are far closer to Clinton's own views, and the former president is a smart enough political mind to know that anything less than full public support could be disastrous for he and his wife's future political aspirations. "We're not party-wreckers, and we believe that the country needs to take a different course," Clinton told King.

And yet, the trademark Clinton passion -- the trait that one him so many admirers and votes during the 1990s -- still doesn't seem to be there when he talks about Obama's candidacy.

"So I'm for Obama and would I say that if I -- just because I'm a Democrat? Yes," Clinton told King. "But I also really believe this. I give the reasons I think are relevant to the American people. That is far more important than having one more guy sitting at the television with a lot of bad mouthing the other person."

CNN has put an excerpt of the Clinton-King interview on line; it's embedded below. You be the judge. Agree with our premise about Clinton's "clinical" commitment to Obama's candidacy? Disagree with our assessment? The comments section awaits.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 25, 2008; 2:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: VA-Gov: The Macker Makes a Move
Next: Colbert Suspends!

Comments

Bubba probably thinks he will have a shot with Sarah Palin if he projects McCain/Palin ticket. He would goto any length to praise McCain. If Hillary had won the DNC primaries I wonder whether Bubba would be so generous with his aise for McCain or Palin. Bill has essentially become a bitter old man. It is hard for him to forget that Obama beat his wife and spoiled Bill's chances of running the white house one more time in the name of his wife. As Obama's poll numbers keep rising, Hillary's chances of running in 2012 also goes down. By 2016 Bill will be in his 70s and Hillary will be 70 years old. After 8 years of democratic presidency the chances are that the republicans will win in 2012. That puts Hillary's hopes to get into the white house a fantasy dream. Bill is history. He is as relevant to this race as Carter was 4 years ago.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | October 1, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

I agree with every word!! I am so disgusted with Clinton and I will not forgive him if he continues with his half hearted endorsement of Obama!! If he can sleep at night knowing we could suffer 4 more years of destruction from these people..more deaths in Iraq...the poor becoming even poorer!!! How dare he?? Clinton had better change his attitude fast or the Clintons will be done in politics!!! SHAME ON YOU BILL!!!

Posted by: susan24 | September 28, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

I agree with every word!! I am so disgusted with Clinton and I will not forgive him if he continues with his half hearted endorsement of Obama!! If he can sleep at night knowing we could suffer 4 more years of destruction from these people..more deaths in Iraq...the poor becoming even poorer!!! How dare he?? Clinton had better change his attitude fast or the Clintons will be done in politics!!! SHAME ON YOU BILL!!!

Posted by: susan24 | September 28, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

I listened to the entire interview. President Clinton was insightful, measured and right. People who expect him to foam at the mouth and berate Senator McCain and Governor Palin are missing the point. The partisans in both parties already have their minds made up. The election is now about the 18% percent of voters who haven't made up their minds. They are not going to be swayed by posturing or personal attacks. Senator Obama has said explicitly that his campaign is not about tearing people down but embracing the good ideas on the left and the right, but too many of his supporters don't seem to have gotten the memo. It's just not up to the Clintons to ensure that Senator Obama wins and indeed, many of Obama's supporters declared that the Clintons were irrelevant during the primaries. Now that the race is tight, you all think the Clintons should be jumping in bashing the other side? Why? If you go listen to the entire interview, you'll hear President Clinton say he'll be campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and some of the other battleground states. He also said that he's going where the Obama campaign sends him, but that he has had commitments to the Clinton Global Initiative. He has a life beyond his usefulness to the Obama campaign. Those who still try to make this a Clinton issue should ask themselves if they are holding any other of the losing candidates to the same standard.

Posted by: cali_nb | September 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

No more media attention to Bitter Bill's Tiresome Road Show Against O:

Whether "Bubba" is "still bitter" is beside the point. Who cares? As they say, that is his personal problem, not a subject worthy of any media attention.

Bill had a golden opportunity to be helpful as a senior Obama surrogate, as he signed up to be, but instead went on a petty, narcissistic anti-Obama campaign.

In numerous TV appearances this week, he avoided any mention of Obama (which lead to jokes about it from Maureen Dowd and Chris Rock), heaped praise on his opponents (even calling Palin "hot"), and continued to bleat endlessly about his wife losing and not being selected as O's vp (Bill says Hill would have been better than Biden).

Bill also tried, unsuccessfully, to step on O's brillant move calling Mac's bluff about delaying the debate. Mac said he would be a no-show; O said fine, I'll be there anyway; and today the latest is Mac will now show up (completely reversing himself, but subject to change).

Bill tried hard to rain on O's parade by arguing Mac's threatened delay was in good faith, something not a single major US newspaper, not even the Wall Street Journal, believed was true.

Axelrod, Obama, or SOMEBODY in O's campaign needs to have an in-your-face, heart-to-heart with Bitter Bill, and tell him: the jig is up, we know what you're up to, and go home. O needs Bill and Hill's so-called campaigning FOR him like he needs a Drano milkshake.

Bitter Bill's been quiet so far today on the airwaves so maybe that message was sent by O and received by Bitter Bill. We can only hope.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

dbitt, THAT'S PATHETIC

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

holzhaacker, STOP WHINNING NONSENSE BEFORE YOU JUMP TO SUCH RIDICULOUS CONCLUSIONS. HE ONLY COMPARED OBAMA'S WIN IN SOUTH CAROLINA TO JESSE JACKSON'S WIN IN THE STATE IN 1988. THE WHITES THROUGHOUT SOUTH CAROLINA ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY REPUBLICAN, BUT THE BLACKS ARE DEMOCRATS. BLACK PRIDE IS AN ISSUE, AND IT'S NO BETTER THAN WHITE PRIDE.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

grclarkdc1, YOU ARE PATHETIC. BILL GAVE A HECK A SPEAK AT THE DNC FOR OBAMA. YOU CAN PRAISE A FRIEND.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

mkazin, YOU ARE PATHETIC. CLINTON WAS AN OUTSTANDING PRESIDENT AND A GREAT PARTY LEADER. WERE YOU EVEN INTO POLITICS DURING HIS PRESIDENCY? YOU MAKE ME LAUGH

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, YOU SPEAK NONSENSE. CLINTON ALSO PRAISED OBAMA GREATLY, AND HE DID NOT JUST DO IT FOR MCCAIN. FRANKLY, I SEE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH PRAISING ANYBODY WHO'S A FRIEND OF YOURS

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Zynder, YOU NEED TO GROW UP. THE MEDIA WAS DIRTY TO GIVE OBAMA A PASS BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR. THEY SHOWED THAT THEY WERE NO BETTER THAN DAVID DUKE.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Omyobama, OBAMA LIED ABOUT HIS TIES WITH TONY REZKO, BILL AYERS, AND LOBBYISTS. BILL CLINTON IS MORE HONEST THAN HIM.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

energydem, GROW UP. BILL CLINTON HAS WORKED FOR YEARS TO MAKE A BETTER LIFE FOR ALL PEOPLE OF ANY SKIN COLOR. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE ANY BETTER THAN DAVID DUKE TO PREACH SUCH NONSENSE?

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

msreginacomcastnet, THAT'S RIDICULOUS. When Clinton left office, HE HAD THE HIGHEST GALLUP POLL APPROVAL RATING OF ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM. THE MEDIA SLANDERED HIM AND HILLARY THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN TOO. IT WAS A DIRTY TRICK TO NOT REPORT ABOUT OBAMA'S MISTAKES TOO.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Claire, PLEASE SHUT UP WITH THE REVOLTING COMMENTS. If I were Bill Clinton, I MYSELF WOULD NOT CONSIDER KISSING THE RUMP OF A CAMPAIGN THAT TRIED TO PAINT HIM AS A RACIST FOR POLITICAL LEVERAGE. THAT IS A DIRTY TRICK TO DO. When you try to do that, YOU TICK EVEN THE MOST OFF LOYAL FRIENDS OFF. Even Toni Morrison, who I used to be fond off, WAS DOWN RIGHT DIRTY WHEN SHE TRIED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT HER COMMENTS ABOUT CLINTON BEING THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT WERE "MISUNDERSTOOD."

THE WOMAN SAID "CLINTON DISPLAYS ALMOST EVERY TROUPE OF BLACKNESS: BORN POOR, RAISED IN A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD, BLUE COLLAR FAMILY, SAXOPHONE PLAYING, MCDONALD's AND JUNK FOOD LOVING." Now she is trying to convince people "people misunderstood that comment. I was referring to the way he was being treated, ala his sex scandal, a black man on the street, already a victim, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are in terms of race." JUST PATHETIC.

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Clinton a narcissist? Steve62, YOU ARE PATHETIC. CLINTON HAS DONE A HELL OF JOB ENDORSING OBAMA. YOU CAN'T MAKE A GUY CAMPAIGN VIGOROUSLY LIKE HE'S A SLAVE. IT'S IMMORAL

Posted by: getrealjohnson | September 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

President Clinton was criticized during the primaries for shooting from the hip, and I believe he's making an effort to stay on point and speak to real issues. Too many people want to manufacture a controversy. On Larry King's show, his analysis of the election was thoughtful and incisive--he was also right. And in case some people still don't understand this, for the past 10 years he's been working on the Clinton Global Initiative, which tries to promote real solutions to serious issues. He was clear and right when he said it required his attention. Both he and Senator Clinton have supported the Obama/Biden ticket--how many of the other Democratic candidates have gone out stumping for the team? How vigorously? Why are the Clintons different? Senator Obama said his campaign was about issues, not promoting rancor--too many of his supporters don't seem to have gotten the memo.

Posted by: cali_nb | September 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I used to support and respect Bill Clinton. No longer. He is an out-of-control narcissist, as we see by his recent undercutting the presidential nominee of his party. He should recuse himself from public life for the next few decades, consider carefully his sins (especially the conduct described by Chris Cillizza in this article), and repent of them. We will do just fine without him.

Posted by: Steve62 | September 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Today from one of the HuffPo posts re the reason Mac is trying to delay/avoid his and Palin's debates. It says the problem is Palin:

"The McCain campaign held a mock debate and press conference [for Palin], and she was horrible, and they asked themselves "what are we gonna do?."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 26, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The reason so many posters on THE FIX ARE UPSET is that the Obama campaign has over 300 paid staff bloggers who harass and mock internet bloggers who do not agree with the Obama campaign's ultraliberal views.


It is true.


The Obama campaign, and the candidate and his wife in particular, are hostile toward FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF BLOGGERS because they lump Constitutional Freedoms into a Constitution which they believe is at fault over the Slave Trade, over the Dred Scott Decision, over the Jim Crow era, over all the stuff that you have read in your dusty history book.

This is what we want:


1) We would like the Washington Post to require ALL the internet posters at the Obama campaign, paid and unpaid, including volunteers, to identify themselves in their postings as a part of the Obama Campaign. That way when these people harass and mock other internet bloggers everyone can see clearly that it is the Obama Campaign engaging in such UNAMERICAN AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR.


2) We would like the Editors and Reporters at the Washington Post to clearly state to the Obama Campaign that harassing and mocking the readers of the Washington Post is unacceptable behavior for a candidate for President of the United State, a position which is suppose to protect FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT TRAMPLE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


3) We would like a PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM OBAMA AND HIS WIFE WHO IS RUNNING THIS UNDERHANDED INTERNET CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT AND MOCKERY - AND A FIRM COMMITMENT FROM BOTH OBAMA AND HIS WIFE THAT THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THEIR CAMPAIGN OR FAMILY MEMBERS TO ENGAGE IN THIS UNAMERICAN AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR ANYMORE.

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Enough, Bill, enough! Are you a republican or a democrat? If all you are going to do is talk up McCain and Palin, just stop. We get that you are bitter. Go away.

Posted by: claire2 | September 26, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

MEDIA, WHY COVER BITTER BILL's ANTI-O TV TOUR?

We are disappointed at the recent media attention paid to Bill Clinton, who has decided to go on a bitter televised seek-and-destroy mission against Obama, for whom he is supposed to be a high-profile surrogate. A major debate is coming up, the economy is in crisis, and an historic bailout is being negotiated, yet the media is focused on...Bitter Bill and how he is still peeved about his wife losing.

In recent history, it is unprecedented for the losing campaign the primary season to go on a bash-the-winner TV tour as Bill Clinton, and, to a slightly lesser extent, his wife have.

It is not credible that Axelrod or Obama asked Bill Clinton to appear on multiple TV shows like Larry King and the View and not mention Obama once and spend most of his on-air time gushing over the merits of Barack's opponents. It is not believable the Obama campaign asked him to assert his wife would have made a better veep than Biden. And did anyone in the campaign ask him to say Mac's idea to postpone the debate, derided as a stunt by the Wall Street Journal, was in "good faith" right after Obama basically said that it wasn't?

Bill's claim that he does not want to bash O's opponents is totally disingenuous given the race-baiting and character assassination he and his wife engaged in during the primary season against Obama.

It is the direct result of his narcissistic antics that his and his wife's standing in the AA community is about at 39%, and unlikely to get higher in the near future. This lasting damage makes Hillary 2012, 2016, or 2020 a virtual impossibility. The only AAs supporting them are politicians they helped in the past and, of course, Uncle--, er, sycophants in the media and the political system.

As they used to say, if you have nothing to say, don't say anything. Having effectively identified himself to the world as a Barack opponent, Bill needs to stand down from further appearances "on behalf of" Obama. Down the homestretch, Obama would benefit from a lot, lot less of Bitter Bill's brand of "campaigning."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 26, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

It seems Pres. Clinton's support for Sen. Obama has been dispassionate at best. He talks up Sen. McCain's good points but is much more tepid toward Obama, suggesting that, yeah, he'd like Obama to win (because of party and policy) but really doesn't care that much.

Posted by: dbitt | September 26, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"The return of registration will, hopefully, bring a renewed level of civility to the dialogue on the blog. Registration should weed out the vast majority of spam posters and those simply hoping to distract or detract from the ongoing conversation." -- Chris
___
Oh, really...Read below
____

"Chris:

Is there anyway to track the comments back to Obama Paid Staffers at Obama Headquarters in Chicago - they have shifts of people who come in - these people are paid by Obama to harass and mock other posters who are exercising their Freedom of Speech which is guaranteed by the Constititution.


I am sickened by the behavior of the paid Obama staffers at Obama headquarters in Chicago.


This behavior is indicative of the GENERAL HOSTILITY TOWARD THE CONSTITUTION WHICH OBAMA AND HIS WIFE MICHELE HOLD - CLEARLY BOTH OBAMAS RESENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED THE JIM CROW ERA - BOTH OBAMAS ARE ALSO ANGRY THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED THE SLAVE TRADE TO CONTINUE UNTIL 1808 - AND THEY ARE BOTH ANGRY ABOUT THE 3/5 COMPROMISE - CLEARLY THIS HOSTILITY HAS MANIFESTED ITSELF INTO A GENERAL HOSTILITY TOWARD ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AMERICANS HOLD DEAR.


SERIOUSLY THIS IS AN ISSUE - THE PHILADELPHIA SPEECH MADE CLEAR REFERENCES TO THE IDEAS WHICH INDICATED THIS HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BASIC FRAMEWORK OF OUR GOVERNMENT NAMELY THAT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS ARE SUPREME TO THE GOVERNMENT.


CLEARLY BOTH OBAMAS HAVE A HOSTILITY TOWARD THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE PAST WHICH ALLOWED THE JIM CROW ERA, THE SLAVE TRADE, THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, THE 3/5 COMPROMISE AND THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT - THEY HAVE MANIFESTED THIS ANGER INTO A HOSTILITY AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS SUCH AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH - THUS THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM HARASSING BLOGGERS ON THE INTERNET WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM SHUTTING DOWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AT STREET FESTIVALS IN CHICAGO, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM INTERFERING WITH ELECTIONS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA AND ACTING TO PREVENT THE CITIZENS OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA REVOTES WHICH WOULD CONFORM AFTER THE DATES, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHITES AND DEPRIVES PEOPLE OF WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED BASED ON MERIT - THE OBAMAS ARE HOSTILE TOWARD THE FREEDOMS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEY BOTH BELIEVE THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN TRAMPLING ON CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF THE JIM CROW ERA AND BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED SLAVERY FOR 75 YEARS FROM 1790 - 1864.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 26, 2008 7:09 AM"


Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 26, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

.


Chris:

Is there anyway to track the comments back to Obama Paid Staffers at Obama Headquarters in Chicago - they have shifts of people who come in - these people are paid by Obama to harass and mock other posters who are exercising their Freedom of Speech which is guaranteed by the Constititution.


I am sickened by the behavior of the paid Obama staffers at Obama headquarters in Chicago.


This behavior is indicative of the GENERAL HOSTILITY TOWARD THE CONSTITUTION WHICH OBAMA AND HIS WIFE MICHELE HOLD - CLEARLY BOTH OBAMAS RESENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED THE JIM CROW ERA - BOTH OBAMAS ARE ALSO ANGRY THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED THE SLAVE TRADE TO CONTINUE UNTIL 1808 - AND THEY ARE BOTH ANGRY ABOUT THE 3/5 COMPROMISE - CLEARLY THIS HOSTILITY HAS MANIFESTED ITSELF INTO A GENERAL HOSTILITY TOWARD ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AMERICANS HOLD DEAR.


SERIOUSLY THIS IS AN ISSUE - THE PHILADELPHIA SPEECH MADE CLEAR REFERENCES TO THE IDEAS WHICH INDICATED THIS HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BASIC FRAMEWORK OF OUR GOVERNMENT NAMELY THAT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS ARE SUPREME TO THE GOVERNMENT.


CLEARLY BOTH OBAMAS HAVE A HOSTILITY TOWARD THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE PAST WHICH ALLOWED THE JIM CROW ERA, THE SLAVE TRADE, THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, THE 3/5 COMPROMISE AND THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT - THEY HAVE MANIFESTED THIS ANGER INTO A HOSTILITY AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS SUCH AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH - THUS THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM HARASSING BLOGGERS ON THE INTERNET WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM SHUTTING DOWN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AT STREET FESTIVALS IN CHICAGO, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM INTERFERING WITH ELECTIONS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA AND ACTING TO PREVENT THE CITIZENS OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA REVOTES WHICH WOULD CONFORM AFTER THE DATES, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHITES AND DEPRIVES PEOPLE OF WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED BASED ON MERIT - THE OBAMAS ARE HOSTILE TOWARD THE FREEDOMS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEY BOTH BELIEVE THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN TRAMPLING ON CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF THE JIM CROW ERA AND BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED SLAVERY FOR 75 YEARS FROM 1790 - 1864.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | September 26, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

This is just Bill being Bill. He never could resist an opportunity to mug for the press, and the press will always be there for him.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 26, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton doesn't really like Senator Obama, the majority of the American people know this. He's still angry that his wife lost the Primaries. He needs to get over it. He either helps Senator Obama or he doesn't. You would think that listenting to his talking points that he was in the tank for McCain and you would also think that his wife were still running for POTUS. Someone needs to tell Bill,she lost and he needs to get over it.

Posted by: LynndaMaree | September 26, 2008 5:34 AM | Report abuse

You are way too soft on narcissistic Bill. He has shown his amazing self absorption once again!

Posted by: ktivey | September 26, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Hey Janet 08 the day the media died was not in 2008 - it was in 2000 and 2004 - also definetly cremated in the Bush/WMD/FOX off to war we go rubbish for the Iraq war...its also when truth and honesty went out - so Mc Cain can hang with Old Bill - Both Lie Both old both Womanisers.

If Mc Cain wins 2008 will be the year that the USA confirms they have become mentally handicapped....Wall St - Bush - Mc Cain = KARMA...how much do the little guys have to get hurt to wake up and get of the couch and their arse and vote these idiots out

Posted by: colinemery | September 26, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

". . .the trait that one him so many admirers and votes during the 1990s." Hey Chris - did you graduate from University of Idaho?

Posted by: SharptonVoter | September 26, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath to a court and disgraced for lying on TV to the nation. He invented the "triangulation" by which politicians focus on their own election at the expense of party and country. Whether or not a racist, he made several racists remarks during the primaries. He is disloyal scum who should just go the route of Joe Lieberman and become an official Republican surrogate. He was the President who signed the Graham-Leach-Bliley bill that led to the current market meltdown. He is 100% scum and it's time for us Dems to scrape him off our shoes along with the likes of Joe Lieberman. It would be nice if he would just shut up and leave the U.S. for the duration of the campaign. Watching him trash Obama in the (vain) hope of his wife getting a nomination in 2012 is disgusting. There is NO way that (SNIPER FIRE! SNIPER FIRE! oops my bad, just a girl scout with flowers) HRC will ever be nominated, much less elected. After her lukewarm campaigning and Bill's crude endorsements of McSame, too many Dems will despise the Lying Clintons too much to ever trust them again.

Posted by: dolph924 | September 26, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

• On his role in the campaign: "I just don't believe that, you know, getting up here and hyperventilating about Governor Palin or Senator McCain, for that matter, is a productive use of a former president's time, and is not a vote-getter."

I wish Bill Clinton had remembered this during the primaries. If you want to know why many Obama supporters are looking for some level of true support it's precisely because AS DEMOCRATS we expected better of the man who we had supported, voted for and contributed to for 2 terms. So during the primaries, in his own party, he was willing to play attack dog but now ... not so much? Lol ... no wonder Bill and John McCain get along so well ... they use the same flat out lies "I did not have .." well, you know ....

Posted by: Omyobama | September 26, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

The reason for Bill's lukewarm support for Obama is that he and Hillary probably vetted Obama themselves during the primaries. Remember Hillary's Rezko reference, Obama's slumlord co-hort, during the debates? Obama is bad news. And Bill's in a "catch 22."

Obama has too many controversial and disturbing ties which has been all but covered-up by Obama's MSM surrogates across the nation. It's a far-left agenda that is not in concert with the average mainstream Democrat. That is why so many Democrats supported Hillary, who was by far the better candidate, rather than Obama and his ties with Rezko, Ayers, al Mansour, Khalidi, McKnight, Auchi (arms dealer to Saddam Hussein), Alsammarae, his Pakistani friends now his bundlers, ties to radical activist groups, sympathizer to Palistine, Iran, etc.

Bill knows more than I do about Obama and even if Hillary hadn't been in the race, I think he would still be lukewarm for a candidate like Obama with his "controversial" background. Notwithstanding, Obama's lack of experience, unremarkable career as a state senator and US Senator and his many flip-flops on positions.

The MSM, including you Chris, due a great disservice to the public by spending more time to lipstick on a pig, rather than truly doing your job as a member of the "free press."

To many of us, 2008 is the year journalism has died.

Posted by: janet8 | September 26, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Bubba is sore loser. It is very clear from his recent chats with the press that he is no way supporting Obama. I am pretty sure he will be voting republican this coming election. Obama knows that too. But Obama is playing it safe by making it not a big deal. Obama seems to have found a way to distance himself from the Clintons without actualy giving the public that impression. Obama hardly talks about the 18 million cracks Hillary claims is up for grabs. It was very clear that Bill Clinton wanted Obama to attend his global initiative only through a satelite hookup, while he gave a warm welcome to John McPhony. Bill Clinton the other day was giving advice to Todd Palin about how to handle being the second dude. That just shows Bill wants McCain to win.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | September 26, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Having watched that interview with Larry King I was persuaded that Clinton will pull the lever for John McCain. I think Bill knows more about being president that anyone alive. Certainly GWB knows nothing about it and his old man probably forgot whatever he knew. What I think Bill would tell us is that being president is not about being a policy wonk with a head full of facts and figures. You can buy all those guys you want once your in office. Most great presidents were not great intellectuals and were not from expensive schools. GWB graduated from Yale and Gore dropped out of Harvard. Bush scored higher on his military entrance exam than Gore. Its not an education thing. Its about leadership and vision. You have to pull experts together to develop a plan to carry out your vision for the country. The sad reality of this election is that neither Obama or McCain have a clear vision for taking the country forward. They both speak of change. Obama change is to go from the failed policies of Bush to the failed policies of Carter. I have no idea what McCain's vision is, hell, at his age he may be sightless.

Posted by: PSOG | September 26, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I used to respect Clinton a lot, even after the Monica affair. Nobody is perfect anyway. But his recent strange behavior and egocentric megalomania only highlight his pettiness, selfishness, and blind ambition. Doesn't he realize that without the Monica screw-up, Gore would be president, there would not be an Iraq war, and the country is now not bleeding $700B? Redeem yourself respectfully, Mr. President!

Posted by: TaoZen | September 25, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, Bill's intellectual brilliance has always been undercut and undone by his narcissism, just as Barack's intellectual brilliance is undercut and undone by his arrogance. Clinton is of course more appealing because of his deep neediness, whereas Obama is off-putting because of his aloofness.

He will still make a great President compared to the intellectually sluggish McCain and intellectually vapid Palin.

Barack just lacks that shallow American Idol quality that comes do easily to Bill. Mores the pity for America.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is caught in a dilemma. As a lifelong Democrat he is loyal to his party. But as an Former President, loyal American and astute politician he judges Obama to be someone who lacks the judgment and experience to be President.

If he judged that Obama would be a good or great President, he would support him tirelessly. You would not be able to drag Bill Clinton off the campaign trail. He would become the wise elder of the Democratic Party. Because of the added support he would generate, Obama's election would be certain.

If he judged that Obama would be a poor or bad President, his actions would be the same but for very different reasons. After total support for Obama, the Clintons would be preparing for a primary challenge in 2012.

Clearly he has judged that Obama would be a disastrous President who would bring great and lasting harm to the country. Through their opposition research, the Clintons know Obama better than Michelle will ever know him.

Those who impugn Bill's motives should consider what he has to lose. He is as addicted to the adoration he receives as any junkie is to meth. If he loses the Democrats, he becomes the most hated man in America. He will never be the darling of the Republicans.

During the primary, he attacked Obama on more fundamental grounds than the attacks from Hillary. He persisted even after getting into trouble. I hope there is no one so naive as to think that he would do that for Hillary, it was personal.

He is caught in a quandary between his need for adoration and his judgment of the harm that an Obama Presidency would do to the country. Decry his actions if you will, but don't doubt his motivation or his political judgment.

Posted by: Xdem | September 25, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is caught in a dilemma. As a lifelong Democrat he is loyal to his party. But as an Former President, loyal American and astute politician he judges Obama to be someone who lacks the judgment and experience to be President.

If he judged that Obama would be a good or great President, he would support him tirelessly. You would not be able to drag Bill Clinton off the campaign trail. He would become the wise elder of the Democratic Party. Because of the added support he would generate, Obama's election would be certain.

If he judged that Obama would be a poor or bad President, his actions would be the same but for very different reasons. After total support for Obama, the Clintons would be preparing for a primary challenge in 2012.

Clearly he has judged that Obama would be a disastrous President who would bring great and lasting harm to the country. Through their opposition research, the Clintons know Obama better than Michelle will ever know him.

Those who impugn Bill's motives should consider what he has to lose. He is as addicted to the adoration he receives as any junkie is to meth. If he loses the Democrats, he becomes the most hated man in America. He will never be the darling of the Republicans.

During the primary, he attacked Obama on more fundamental grounds than the attacks from Hillary. He persisted even after getting into trouble. I hope there is no one so naive as to think that he would do that for Hillary, it was personal.

He is caught in a quandary between his need for adoration and his judgment of the harm that an Obama Presidency would do to the country. Decry his actions if you will, but don't doubt his motivation or his political judgment.

Posted by: Xdem | September 25, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

SiberianOb I did. That's why I am sick of these shallow thirty somethings trashing a man with an intellect that is way beyond their puny brains. When Obama explains a complex issue I go to sleep. When Clintons, either of them, do the same I am intellectually stimulated. McCain of course has been a complete disaster. So I will support Obama. But when will American's get beyond their obsession with novelty and style over substance? In the parliamentary system a Bush, a Reagan, a Palin or an Obama will never be in the position they are in.

Posted by: kabindra1 | September 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

as usual, bill clinton is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. quit writing about him - he'll never please you!

Posted by: jburns9382 | September 25, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Damn. Did y'all see Clinton on Jon Stewart the other night? He's so much smarter than any ten other politicians put together. His encapsulation of our current financial mess was so succinct, so perceptive.

Lordy I miss having that much shining intelligence in the public arena.

Can't vote for McCain -- sick to death of listening to Obama waiting for poll results before daring to open his mouth -- and even then, he's filled with blatent pandering to curry votes instead of taking this financial mess seriously.

I swear if Obama doesn't start talking soon about taking advantage of Clinton's brilliance to add to his own putative future administration, he's going to wind up either not winning at all, or winning and finding a mess on his hands that he's so COMPLETELY unprepared to deal with.

Posted by: SiberianOb | September 25, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Staff blaming examples were requested: ....

---------------

thanks. point taken.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually I am over 50. They also promote hate and intolerance. I find that far less interesting and inspiring as I get older. I am certain the Clintons believe the Constitution is at stake too after 8 years of shredding. That still doesn't mean I have to condone the constant parsing of every utterance from Bill Clinton to find some Obama slight. It's so stupid and immature. For god's sake the country is falling apart. The Obama nuts should just give it a rest.

you must be under 20....the left wing has always been self-righteous, angry, hyperventilating, etc etc...that's the whole point of left wing....they provoke change and balance the self-righteous, angry, hyperventilating right wing.

this is vibrant democracy, not some kumbaya love in.

the constitution is at stake...it's worth hyperventilating about.

Posted by: energydem | September 25, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I am not under 20 and am a lifelong left winger- and I too am disgusted by the self-righteous "liberal" part of the party who threw the candidates with the more ambitiously progressive policies under the bus so that they could support the glorified state senator who I now have to vote for. I am tired of people who were never engaged or voted republican in the past saying that "I am the change", I am tired of being labeled as ignorant at best or racist for saying that the naked emporer has not clothes- which job would you put a guy in with this little experience- CEO?, surgeon? Why is it ok to elect a president with no record.

I am voting for him but am very disappointed in my choices.

Posted by: nycLeon | September 25, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

As Dewey said to Taft (judging from your analysis I doubt you are educated enough to have read anything beyond a comic book let alone McCullogh's Truman) consider having carnal relations with yourself.

Posted by: kabindra1 | September 25, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

ahlesa,

exactly- Chris, we know you hate the Clintons obsessively- but it'sleave the Clinton's alone- this is not their election anymore- the press and party made sure of that- now get over the primaries already and worry about the ISSUES in this election rather than all the other B.S.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | September 25, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Staff blaming examples were requested: abortion questionnaire, division of Jerusalem speech to AIPAC. From RCP: "in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence. Reports the Times: "In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that 'none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel's security.'" Or another: In January, during MSNBC's presidential debate in Las Vegas, Obama was asked about a document put together by one of his South Carolina staffers that listed comments made by the Clinton campaign that some perceived to be attempting to stoke racial fires. "In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?" asked Tim Russert. "Our supporters, our staff get overzealous," Obama said. "They start saying things that I would not say, and it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign."
or another from RCP: In a March 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times to answer questions about Tony Rezko, Obama was asked about the fact that Obama had told the newspaper in November 2006 that he had never been asked to do anything to advance Rezko's business interests. But the Sun-Times had subsequently learned about a October 28, 1998 letter Obama wrote to city and state housing officials on behalf of a housing project for seniors that Rezko was working on. The letter, Obama said, "was essentially a form letter of the sort that I did all time. And that I wasn't, by the way, aware of." A reporter asked: You weren't aware that he was associated with the project? Responded Obama: "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter. The answer that I gave at the time was accurate as far as I knew...This was one of many form letters, or letters of recommendation we would send out constantly for all sorts of projects. And my understanding is that our letter was just one of many. And I wasn't a decision maker in any of this process."

There are more, but it's after 10 pm and bedtime. I'm voting for him, but I just wish I respected him more.

Posted by: judy2 | September 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm seriously so tired of the bipolar democrats complaining about bill clinton. people were demanding that he campaign less and less for his wife, that he move on from the campaign as a has-been and as someone who was to blame for a declining democratic party. it's shocking that obama cannot wipe out a ridiculous GOP candidate with a joke running-mate in any national poll? seems like he has every reason to be bitter. last i checked, he's the last democrat to actually win a presidential election.

Posted by: nobodyinparticular | September 25, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear Fix,

Your analysis brings a new meaning to nuanced nit-picking. How much more do you want from the Clintons?

They have strongly supported Obama, but in Clinton/Clintonista hating season even that is not enough.

Posted by: ahlesa4 | September 25, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Dear Fix,

Your analysis brings a new meaning to nuanced nit-picking. How much more do you want from the Clintons?

They have strongly supported Obama (period).

Posted by: ahlesa4 | September 25, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza, who? You're a Drudge nobody!

Posted by: bigrediguana | September 25, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

As an African American, I am ELATED at the disdain that Bill is showing Obama. He's proving that not everyone on the left is involved in "the cult". Obama stole the nomination-literally. I don't blame Bill or Hillary at all for not wanting to support him. McCain against Hillary would have been a tough decision but without her running,we clearly must elect McCain.


----------------

You are a white middle-aged male republican who has been posting this crap for days. Please.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

His courage has not been evident. How about when he makes a mistake, he stops using "we" made a mistake, or blaming a staffer?
-------

examples??

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I am a hard core Democrat but I can't stand the self righteous, angry, hyperventilating left wing of my party.

---------------------

you must be under 20....the left wing has always been self-righteous, angry, hyperventilating, etc etc...that's the whole point of left wing....they provoke change and balance the self-righteous, angry, hyperventilating right wing.

this is vibrant democracy, not some kumbaya love in.

the constitution is at stake...it's worth hyperventilating about.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

"[Obama]'s the only one with real, non false-dramatic, courage."
__________________________

There is a difference between courage and ambition. A leader should, ideally, have both. Obama has ambition, for sure. His courage has not been evident. How about when he makes a mistake, he stops using "we" made a mistake, or blaming a staffer? Kerry used to do that to.... not very admirable.

Posted by: judy2 | September 25, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree with Stephanie. I am a hard core Democrat but I can't stand the self righteous, angry, hyperventilating left wing of my party. They are turning into their counterparts on the right. I like the Clintons, Obama is fine, why do the lefties have to parse every word they Clintons utter to find some slight against Obama. There are more important things in the world

Posted by: energydem | September 25, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

This interview is a prime example of why Obama couldn't put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Bill Clinton is totally selfish and completely out of control. He cannot be counted on to campaign on message - ask Hillary about that - and he would have been a constant headache as the resident "second gentleman." If Hillary is smart she will finally divorce this strange man. Of course, she should have done that many, many years ago.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | September 25, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

As an African American, I am ELATED at the disdain that Bill is showing Obama. He's proving that not everyone on the left is involved in "the cult". Obama stole the nomination-literally. I don't blame Bill or Hillary at all for not wanting to support him. McCain against Hillary would have been a tough decision but without her running,we clearly must elect McCain.

Do you really think McCain is afraid to debate Obama? YOU think Obama is a god, we know he's not. I've been watching McCain ask Obama to debate all summer and Obama ran like the snake that he appears to be. Now he wants to debate because he figures he'll catch McCain off guard. Seriously. Have you ever listened to Obama without a teleprompter?! I'm shocked that he made it this far.

McCain and Obama are both Senators. We pay them to do what McCain willingly left the campaign trail to do. What do we pay Obama to do? The same thing actually but you'd never know that looking at his pitiful record. America first...looks like it's more than just words to John McCain.

Posted by: bdev | September 25, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

IT IS REALLY TIME TO PUT THE CLANTON GANG BEHIND US.

Posted by: IowaPatN | September 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Re: Bitter Bill

You don't see Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, or Paul trashing Mac on national TV or going on one-hour talk shows gushing about their admiration of Obama and Biden. In fact you don't see them at all.

You see they are playing by the rules: after you lose in the primaries, you either pitch in and camapign FOR the party nominee or walk away and stay silent. You do not go on a "Say-No-To-O" TV tour as Clinton has, bashing and trashing the party nominee (O) on numerous shows (did O or Axelrod ask him to do that?) and reciting the morning's talking points of his opponent. This may be Bitter Bill's and his wife's final act at the presidential level.
____

"Clinton's comments are more column-worthy--and effective---because they're genuine and not scripted. How many columns has anyone written about Romney's praise for McCain? Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Do you think Clinton and Obama don't KNOW that?

Posted by: davidg7376 | September 25, 2008 8:25 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 25, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article. But, I expected better grammar and spelling in the Washington Post. Specifically, you wrote...

"could be disastrous for he and his wife's future political aspirations" For he's a jolly good fellow, but you meant "for him."

AND

"the trait that one him so many admirers and votes." How about it "won him"?

Posted by: Bauer11 | September 25, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

BILL's SHAMEFUL, BITTER, SAY-NO-TO-O TV TOUR

The Clintons have been campaigning AGAINST Obama for quite some time. It isn't a news flash. Bitter Bill's recent "Say No to O" TV tour is just the latest installment in the back-stabbing.

In a series of TV appearances this week -- including on the View and Larry King -- Bill said nary a word about Obama but lavished praised on his opponents. He wnet on for about twnety minutes straight about Palin, dcelaring her "hot." He also announced he would not criticize O's opponents in any way (hardly a policy he employed against O when he was his wife's opponent and they race-baited him for four months).

His TV performances were so outrageously anti-Obama that Comedian Chris Rock and NYT's Maureen Dowd both made fun of them this week. Rock even turned it into a hilarious comedy routine on Letterman.

And today when every major newspaper, including the Wall Street Journal, called Mac's attempt to delay Friday's debate a cheap political stunt, Bill was defending it as a good faith gesture, intentionally undermining O efforts to call Mac's bluff and expose the delay as bogus.

The general reporting is Mrs. WJC's "campaigning" is equally inverted: no mention of O and praise for his opponent. Fortunately, Clintons' antics have been overshadowed by the issues, like the bailout plan, and O's numbers are high nationally and in the battleground states inlcuding some unexpected ones like North Carolina. The country has moved on; the Clintons haven't.

Everyone thought Maureen Dowd was joking when she suggested the Clintons were working with Mac's campaign to make sure O lost. But clearly Dowd, joking or not, she was telling the truth: the Clintons have taken soreloserdom to new heights of ugliness.

In the end, because of the Clintons' aggressive high-profile attempts to undermine O's campaign (isn't it is totally unprecedented for the primary loser to campaign against their party's primary winner?), Hillary 2012, 2016, 2016, and 2020 have been taken off the table for good. And despite what Jeffrey Toobin called the Clintons' "deranged narcissism" and their coded racism, O will win anyway. Good guys do finish first.

Axelrod needs to immediately tell Bill and Hill they have done campaigning "for" O and wish them well... on the way out. Or the Big O himself needs to personally have an in-your-face "come to Jesus" meeting with these two "campaigners."

O called Mac's bluff today now he needs to call theirs.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | September 25, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Smindustries is on the money. A few false coins re Obama but basically it adds up correctly.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five

The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate

By Tom Fitzpatrick
Published on November 29, 1989

You're John McCain, a fallen hero who wanted to become president so desperately that you sold yourself to Charlie Keating, the wealthy con man who bears such an incredible resemblance to The Joker. Obviously, Keating thought you could make it to the White House, too.

He poured $112,000 into your political campaigns. He became your friend. He threw fund raisers in your honor. He even made a sweet shopping-center investment deal for your wife, Cindy. Your father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was cut in on the deal, too.

Nothing was too good for you. Why not? Keating saw you as a prime investment that would pay off in the future.

So he flew you and your family around the country in his private jets. Time after time, he put you up for serene, private vacations at his vast, palatial spa in the Bahamas. All of this was so grand. You were protected from what Thomas Hardy refers to as "the madding crowd." It was almost as though you were already staying at a presidential retreat.

Like the old song, that now seems "Long ago and far away."

Since Keating's collapse, you find yourself doing obscene things to save yourself from the Senate Ethics Committee's investigation. As a matter of course, you engage in backbiting behavior that will turn you into an outcast in the Senate if you do survive.

They say that if you put five lobsters into a pot and give them a chance to escape, none will be able to do so before you light the fire. Each time a lobster tries to climb over the top, his fellow lobsters will pull him back down. It is the way of lobsters and threatened United States senators.

And, of course, that's the way it is with the Keating Five. You are all battling to save your own hides. So you, McCain, leak to reporters about who did Keating's bidding in pressuring federal regulators to change the rules for Lincoln Savings and Loan.

When the reporters fail to print your tips quickly enough--as in the case of your tip on Michigan Senator Donald Riegle--you call them back and remind them how important it is to get that information in the newspapers.

The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate. The outcome will be decided, not in a courtroom, but probably on national television.

Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You are especially adept at this.

Last Friday night, on The John McLaughlin Show, which features well-known Washington journalists, the subject of the Keating Five was discussed. Panelist Jack Germond suggested that three of the Keating Five were probably already through in politics.

So you spend your days desperately trying to make sure you will be one of the survivors. You keep volunteering to go on radio and television stations to protest your innocence. Last week you made ABC's Nightline.

Not long before that you somehow managed to get James Kilpatrick, the national columnist, to write a favorable paragraph about you. Last Sunday morning, you made it to national television again; this time on ABC's This Week With David Brinkley. You smiled at the panel with your usual studied insouciance. Sitting next to you was Senator John Glenn of Ohio.

Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, and George Will were the interrogators.
It was a sobering scene. There you sat with Glenn, both sweating before the cameras, waiting to answer questions: two badly tarnished American icons.

No one forgets that Glenn was the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth. You won't let anyone forget that you were a prisoner of war. But you have played that tune too long. By now your constant reminders about your war record make you seem like a modern version of Arthur Miller's tragic failure Willy Loman.

Clearly, both you and Glenn sold your fame for Charles Keating's money.

It was a Faustian bargain. It was also a bad joke on the rest of us and a disaster for many old people who lost their life's savings to Keating.

The money was never really Keating's to give. But he never would have got his hands on it if you and the rest of the Keating Five didn't halt the government takeover for two long years while Keating's people continued their looting.

And now, the tab for the Savings and Loan heist must be paid from taxpayer pockets.

On Sunday, Senators Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, and Riegle refused offers to appear on the Brinkley show. What must we make of that?

You, the closest of them to Keating and the deepest in his debt, have chosen the path of the hard sell. You may even make it out of the pot, but to many, your protestations of innocence taste like gall.

You are determined to bluff your way. You will stick to your story that you were acting to help a constituent and intended to do nothing improper. The very fact you attended the meeting makes you guilty, just as every man who entered the Brinks vault went to prison.

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five
The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate
By Tom Fitzpatrick
Published on November 29, 1989
You're John McCain, a fallen hero who wanted to become president so desperately that you sold yourself to Charlie Keating, the wealthy con man who bears such an incredible resemblance to The Joker.Subject(s):
John Mc John McCain, Keating FiveObviously, Keating thought you could make it to the White House, too.
He poured $112,000 into your political campaigns. He became your friend. He threw fund raisers in your honor. He even made a sweet shopping-center investment deal for your wife, Cindy. Your father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was cut in on the deal, too.

Nothing was too good for you. Why not? Keating saw you as a prime investment that would pay off in the future.

So he flew you and your family around the country in his private jets. Time after time, he put you up for serene, private vacations at his vast, palatial spa in the Bahamas. All of this was so grand. You were protected from what Thomas Hardy refers to as "the madding crowd." It was almost as though you were already staying at a presidential retreat.

Like the old song, that now seems "Long ago and far away."

Since Keating's collapse, you find yourself doing obscene things to save yourself from the Senate Ethics Committee's investigation. As a matter of course, you engage in backbiting behavior that will turn you into an outcast in the Senate if you do survive.

They say that if you put five lobsters into a pot and give them a chance to escape, none will be able to do so before you light the fire. Each time a lobster tries to climb over the top, his fellow lobsters will pull him back down. It is the way of lobsters and threatened United States senators.

And, of course, that's the way it is with the Keating Five. You are all battling to save your own hides. So you, McCain, leak to reporters about who did Keating's bidding in pressuring federal regulators to change the rules for Lincoln Savings and Loan.

When the reporters fail to print your tips quickly enough--as in the case of your tip on Michigan Senator Donald Riegle--you call them back and remind them how important it is to get that information in the newspapers.

The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate. The outcome will be decided, not in a courtroom, but probably on national television.

Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You are especially adept at this.

Last Friday night, on The John McLaughlin Show, which features well-known Washington journalists, the subject of the Keating Five was discussed. Panelist Jack Germond suggested that three of the Keating Five were probably already through in politics.

So you spend your days desperately trying to make sure you will be one of the survivors. You keep volunteering to go on radio and television stations to protest your innocence. Last week you made ABC's Nightline.

Not long before that you somehow managed to get James Kilpatrick, the national columnist, to write a favorable paragraph about you. Last Sunday morning, you made it to national television again; this time on ABC's This Week With David Brinkley. You smiled at the panel with your usual studied insouciance. Sitting next to you was Senator John Glenn of Ohio.

Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, and George Will were the interrogators.
It was a sobering scene. There you sat with Glenn, both sweating before the cameras, waiting to answer questions: two badly tarnished American icons.

No one forgets that Glenn was the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth. You won't let anyone forget that you were a prisoner of war. But you have played that tune too long. By now your constant reminders about your war record make you seem like a modern version of Arthur Miller's tragic failure Willy Loman.

Clearly, both you and Glenn sold your fame for Charles Keating's money.

It was a Faustian bargain. It was also a bad joke on the rest of us and a disaster for many old people who lost their life's savings to Keating.

The money was never really Keating's to give. But he never would have got his hands on it if you and the rest of the Keating Five didn't halt the government takeover for two long years while Keating's people continued their looting.

And now, the tab for the Savings and Loan heist must be paid from taxpayer pockets.

On Sunday, Senators Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, and Riegle refused offers to appear on the Brinkley show. What must we make of that?

You, the closest of them to Keating and the deepest in his debt, have chosen the path of the hard sell. You may even make it out of the pot, but to many, your protestations of innocence taste like gall.

You are determined to bluff your way. You will stick to your story that you were acting to help a constituent and intended to do nothing improper. The very fact you attended the meeting makes you guilty, just as every man who entered the Brinks vault went to prison.

Posted by: Russell4America | September 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain Runs And Hides From His Past:

John McCain running from the debate with Barack Obama is unacceptable, and COWARDICE! There are over 350 members of congress to deal with the US economic collapse. And even more capital hill aids, advisers, and experts to deal with the economic catastrophe created by the corrupt Bush McCain presidency and the past republican controlled congress.

Every American, and TRUE! patriot needs to demand that John McCain debate Barack Obama and tell the American people how he is going to fix this economic catastrophe that he (John McCain), Bush, and the past Republican controlled congress created.

Contact the news media. Your local papers. And demand that they hold John McCain accountable to debate Barack Obama. Contact all your friends and ask them to do the same. Call your senators, and congressmen and tell them that you expect "Let Them Eat Cake" John McCain to debate Barack Obama on this economic catastrophe that John McCain and "Let Them Eat Cake" BUSH! created.

It's time to get ANGRY! America. Tell John McCain you want answers, and you want those answers NOW!

He can run. But he cant hide anymore.

What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.

My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is a head has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.

Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blest with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism's of the Bush, McCain administration.

Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.

JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | September 25, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The problem here is simple. Bill Clinton spoke well of a speaker at his Global Initiative who was also the Republican candidate. He failed to say Obama was an empty suit but no matter, the liberals got their panties all in a twist over this (no! couldn’t be!) and as is typical of the liberal death squad, they hunt. Starving ghouls drunk on Kool-ade roaming the blogs to attack. Such is life in America.

Republicans need to merely stay to the high road, ignore the demons amongst us and stay on topic. When Obama loses, liberals will have a “bitter” pill to swallow.

Eye on the prize.

Democrat for McCain/Palin ‘08

Posted by: pansycritter | September 25, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

As an admitted devotee of the Clintons, I feel your piece could have been more frank. In the mind of the Clintons, Hillary was next in line. Obama cut in line, snubbed Hillary and never genuflected and kissed Bill's ring.

Bill is an old-school politician. Obama never went to him, apologized and tried to make a deal. If Obama had sat down with the Clintons immediately after the primary and said, 'Look, I know you're not happy with the situation, but it is what it is. Hillary, I'll give you whatever position you want in the this administration, including the vice presidency. Pick a position and I'll cement the deal this instant by walking out the door announcing to the world that if I win, you'll get the job.' Obama didn't do that and like a cocky kid, he snubbed them and implied he didn't need their help. That's unacceptable to the Clintons.

When Bill and Obama met a couple of weeks ago, Obama went to Bill with nothing to offer. He could have laid the same offer I described on the table, but he didn't. Bill wants restitution and Obama is either too dumb to understand it or feels he doesn't need it.

The Clintons are doing Obama no favors. When Hillary said, 'The Obama campaign has asked me to talk about Palin, but I won't', she basically kicked them in the nuts, not only announcing to the world Obama's, strategy, she also said she wouldn't play along. In the past 24 hours, Bill has said that he won't bash the Republican ticket and qualified it with 'That's not what the voters want', however that has been a hallmark of every one of his campaigns.

The Clintons aren't just not helping Obama, they're actively hurting him. They're pissed and they're not going to help him win.

Posted by: Smindustries | September 25, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama's greatest flaw is that he lacks courage.

--------------

Nonsense.

He took on the dominant Democratic power family and won. He is now taking on the Republican party, lingering and latent racism, a group of Hillary's bitter supporters, and has never complained, whined, or shifted blame. He is running a brilliant campaign that has not gone broke, has stayed together and stayed on message. He sat down with O'Reilly and anyone else who asks while McCain and Palin are running scared from the media.

He's the only one with real, non false-dramatic, courage.

We are so screwed up, we can no longer recognize quality when it stares us in the face.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Clinton's comments are more column-worthy--and effective---because they're genuine and not scripted. How many columns has anyone written about Romney's praise for McCain? Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Do you think Clinton and Obama don't KNOW that?

Posted by: davidg7376 | September 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

b.s.

we should be appaulding the ability to tell people the truth rather than encourage the fantasy world that this election has become. if articles like this hurt people's ability to be curious about and get involved in the work Clinton is doing, it hurts us all, is irresponsibile journalism.

CGI, Gates, Skoll, et. al are making a difference.

Posted by: nonebetterthantheother | September 25, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris and other bloggers: I thought Obama's shtick was to be post-partisan, so why are you so critical of Clinton's efforts? He's running a Global Initiative which actually helps people, and it makes sense for him to approach this in a professional manner. I imagine that if Obama loses, all these bloggers will still blame the Clintons. Can't Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING? He blames his staff for any mistakes that HE makes, and now is passing this unappealing habit onto his followers. I'm planning on voting for him, but I think it's important to be aware of all aspects of a candidate. Obama's greatest flaw is that he lacks courage. He's smart but not very brave.

Posted by: judy2 | September 25, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

No one is pouting, hysterical or dragging. Obama is doing just fine and will win, with or without the Clinton's sincere or insincere help.

But I do feel sorry for your bitterness. Rejoicing in another's struggles is cancerous to the soul. I wish you healing.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I think you understated the case, Chris. Big Bill says going negative on your opponent
isn't effective. I guess that's why he and Hill went Rovian on Barack. It's so obvious that they will try to do just enough for Obama so that they won't take any blame if he falls short. They are plotting for 2012, but if it comes to that, count this life-long democrat out.

Posted by: kwmatt | September 25, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

As a lifelong Dem and HilLary supporter who is enthusiastically voting for McCain-Palin (first GOP vote of my life) , I love what Clinton is doing. All during the primaries, the MSM schoolmarms tsk-tsked that BC wasn't "dignified" and "presidential." Well, now that they need him to be an attack dog for the delicate Prince Obama, he IS dignified and presidential - and the MSM is whining! Okay, you got what you wanted - he's "presidential." You're pouting because the candidate you're hysterically trying to drag across the finish line needs all the help he can get. Aww. Poor Prince Obama. I LOVE IT.

Posted by: jftvf | September 25, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris you are right. I have listened very carefully to every interview the former President has given and even the night of his endorsement speech he seemed detached and cool,like an analyst. While paying his respects to Senator McCain's military service and his experience in the Senate I thought it was amazing that Bill Clinton even made the positive observation that McCain frequently has taken on his own party when they were wrong. In fact, the only negative comment I have heard him make was a very generic statement that he very much admired Senator McCain but disagrees with his politics. One could say that about a family member or a good friend. Good thing we have a secret ballot in this country. I would bet money on Bill Clinton's vote this year.

Posted by: menopausequeen | September 25, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

ama et fac quod vis

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

ATTN McCain-Palin supporters:

The Obama people are circulating a PBS online poll on Sarah Palin in order to skew it. You can access it at my blog- don't let the Dems get away with dirty tricks!

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/

Posted by: dcpsychic | September 25, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

egc52556: Pity how uninformed you are. Yes it was HRC you saw because there would be no roll call, no opportunity for buyer's remorse delegates to vote. She did what she needed to do. There are two things I predicted the DNC will do if Obama fails: 1) blame Hillary for continuing in the primaries even as she was winning, and 2) cry racism. She came off with class under difficult circumstances and to head off a split in the Party. She will be back.

Posted by: thinkagain1 | September 25, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

koz - Cime. Vervex. Blennus. Pila foeda. Fac ut vivas. Calvo turpis est nihil compto!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 25, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Its hard not being KING, Bill

Posted by: grandstreetfund | September 25, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

BILL CLINTON AGREES WITH FOX NEWS ON CAUSE OF FANNIE MAE MELTDOWN - DEMOCRATS ACCORDING TO MR CLINTON

These 2 pages contain videos which are VERY TELLING INDEED. I Applaud President Clinton's Brutal Honesty Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHj8-HSi5AA&eurl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

Posted by: gdodd414 | September 25, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Today's polls:

McCain's lead in Ohio has dropped to +1.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

jacobparry, I love you. :-)

Posted by: stephanie2 | September 25, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Here's my deal, scrivener. I have always identified with the far left because of the things I believe in. No one could break it down issue by issue and call me anything but a leftie.
But the self-righteous behavior of too many Obama supporters is just not very endearing and I would rather not be identified with any of it. It's like they are stealing my long term identity and turning it into something that resembles the far right's self-righteousness.
I'd like to be able to focus but they just make me want to strangle them all day long.
Why did they care so such about hope and change only to turn around and act like little partisan thought police? I think maybe all they really care about is themselves.
And their attitude towards the Clintons lacks any sort of reason, compassion, and humanity.
As someone with reason, compassion, and the ability to see and treat people as human beings, I am terribly disappointed in too many of these lefties to allow myself to be called one anymore. I am going to have to call myself something else.

Posted by: stephanie2 | September 25, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

jacobparry - i think i love you and i am not even gay...not that there is anything wrong with that.

the fact of the matter is, Bill knows Obama wants to take what meager wealth and resources the USA has left and dilute it to nothingness among the illegals and underacheivers, thereby killing any last chance at 'the great experiment'. Which is the ACLU/Moveon.org / Georgie Porgie Soros plan

Make no mistake about it, the more of this countries wealth that gets transferred to other countries, the worse off the USA is.

Posted by: laughing_at_dems | September 25, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

jacobparry - i think i love you and i am not even gay...not that there is anything wrong with that.

the fact of the matter is, Bill knows Obama wants to take what meager wealth and resources the USA has left and dilute it to nothingness among the illegals and underacheivers, thereby killing any last chance at 'the great experiment'. Which is the ACLU/Moveon.org / Georgie Porgie Soros plan

Make no mistake about it, the more of this countries wealth that gets transferred to other countries, the worse off the USA is.

Posted by: laughing_at_dems | September 25, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Bill knows what he’s doing. You left out the rest of the context of his various appearances which address the economic crisis and provide clear suggestions for potential ways to handle the problem. Keep in mind, he’s not addressing Obama supporters, McCain supporters, or political junkies in general. He’s targeting the “average American” who may not trust either of the political candidates but who is scared spitless about the economic crisis and how it will affect his or her job, mortgage, and community.

Overwhelming Obama enthusiasm would read as simple political hackery. Attacking McCain and Palin, ditto. “Clinton = Economic Security” in many people’s minds, hence “Economic Security = Vote Democrat.” The majority of people who are going to fall in love with and enthusiastically support a candidate have already made up their minds. “Undecided” voters are basically determining who they are going to vote against.

Posted by: tchock | September 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The man is showing the restraint of angels as is it.


--------------

Spare us the hagiography. He was and is and will always be motivated by his narcissistic pathology.

In as much as it is a pathology, he cannot be blamed. But he is failing as the titular head of the Democratic party. Just as he failed during the primary.

That he used racism as a tool during the primary is a demonstrable fact.

Like I said, he has a narcissistic pathology...there are no ethics, no morals, no conscience. Just an empty shell needing filling each and every minute by anything in the immediate vicinity.

I could care less about the Clintons. I care about the country. Any vote for McCain/Palin is a disaster beyond anything Barack can or could effect.

Everyone needs to get over themselves and vote for our kid's future. Right now, Barack, imperfect as he is, is our best hope for better future. McCain/Palin is a vote for a dark and backward looking future.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

McCain now leads Obama, 45.8% to 43.8%, the survey shows.

The Horserace Obama McCain


Sept. 23/25 43.8% 45.8%


Sept. 19/20 46.8% 43.4%


The big shift in the race appears to have come among independent voters, where McCain now leads by nine points, 43% to 34%. In the survey conducted over the weekend, Obama led by one point among independents.

Both candidates have a sturdy grip on their political bases, the survey shows. McCain and Obama each win 88% support from voters in their respective political parties.""

not that I won't take the good news, but I am utterly perplexed by the result. how can the (I) voters shift in two days by ten whole points. Are these nitwits that fickle? god help us. Look who is picking the next president.

hey, you with the 30 second attention span. turn off Gray's anatomy and vote for me. I'm cool.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, ARE YOU TOTALLY CRAZY????

It is Thursday, September 25 and our country is in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, and you want folks to join you in scrutinizing Bill Clinton's words to see if they detect a hint of resentment or disappointment towards Obama!!!!

Get this straight. A lot of folks are massively disappointed that our choice at this moment of urgency is between Obama and McCain. I resent Obama for being so unprepared to be President, and making me choose between someone unqualified or someone with whom I strongly disagree.

The fact that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton are supporting Obama in spite of his massive shortcomings is a blessing for Obama. If Clinton supports him in spite of how ill-prepared Obama is, it may make it possible for me to cast a vote for Obama -- a very fearful vote, but perhaps a vote.

I know most of you journalists are completely sure that Obama is wonderful. Indeed, you think that measuring how high someone rates on your Obamaphilia scale is a measure of that individual's character. For the sake of the country, get a grip. Take a deep look inside yourselves.

You and your compatriots are doing to journalism what the Wall Street bankers have been doing to our financial markets for years. You take a little true thoughtfulness -- such as Bill Clinton's comments last night -- and you filter it and leverage it up 40-50 times with so much nonsense that even the few serious and substantive leaders in our public life can appear to be as vacuous or silly or noxious as you journalist/commentators.

TAKE YOUR POWER STRUGGLES TO YOUR SHRINK! Just tell me how many billions it will take to get rid of all this toxic journalism. I'm ready to pay.


Posted by: jacobparry | September 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious that nothing - absolutely nothing - that either Clinton does will satisfy the rabid Obamanots who hijacked the Democratic party this year. Many of us will vote for Obama but will do so without much enthusiasm. He is the lesser of two evils.
The CDS sufferers need to get off their butts and help Obama, rather than criticize Bill Clinton. The race won't be decided by what Bill Clinton does or does not say (which will never be enough for the Obamanuts); the race will be decided by the degree to which each candidate makes that personal connection with the majority of Americans in certain states. This is Barack Obama's election to lose; it is not Bill Clinton's election to win for Obama.

Posted by: MikeKF | September 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza, ARE YOU TOTALLY CRAZY????

It is Thursday, September 25 and our country is in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, and you want folks to join you in scrutinizing Bill Clinton's words to see if they detect a hint of resentment or disappointment towards Obama!!!!

Get this straight. A lot of folks are massively disappointed that our choice at this moment of urgency is between Obama and McCain. I resent Obama for being so unprepared to be President, and making me choose between someone unqualified or someone with whom I strongly disagree.

The fact that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton are supporting Obama in spite of his massive shortcomings is a blessing for Obama. If Clinton supports him in spite of how ill-prepared Obama is, it may make it possible for me to cast a vote for Obama -- a very fearful vote, but perhaps a vote.

I know most of you journalists are completely sure that Obama is wonderful. Indeed, you think that measuring how high someone rates on your Obamaphilia scale is a measure of that individual's character. For the sake of the country, get a grip. Take a deep look inside yourselves.

You and your compatriots are doing to journalism what the Wall Street bankers have been doing to our financial markets for years. You take a little true thoughtfulness -- such as Bill Clinton's comments last night -- and you filter it and leverage it up 40-50 times with so much nonsense that even the few serious and substantive leaders in our public life can appear to be as vacuous or silly or noxious as you journalist/commentators.

TAKE YOUR POWER STRUGGLES TO YOUR SHRINK! Just tell me how many billions it will take to get rid of all this toxic journalism. I'm ready to pay.


Posted by: jacobparry | September 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton, the former president who was more supportive of black concerns than any previous president, was ruthlessly tarred as a racist by the Obama campaign, who also discounted the economic restraint (Clinton vigorously reduced the national debt!) of the Clinton presidency. I don't believe any of the people now dogging Clinton would forgive such an egregious wrong. The man is showing the restraint of angels as is it. In the words of the mighty Obama-ites themselves, "get over it". Leave Bill Clinton to be himself. Despite the pecadillos, he was a fine president and doesn't deserve the tarring and feathering the press continues to give him.

Posted by: sparrow2 | September 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

CC please stop referring to President Clinton as "Bubba"

Posted by: Echo21 | September 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Billary are somewhat short of giving a "full throated" support for Obama. Bill was restrained, but at least he didn't jump ship. I guess his ego is just too big to remember how he treated those he defeated. And the humility they showed in getting behind his candidacy.

As for not campaigning in Florida during the High Holidays.... who cares whether he waits a few days or not? Obama needs the full attention of the Jewish vote in Florida (a substantial number) if he is going to send in the big cannons (Billary). It makes sense to wait a week or so. The impact will still be there.

Posted by: egc52556 | September 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Bitter. Jealous. Cunning. Wants 2012. Maybe has promise from McCain, for Missus, Department Secretary, I am guessing State. So he's playing it this way. He thinks he is more clever than anyone, more subtle, more controlling. Too bad. If McCain gets in we will see what was the quid pro quo.

Posted by: GaiasChild | September 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Re: thinkagain1

Oh dear, drunk the Kool-Aid, have you? Wasn't that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on my tellie calling for Obama's nomination by acclamation? Or was that Pelosi in a mask and wig? And I seem to recall... yes, I'm quite sure of it... Obama was beating Clinton even WITHOUT the superdelegates.

You need to think again, thinkagain1

Posted by: egc52556 | September 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

We fellow bitter and gun clinging religious nuts welcome them all to the good side of the force.

I think Slick willie aught to go down and change his registration to R.

Most amusing is the claim to not be willing to campaign during the "holidays". What's next Druid and Pentacostal days off. he may be able to squeeze in a few days in December.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Amazing how many bitter people cling to the idea that Hillary lost because of mistakes in her campaign. She didn't. She had the popular vote, the battleground states. It was the DNC and Pelosi that made superdelegates pledge before Rev Wright and other episodes, and then cut off any possibility of a roll call at the convention. She didn't lose. We did and we will continue to lose.

-----------------------


She lost according to the political rules of the road. Plain and simple.
The only bitterness resides in the hearts of the PUMAS and their spiteful ilk.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Amazing how many bitter people cling to the idea that Hillary lost because of mistakes in her campaign. She didn't. She had the popular vote, the battleground states. It was the DNC and Pelosi that made superdelegates pledge before Rev Wright and other episodes, and then cut off any possibility of a roll call at the convention. She didn't lose. We did and we will continue to lose.

Posted by: thinkagain1 | September 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I think Clinton's really impressed with McCain picking a hot charismatic female VP.

-------------------------

oh, he definitely likes the hot part.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

hey yahoo moonbat - from your article:

"Political action committees and individual employees of the financial services industry — which includes finance, insurance and real estate companies — have contributed $2 billion to federal campaigns since 1989, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). "


since 1989. Just like I said.

now be sure to keep your head down. those black helos like to swoop down low just to scare you freedom fighters.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

From the recent pools Bill sees just the slightest of possibilities that Barack Obama might win the general election ... so, he intervenes at the right intervals to help John McCain. Not sure about his calculation and the hope that Hiliary might one day become President ... but, I think his calculations are wrong. It almost seems Bill is a bit in mourning over possibly losing the Party ... and the limelight ... so, he helps McCain who recently has looked rather desparate and somewhat unhinged ... Not the sort of feeling that most of us Americans want as we go through these rough economic times. the change we need is to throw the current party out ... and if the Democrats fail us ... we throw them, out also. But a Bush Administration by any other name is still a Bush Administration. Sad!!

Posted by: amitchel | September 25, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

""The presidential election might be a tight race now, but one of the country’s top pollsters thinks the race will end in an electoral landslide.

John Zogby, president of Zogby International, told a group of businesspeople today that it’s up to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to convince voters to go with him. If he’s not successful, the country will likely vote for “a comfortable old shoe”, that being Republican Sen. John McCain.

Despite the books Obama has written, Americans are still asking, “Who are you, where are you from?,” Zogby said. ""


so as you see gentle readers, the King of zouk's predictions are beginning to be mimicked by the pros.

don't forget I was the one who picked Palin accurately.

I predict a similar outcome to famous Lib stalwarts as Mcgovern, gore, Kerry, mondale, Dukakis, Carter2,...did I forget anyone? they are so forgettable.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080925/NEWS01/80925009/1002/NEWS

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - Here ya' go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-24-lobbying_N.htm

"Lobbyists In Fedding Frenzy", todays edition of USA Today.

I don't like posing references for clodhoppers and ignorant fools, normally, but you are such a yahoo that I figured it would make my day to show you to be the ass you are.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 25, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the egomaniac: he thought that the difference between what he would bring to the Oval Office and what Hillary would bring was great enough to justify gambling the future of the country on the proposition that the US has recovered from racism.

---------------

That's not egomania, that's wisdom.

You're sick of Bush and yet want to put a hot-headed impulse-driven senior citizen and a female version of Tom DeLay im the White House?

huh??

Who will push the nuke button first? Hot head or cool head?

Give me a break.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Clinton's really impressed with McCain picking a hot charismatic female VP. Gore was such a droning stiff he couldn't even win an election that was set up for him with great conditions. Despite his recent cult status, Gore was dead weight to Clinton.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

He may not tell all the truth, but he is honest.

-----------------

Wow. "Honest"?

I did not have sexual relations honest? That kind of honest?

I did not inhale kind of honest? That kind of honest?

Narcisists are incapable of honesty. They only say what will serve their immediate needs.

Do you think he would be saying the same thing if Hillary were running?

Such delusion!

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the egomaniac: he thought that the difference between what he would bring to the Oval Office and what Hillary would bring was great enough to justify gambling the future of the country on the proposition that the US has recovered from racism.


While I strongly prefer Obama's policies over McCain's, I'm voting McCain because I am not interested in seeing anyone with that defective of a moral sense in the Oval Office. I am also not interested in having any oen willing to make that size of a gamble anywhere near our military establishment. Sure, maybe he has an 89% chance of being right but Presidents make hundreds of decisions. Bush was enough.

Posted by: Respectthe9thAmendment | September 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - funny you never provide links to your "facts". I am very skeptical because we are not past the filing deadline for the FEC so those numbers are not generally available yet. they also seem fantasy level high with the strict donation limits.

I must guess that this is some "lifetime" income from all donations. Not exactly the context you provided.

As usual.

BTW - your hair is on fire.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure that Bill's comments are disloyal. I suspect he sees a weak spot in Obama's campaign, and is trying to fix it.

Why is Obama barely ahead of McCain, despite BO's charisma and appeal, with such a terrible economy, GWB with 30% approval rating, sky-high numbers of people thinking the country is going in the wrong direction, etc, etc?

Partially, it is McCain's genuine crossover appeal.
Partially, it is latent / subconscious racism.

But to a large extent, it is the cultural chasm in between BO and the average American, a difficulty in identifying with the man.

BO is a youngish black man, a brilliant intellectual, a man of great and evident talent, comfortable with political complexity and nuance, calling for a 21st century post-partisan progressivism, coming from a liberal cultural background, with an international upbringing who has risen astonishingly high in an astonishingly short period of time.

As Rendell said, this makes him extremely hard to identify with. Despite Obama's evident patriotism, there is something culturally foreign about him. Add in a certain haughtiness of manner ("you're likeable enough, Hillary"), a cool temperament which seems to float above the fray, and an difficulty performing Edwards-style hammy sympathy for the common folk. The picture which emerges is patrician, arrogant, condescending. This cultural distance is exacerbated by racism - a resentment of this all-too-successful, "uppity" black liberal know-it-all.

Furthermore, the Obama campaign and its rabid followers are in total war mode. They won't "lower" themselves to the sort of dirty tricks you see in the McCain campaign, but nonetheless they reek of contempt for the Republican ticket.

On the other hand, you have a Republican white male who personifies military honour and who, despite his genuine willingness to work with Democrats, operates from the gut, hearkening back to the simple moral certitudes of Reaganism. He is all-American. Palin, of course, reinforces his cultural appeal to the heartland.

I think that Clinton senses that if this election continues to turn largely on the question of Who do you identify with?, BO will not be able to pull ahead, and the outcome will remain in doubt. By declaring a sympathy for McCain/Palin, Clinton is doing two things:

1) He's modeling the kind of old-fashioned, down-home, heartland Americanism that Democrats need to do a more convincing job of. (Biden helps a bit, but his appeal is quite specific to blue-collar urban workers, especially Catholics and other Reagan democrat "ethnics".) When Bill says he likes McCain and Palin, he is saying that Democrats also like the apple-pie Americanism that they stand for.

2) He is giving "permission" to independents and waverers to like McCain / Palin and yet vote for Obama.

We'll see soon enough. I suspect that very shortly Clinton will be in full campaign mode, connecting to folks who are drawn to McCain/Palin, but hammering away for Obama.

--

For the record, I'm a social democrat, and have been 200% in the tank for Obama since 2004.

Posted by: hypercommunist | September 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Bill is still the great communicator. He may not tell all the truth, but he is honest. He respects McCain, as do most folks in Washington because he is a straight shooter. Obama distorted his position and legacy, and that will not change. And Bill was right - Obama is the fantasy candidate - little experience or achievements. It is a vote on faith, not substance. Barack is a great campaigner, but has no other achievements. learn more at www.honestjohnwade.com

Posted by: Linkster1 | September 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk - Those numbers come from USA Today and they provide citatioons for them. I believe them and so should you. The party leaders just sold this country out today. They are providing a last grasp at the brass ring for Wall Street - $700,000,000,000 our *OUR* money. In exchange Dobb, Schumer, Clinton, Dole, every Republican and Democratic leader, accepted flat out obscene "political contributions". You can choose to think that is correct behavior for the political chattering class, but I choose to think of them as parasites and vermin. Only a complete fool still believes that this country has a future.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

so for all you Dems who are now just awakening to the "True nature" of the clintons, and refused to see it all along when it was right before your eyes and the Repubs declared it loud and clear, I have one simple question:

why are you doing it again?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

A former president is supposed to be above that level of malign partisanship we see this year.

-----------------]
Nonsense.

He's the titular head of the Democratic party and should be solidly behind the party choice.

All you would be screaming to highest heaven if Hillary were the candidate and the black Democratic leadership were not 1000% behind her.

Hypocrites.

Female spite. That's all it is.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Pres Clinton is still bitter his Hillary did not win the primaries...his demeanor and body language spoke a thousand words in the CGI meeting this morning after Obama's speech... I am all for a woman President-someday but NOT Clinton or the likes of Palin... and I am a woman.

Pres Clinton is showing his true colors, I used to like him, but now I don't...

Posted by: LMM48 | September 25, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - something tells me your tin-foil hat needs adjusting again. do you believe everything you read over at Huff and Kos?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 YOU ARE SO RIGHT

If Hillary had not run like "the inevitable" she would have won. Mark Penn was a mistake and not having a plan beyond Super Tuesday was a mistake. But the fatal mistake was no ground game beyond Super Tuesday.

No way would Obama be the nominee if she had run a better campaign.

Posted by: shirleypettaway | September 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Clinton really truly liked and admired Bob Dole. Clinton trounced him in 1996, remember?

Clinton said as much in the Daily Show interview. And he said this:

He was starting a dialog with the people who like McCain - liking McCain does not matter; they still need to vote Obama for the good of the country.

Posted by: frankdunn1 | September 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons know that the first thing that will come out of everyone's mouth after the gnashing of teeth subsides is "Hillary was right all along. How did we get duped by that charlatan. We were stupid for not listening to her, she's our next best hope."

------------------

LOL. Yes, so the bitter ones wish.

But it will never happen.

Obama is going to win.

Hillary is a great Senator..like McCain...and so they shall remain.
Has nothing to do with sex, just temperament and natural gifts.

Next best hope?

Hardly. She couldn't even manage her own campaign. She will never be President....and especially if you let Palin in first...and then you will hear gnashing of teeth..your teeth for betraying your daughters and their daughters and their daughters.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

From my iPhone so has to be short tho this is a good subject. It's understandable that a lot of Obama supporters would like Clinton to be a diciplined talking points cheerleader for his party's candidate they have to remember a lot of Clinton supporters are still not on board the Obama express. He would undermine his legacy with his base & his wife's base if Clinton were not honest in his opinions or if he turned into an election-year McCain-hater.

A former president is supposed to be above that level of malign partisanship we see this year. Once having been elected, a president serves all Americans and is supposed to be above unconstructive partisanship. Barack Obama, too, if he gets elected, is supposed to serve even those he considers pigs in lipstick, and not just Obama Democrats. For this reason I think Clinton's behavior as rising above nasty partisanship this year provides a good role model for both candidates.

And he's still hot, for an old guy.

It's always a pleasure to see h around & hear him speak!

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"I am only now beginning to understand what most members of my family saw in Clinton during the 1990s: ugly narcissism."


Welcome to reality. now open your eyes and tell me what you see in THE ONE?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

After the feeding frenzy on Wall Street and Washington, how can any of you be partisan? I, for one, am disgusted with the political leaders from both parties. In recent days tens of milllions of dollars were distributed to these hacks to support the diasterous $700 billlion bailout! Chris Dodd took over $13 milllion! Chruch Schumer took nearly that and Elizabeth Dole was downright "honest" only getting a bit more than $4 million. This country was in the toilet. The "leaders", that grand collection of gasbags, crooks, thieves, treasonous scum, and all round jerks just flsuhed it! Enjoy the ride, children, because the end result is we all drown!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 25, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"The experience issue, at least in the Democratic primary, was virtually irrelevant to people . . . maybe prior public service and hard effort, making hard decisions, maybe doesn't amount to anything."

Apparently Bill is arguing that Biden, Dodd or Kucinich should have won the nomination.

Posted by: bsimon1 | September 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

And the Clintons should worship at the stool of Obama? Obama added insult to injury when he not only called "the first black president" a racist, but stole the election by gaming the caucuses and then refused to even vet HRC as a candidate. (Don't forget that he could have locked this election down if he wasn't so simultaneously begrudging and cocky by selecting the universally recognized best choice for running mate: HRC.)

Obama's grudge burns deep against the Clintons, and now that he's strongarmed them into supporting him by holding their political futures hostage, don't expect Bill to soil his legacy with ineffectual partisan sniping.

The Clintons know that the first thing that will come out of everyone's mouth after the gnashing of teeth subsides is "Hillary was right all along. How did we get duped by that charlatan. We were stupid for not listening to her, she's our next best hope."

Posted by: FreeTibetNow | September 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on folks, lets be realistic shall we.......Do you honestly believe that the Elephant Party would permit Billary Clinton to once again take up residency @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, huh? The republican base would move "heaven & earth" to keep the Clintons OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. Seriously, instead of campaigning the McCain's could invite David Letterman to dine with them @ one of the seven homes that they own.....but I digress.Just tell the Elephant People that the there's a slight chance that the Clintons will finally get the opportunity to finish the job.....and let the the games begin.

MT in DC

Posted by: mtyner | September 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Please. I guess everybody is just out to get the poor old Clintons.

Posted by: holzhaacker


Except for one notable exception, the one entity that should be very interested in the Clintons - The Justice Department.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The whole world doens't have to love Barack Obama. Why exactly should Bill Clinton be enthusiastically for him? Clinton doubtless questions Obama's ability and electability and thinks Hillary is better qualifed to be president. Bill and Hillary are doing all they can reasonably be expected to do, given the circumstances.

Posted by: pspengler | September 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunate that it requires the hand of big brother to eliminate all the Kos Kowards that regularly populate this site.

CC - your traffic is doomed to fall by about 200% but your intellectual content will rise by the same amount.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | September 25, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

When the nominating campaigns first started, one of my friends asked me if I would support Hillary Rodham Clinton - since we are both older women who have been in academic management positions. I told her that I would love to see a strong, sharp woman in one of the top positions. I said that I worried that Hillary could be divisive, and may not have a good chance of winning. But, in addition, the only reason I would support her would be if she bundled Bill up in warm clothes and sent him on an extended vacation to Siberia. I didn't know how right I was.
He is acting like an adolescent who didn't make the first string in a high school sports team. Does he really want McCain to win and appoint a group of far right wing supreme court judges? Does he have any idea how the world might change in 4-8 years and make it virtually impossible for Hillary to run? Does he have any idea what it will do to his legacy if it is clear that he helped to make McCain president?

Posted by: Edmele | September 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I watched that interview with Larry King, as well as other recent TV appearances. I do not agree with your assessment at this point. While I think he used to be reserved and bitter, he made it clear in the interview (while addressing King's pointed questions) that he has accepted a rigorous campaign assignment from the Obama people and is 100% behind Obama to win.

Posted by: Laurie6 | September 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh Bill, have a stroke already and disappear from political life. Everything is about you and Hillary, isn't it. You are so egotistical, and you hide behind false initiatives. I'm glad Hillary will NEVER be in the White House. I praise Obama for being his own person and rejecting the stupid ideas put forth by many to include her on his ticket. Go Obama!

Posted by: jimmumper | September 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse


Definition of Sexism (circa 2008).

Asking a female politician tough questions or voting for someone else.

Posted by: holzhaacker | September 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Former President Clinton doesn't realize that the verb tense is past, not present. I am only now beginning to understand what most members of my family saw in Clinton during the 1990s: ugly narcissism. Mr. Clinton, every time you open your mouth you chisel away at what was a decent legacy. Do yourself and the country a favor: stop talking. And I'm an Arkansan!

Posted by: shutt | September 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

It is not an impropriety for WJC to admire McC, who worked well with WJC's Admin. I do not expect WJC to become an attack dog against McC. BHO can still use the good word from WJC, and should.

Thanx for registration.

JD, if you are still reading, you and Alan in Missoula are invited to eml me at
mark_in_austin@operamail.com.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | September 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The truth is the DNC chose Obama because a woman was more change than the old boys could deal with - and in the final analysis chose him for the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

----------------

Nonsense.

Hillary lost because she ran a crap campaign and couldn't control her own staff nor her narcissistic husband. She milked the female thing for all it was worth and still failed.

You and all your bitter tribe of vengeful women are certainly free to make your deal with the devil and vote against your best interests. Such self-hatred is as astonishing as it is tragic.

Your daughters and granddaughters will be the ones to suffer from your short-sighted spite. Because that is all it is. Spite.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

If I had lost my last shot at 4 to 8 more years of Oval Office coat closet bj's, I'd be bitter for a long time too! O Bubba bubba... ya slime ball. Don't go away mad, just go away! With "friends" like these...

Posted by: repubsux | September 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

In the 90's it was a "vast right wing conspiracy".

Now, Hillary and her supporters want us to believe that it was a vast LEFT wing conspiracy that cost her the nomination???

Please. I guess everybody is just out to get the poor old Clintons.

Posted by: holzhaacker | September 25, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm certain that Bill Clinton would not have such high praise for John McCain if his wife were the Democratic nominee. That's the question no one is asking.

Posted by: jwoods3 | September 25, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain Avoiding The Debate?


McCain has pulled this stunt before....


With his poll numbers tanking, John McCain wants to pull out of the presidential debate. No, I'm not talking about tomorrow's debate with Barack Obama:


"With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles."

"McCain campaign officials tried desperately yesterday to put the best face on their withdrawal, even as a new Field Poll showed Bush far ahead among likely Republican voters in the winner-take-all race for the state's 162 GOP delegates."

"The bait and switch on the debate left the Arizona senator -- whose favorite campaign line is "I'll always tell you the truth'' -- wide open to blistering criticism from his rivals."

"Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. "Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they're pulling out of California, where McCain's antagonistic message clearly isn't working.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/28/MN62687.DTL&hw=mccain+opinsky&sn=001&sc=1000
.


And clearly, McCain has a habit of trying to "cut and run" when things aren't going his way.

Posted by: DrainYou | September 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have made their entire career by playing low-down dirty politics.

Hillary's loss is just Karma. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

They have nobody to blame but themselves. Not the media, or "sexism".

Posted by: holzhaacker | September 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Actually, she's not so much cribbing as incoherent. She makes Dan Quayle sound like a genius. And yes I know Biden makes errors galore, but Palin is in a class by herself. McCain's choice was both cynical and irresponsible.

Posted by: Maxim1 | September 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Please get an editor. This is the Washington Post.

Posted by: obmba | September 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why are people worried about Palin? Watch Katie Couric tonight as Palin talks about her foreign policy views, especially Alaska and Russia.

Posted by: Maxim1 | September 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This is why so many of us Dems are ready to see the Clintons GONE from our party.

1) It was Bill's misbehavior and scandals that helped bring us George Bush.

2) It's always about them...they somehow always manage to be the victims (even though they're two of the most powerful people in the party).

Enough already. They will not get my vote now or in the future. The Clinton Era is over.

Posted by: holzhaacker | September 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

With friends like Bill the messiah needs no enemies. If Obama thought that Clinton wasn't going to get his pound of flesh
then he is too stupid to tie his own shoes.

Posted by: jbianco28 | September 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

With friends like Bill the messiah needs no enemies. If Obama thought that Clinton wasn't going to get his pound of flesh
then he is too stupid to tie his own shoes.

Posted by: jbianco28 | September 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I love Bill - and Hill, but not Obama. I think Bill is trying to do his best with a lousy choice and disgraceful sexism by the DNC. My vote for McCain is a vote against the DNC - and now the media. Ironically, as a previously flaming liberal civil rights activist etc etc., and now a PUMA, I find I have to read the conservative blogs to get the story about Obama that is missing from MSM. I'm watching the media implode, lose its credibility while they deliver us a black George Bush, full of charm but without a moral compass. The truth is the DNC chose Obama because a woman was more change than the old boys could deal with - and in the final analysis chose him for the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

Posted by: thinkagain1 | September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

You really think that the Clintons aren't going all out for Obama? Just because Obama and his media groupies slandered them for 6 months??

--------------

Awwww. Poor Hillaweee.

It's called politics. And the Clintons and their minions gave equal measure. The Clintons just can't look to the good of the party...only to their own good. But it will backfire...Hillary will never get in the White House, not in 2012, not in 2016, not ever.

No matter how many bitter women vote for McCain just out of spite. No good ever comes from hate.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"I am also irritated because Bill Clinton's remarks on Larry King's show are entirely correct."

I disagree with him on his point that experience didn't matter.

If that was true, then Hillary would have been crushed.

The problem for Hillary is that experience wasn't the ONLY issue.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Registration is back! Thanks, CC.

You missed WJC's best line though.
"[I]f we're trying to win in Florida, it may be that — you know, they think that because of who I am and where my political base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the 'cracker vote' there."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/bill-clinton-ill-campaign-for-obama-after-the-jewish-holidays/#more-20274

Posted by: mnteng | September 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton has no room to complain about someone playing the race card.

You can't compare Obama to Jesse Jackson and then pretend like you didn't mean anything by it.

Bill Clinton has been in politics long enough to know better. I just don't buy his excuses and his victimhood.

Posted by: holzhaacker | September 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Hillary can continue trying to undermine Obama if they want to, but I will never support her again for any office. (And I voted for her twice for U.S. Senate.) Win or lose this fall, it's time to cut the Clinton cancer out of the party for good. Bill Clinton's own utter lack of sexual self-restraint was the principal reason we ended up with the Bush administration in the first place.

Posted by: uh_huhh | September 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Bubba is the number one Democrat in the land. If Obama wins, he becomes the number one Dem in the land. Do the math.

For Bill Clinton, this election is not about Obama v. McCain. It's about being thrown on history's garbage heap.

Posted by: bondjedi | September 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

You really think that the Clintons aren't going all out for Obama? Just because Obama and his media groupies slandered them for 6 months?? What a bunch of cry babies. Speaking of crybabies though, why do Obama's disciples care what Bill Clinton does or if Hillary's supporters migrate to him? What with all of his "new voters" didn't think he really needed anyone

Posted by: Portle | September 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Are you liberals that afraid of her?

--------------

Rational people are always afraid of the irrational. It s a healthy fear and one that keeps us safe from political disasters like Palin, Bush and Delay.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Here's another angle to consider: Responsibility for creating the economic situation that's led to the current Wall Street meltdown rests primarily on George W. Bush's administration, but the Clinton administration also bears some blame. Clinton did little to stem the enthusiasm for deregulation and funny-money mortgages that was sweeping Wall Street and Washington back in the 1990s. Clinton signed the 1999 Graham-Leach Act, which removed many of the safeguards. His whole administration was dedicated to the proposition that the Wall Street money markets had to be kept happy. He was an enthusiastic global free-trader, And so on. That was the consensus, Democratic and Republican, back in those days. Everthing got worse under George W, and now we see the consequences, but Bill--and Hillary, who claimed throughout her 2008 primary campaign to be the one who'd bring back all those glory days--shares some of the blame.

Now, as all that wizardry starts unraveling, Obama may need to sharpen his rhetoric and his agenda to encompass not only reversing George W's mess, but (implicitly) Bill+Hillary's as well. And that might sound kind of painful for Bubba to hear now. So Bubba is sending his signal to Barack--don't blame me, buddy.

This is another good reason why Barack should be glad he's not burdened down with Hillary as his VP. He doesn't have to defend the Clinton legacy. And believe me, when the Obama administration takes power in Washington and has to start working on the Augean stables, a lot of Clintonian manure is going to have to get cleaned out, too.

Posted by: jm917 | September 25, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"for he and his wife's ..."

Are you kidding me? Do you know the English language? What an embarrassment to the writing profession. Who hired you?

Perhaps many people will think I am overreacting, but this comes from the same moron who thinks those less-schooled Americans who aren't in love with Obama have a problem. What did your degree do for you, sir?

Posted by: j_brendan | September 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I was a delegate from Illinois at the Democratic Convention. We were seated right in front of the podium. Anyone who doubts either Hillary's or Bill's commitment to the party and an Obama victory wasn't paying attention, notonly to what they said, but their demeanor.

-------------------

His speech at the convention was excellent. But his words and actions ever since have put the lie to that speech.

If you watched that interview with King, you could physically feel his passive-aggressive stance towards Obama.

The Clintons are trying to kill Obama with a thousand little cuts.

We will never forget. She will never become President.


Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe how the dems are running from Bill Clinton.
The WP could write an article on the scientific aspects of space exploration and somehow people would manage to start posting about Palin. Are you liberals that afraid of her?

Posted by: 12oreo | September 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I was a delegate from Illinois at the Democratic Convention. We were seated right in front of the podium. Anyone who doubts either Hillary's or Bill's commitment to the party and an Obama victory wasn't paying attention, notonly to what they said, but their demeanor. At his introduction, Bill got the loudest and most sustained ovation of any speaker, including Kennedy and Obama. Since the convention, Hillary has done everything the Obama campaign has asked her to do. I think the press is looking for problems where none exist.

Posted by: vicar2925 | September 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Bill just doesn't get it. We don't want him back in the White House. I couldn't vote, can not ever vote for Hillary for President and "get two for the price of one". I give him full credit for the good things he accomplished, but he shamed the office of the President not only by his personal actions, but when caught, lied to get out of it.
Like a kid. He lost our trust. I agree it's hard for him to come out 100% for the man who hopefully will take over the power of the the Oval Office, where Bill , in his mind, rightfully should be.

Posted by: Zynder | September 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Nobody owes the Clintons a damn thing.

And if Bill thinks his recent behavior is helping his wife become President someday, then he's got some serious anger issues to take care of first.

I thought they gave some pretty decent speeches at the convention, but Bill being wishy washy on Obama is flat out ridiculous.

No Clintons, no way.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | September 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are obsessed, just like 99% of the media. At least you have the self-awareness and humor to admit it.

Clinton couldn't win the Democratic nomination for his wife. He can't win the general for Obama. It's Obama's to win or lose now. Let's all move on, huh?

Posted by: ezr1 | September 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Most of this strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. But I can't help snerking at that last quote. Because Bill knows all about picking a younger woman to give him energy.

Posted by: csdiego | September 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Clinton's sense of the decorum appropriate to former presidents during presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, he didn't see fit to apply that sense during the Democratic primaries - or, more likely, he was simply unable to discipline himself to do so.

Posted by: officermancuso | September 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh for petes sake! President Clinton you are such a sore loser!! It completely freaks me out that even with the huge mess America is in thanks to that idiot Bush being in charge that you are hoping Obama loses!! You are so obvious Bill Clinton!! We are not stupid!!

Posted by: NancyBostelman | September 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

the trait that "one" him so many admirers

Um, that should be "won" not "one."

Major news rags really have gone down hill in terms of talent, now they cannot even spell or utilize proper grammar.

Posted by: JuicyJuice | September 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Stephanie2:

You identify with the "far left" but throw around the term "leftie"? Disinfotainment!

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, both Hillary and Bill must now double-down on their bet against an Obama victory. They've essentially backed themselves into a corner where if Obama wins, politically, the Clintons are finished. Hillary will cease to be a force even as a Senator as Obama will have both the desire and incentive to marginalize her. Unfortunate, because HRC could have been a very real force in either a Dem controlled Senate or potential Obama administration. As to Bill, the primary and presidential campaign have cost him so much goodwill that everything he now says and does seems calculated, bitter and envious. Talk about Country First; between the Clintons and McCains--among the the most influential pols in the country--does anybody give a s..t about America anymore? Heck, I'm a Canadian and even I have a sick feeling in the pit of my gut over the possibility of four more years of corruption and craziness in the White House. And don't be mistaken, if the press really were doing their job today headlines would have read: "McCain Throws in Towel: Cries No Mas!"

Posted by: theviewfromuphere | September 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

But who cares about Bill when we have Palin?

Victory in Iraq?

Dude! Did we all miss something?

Wake up America! Are you really going to put an aging ADHD fighter pilot and exorcised hockey Mom in charge of this country?

Really?

Are you that self-hating?

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are behaving in classic passive-aggressive ways. They are guaranteeing that Hillary never gets to the White House by subtly undermining Barack.

Of course, Bill was a disaster for Hillary too, so we must acknowledge his ever-present narcissism.

But Barack will win in spite of these two nuisances.

Posted by: wpost4112 | September 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I will be honest with you. The critisism of Bill and Hillary Clinton is starting to make me dislike the far left almost as much as I dislike the far right- maybe even more since I expect better from them. Given that I have identified myself as a member of the far left for most of my life, I don't think that bodes well.
I find it a ironic that far lefties spent the primaries accusing Bill Clinton of being some sort of liar but now they get angry that he won't lie when it is convenient for them.
I find it ironic that these same people who criticized his "tactics" during his wife's primary now criticize him for not using them against someone else.
I find it ironic that Bill Clinton is criticized for complimenting John McCain on the very same things Barack Obama and Joe Biden have complimented Jo
hn McCain on. (His service in Vietnam and his position on global warming.)
I also find it irritating that people expect Bill CLinton to be as emotionally invested in anyone else's race the way he was in his wife's. She is his WIFE. It is unreasonable to expect him to have the same emotional investment. He is a human being. He is not here for your entertainment or to satisfy your emotional need to hear other people worship Obama the way you do.
I am also irritated because Bill Clinton's remarks on Larry King's show are entirely correct. I think it is disgusting that these far lefties are more interested in the self-satisfaction of hearing Bill Clinton lavish loads of praise and compliments on Barack Obama than in hearing Bill Clinton say the kinds of things that will actually resonate with the kinds of voters he needs to help Obama win over.
Not to mention to most ironic thing of all-worshiping one man for supposedly representing a different kind of politics while criticizing another for not engaging in typical attack politics.
Do you people even know what you stand for? I don't think you do.

Posted by: stephanie2 | September 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, is registration back?

Posted by: DDAWD | September 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is not bitter, he is simply stating the truth. Why is it with the left wing media that if someone tells the truth its because they are bitter? I don't believe that Clinton is very fond of Obama considering the nomination was essientally stolen from his wife.

Posted by: ziggy1 | September 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WHITES OF McCAIN'S EYES?

Bill has become expert in damning with faint praise. But if Bono can meet with Sarah Palin, who can object to Bill embracing McCain?

But what's up with McCain's EYES?

McCain does not seem to be his old feisty self these days. The one-eighty he displayed with his vice presidential selection tells the tale. Look at John McCain's eyes. They are very red and glassy. Something is not right.

The current financial "crisis" conjures up memories of the Reichstag fire, "Remember the Maine," the Gulf of Tonkin, and "weapons of mass destruction." This seems to be a manufactured crisis, a manifestation of a long-term strategy aimed at imposing autocratic dominance upon the supposedly co-equal branches of federal government.

The "suspension" of the McCain-Palin campaign could be just the initial salvo in an assault upon the American political system. What's next? A manipulated market crash? Suspension of the presidential election? Imposition of martial law?

Don't laugh. The plans are in place; the executive orders have been signed. The FEMA camps are ready to receive the "dissenters."

Think it can't happen in America? Consider THIS:

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

Once again, Congress is being asked to rush through emergency legislation -- to cede effective control of the economy to the government.

Officials continue to blame lax lending policies on the part of the mortgage industry for spawning this crisis.

But were lenders ORDERED to offer "easy credit" to people "targeted" by government agencies?

Is government "targeting" of American citizens a root cause of the mortgage meltdown that spawned the broader financial crisis?

For more, see:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis OR
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | September 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I think Bill, just like McCain is no longer the man that shaped and solidified his reputation. Something happened to him along the way since exiting the White House..maybe his 4x by-pass? He just comes across as a loose canon, and I think he's the main reason Hillary isn't on the Obama ticket.

Anyway, I think it's plainly obvious that he is torn between allegiance to his wife and allegiance to the Democratic ticket. At this point he sohuld either step out of the spot light for the rest of the election or make a clear case for Obama. It does Obama more harm than good to have him wishy-wash on national televion.

Posted by: IndependentforObama | September 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Bill, just like McCain is no longer the man that shaped and solidified his reputation. Something happened to him along the way since exiting the White House..maybe his 4x by-pass? He just comes across as a loose canon, and I think he's the main reason Hillary isn't on the Obama ticket.

Anyway, I think it's plainly obvious that he is torn between allegiance to his wife and allegiance to the Democratic ticket. At this point he sohuld either step out of the spot light for the rest of the election or make a clear case for Obama. It does Obama more harm than good to have him wishy-wash on national televion.

Posted by: IndependentforObama | September 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Test

Posted by: Test-test | September 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"To be fair to Clinton, he also made clear his support for Obama during the interview; he described the Illinois senator as 'charismatic...really smart'"

He forgot "clean" :)

Posted by: info42 | September 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton keeps "postponing" campaigning for Clinton. First, it was after the convention, now its after the Jewish holidays. Next, will it be after Halloween (wouldn't want to politicize kids biggest night out all year). Yes, it is obvious that Clinton is torn between Obama and McCain, even if his "words" are supportive of Obama. Sometimes actions speak louder than words, and his lack of action and enthusiasm for Obama could not be more clear. Very disappointing, to say the least.

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | September 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain has no better spokesman than Clinton. If he somehow pulls it off, he can thank Clinton. All America can thank Clinton for saving us from destruction.

I can almost see the bile forming under Kos' skin each time Clinton opens his mouth. It just doesn't get any better than that.

Posted by: info42 | September 25, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton needs to realize that he was the most detrimental to Hillary's winning the nomination. Had Bill left office with honor, Hillary would have been the Dem. Presidential nomination. So Bill is now doing Hillary more harm for the next time around. Someone needs to tell him to back off supporting Hillary's GOP rivels

Posted by: msreginacomcastnet | September 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

It's always been only about Bubba and nothing more. He's still working for a McCain win and a 2012 for Hillary. No way, no how, no Clinton.

Posted by: grclarkdc1 | September 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Bill is a little bitter -- I think that much is clear.

On a different note, as more of the CBS Couric Palin interviews leak out, I'm beginning to understand why McCain "suspended" his campaign. Palin's answers in the interview are absolutely nonsensical. I don't know if this is simply gamesmanship on the part of the McCain campaign before the VP debate -- a way of lowering expectations.

It looks though like Palin's cribbing during the interview. An absolute trainwreck.

Posted by: JPRS | September 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

You're far too kind to Mr. Bill. It seems quite clear that he refuses to reconcile himself to Obama's victory and is doing as little as possible to help the Dems win the general election -- while undermining Obama whenever possible.

Clinton, for all his brilliance, was a mediocre president and a terrible party leader. And he knows that the only way Hillary and he can return to power is if McCain wins this year. It's reprehensible but then what can one expect from such an insecure egomaniac?

Posted by: mkazin | September 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company