January 28, 2008
Should Bill Clinton Simmer Down?
Once upon a time, former President Bill Clinton only meant good things for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. But now, his poorly received remarks in the past few weeks (a "fairy tale" here, a Jesse Jackson reference there), Hillary Clinton is left claiming her husband is sleep deprived and just human: "Well, I think it's human nature. I think that the spouses of all three of us have, you know, been passionate and vigorous defenders of each of us and, you know, maybe got a little carried away."
Now Clinton insiders and other Democrats are wondering if Bubba is hurting Hillary's chances. Dartmouth professor of government Linda Fowler tells the NY Times, “Voters don’t like the idea of a co-presidency, and he became so high profile that he made people begin to see this as a possible co-presidency. It’s even more problematic because she’s a woman. It looks like she either needs him to fight the big battles for her, or she can’t keep the big dog on the porch.”
Even Representative Charles Rangel and good friend of Hillary says Clinton has to tone it down, "The focus has got to get back on Hillary. For all that he cares about his wife, this has to be her election to win, and it’s become too much about his role.”
Do you think Bill is helping or hurting Hillary? And Reverend Jesse Jackson said he's not upset by Clinton's remarks. He told the Times' Caucus blog, "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."
|
I don't have much enthusiasm for a Clinton dynasty, but I love that photo.
nice bracelet.
he is, you know, such a caring husband and all that he sometimes gets carried away. Wanna buy a bridge?
ADVICE TO PRESIDENT HILLARY
Give in to old-style nepotism
And on inauguration day
Name Bill ambassador to Chad--
Or someplace even farther away.
He needs to go back home, smoke a cigar, eat a bucket of chicken, and let his wife do her own campaigning before he sullies his legacy among even big Clinton fanatics like myself.
I think the press is just in its own echo chamber and is looking for a headline that will sell. For example, the whole racial thing has gotten out of control -- by the media and not the candidates. You flip through the cable news channels, meet the press etc. and they are all parroting each other... then they all wonder why people tune out.
Hurting. Definitiely hurting. He changed my vote away from her.
i did not have sexual relations with that woman miss lewinsky.
I think both candidates are hurting the democratic party to be honest. Can't you see where this is headed? Whoever wins the primaries, will lose half the dems through bitterness. Black people will not vote for Hilary and Bill and you know white males will just sit on their hands instead of vote. They won't vote republican they just will stay home. this will be a victory through apathy. All polls will say Obama is projected to win but at the end of the day Romney or McCain will win becuase the polls don't take into account that white people won't be honest to say they'll vote for a black person. They'll all be like "yeah I'm voting for Obama" and then they'll just stay home. Remember 2000? Everyone polled was like "A jew vice president? I don't have a problem with it" and at the end of the day, gore should have won by a landslide but he lost by single percentage points. Know why? cause America is motherfucking racist. Just look at all the message boards. Look at Gothamist. That's America.
Shhh... quiet Bill, we're supposed to pretend Hillary is the president this time around.
Such irony. Al Gore arguably would be President today if he had asked for Bill Clinton's help, and Hillary may lose the presidency because she did ask for his help.
I think the question should not be whether Bill should tone it done, but whether his involvement is a more honest reflection of what a Hillary presidency would look like; to that extent I think it's good that he's involved because -- love him or hate him -- at least we can judge him/her accordingly. Personally, I agree with Paul Krugman who said today in the Times that nothing that's gone on between the Dems is going to compare to the assault either candidate (Barack or Hillary) is going to get from the Fox News folks once the general campaign begins. (I'd be happy with either as President, particularly when you think of what they're running against--yikes).
What would be so wrong with a co-presidency? The only reason Bill Clinton left office was because of term limits. Plenty of people would have voted for him to stay on if they could. Certainly better than the schmuck that we've had the last eight years. Bill left a country in pretty good shape in 2000.
Try some big picture thinking, folks. The decision we are left with is electing someone who will be like Bush or different from him. The main GOP candidates are essentially going to continue W's agenda. Both Obama and Hillary offer an alternative approach. It's a pretty clear choice.
Guiliani left NY in good shape too. The chief executive doesn't always deserve all the credit or blame for what happens on his/her watch.
Hillary can't control Bill, but she can run the country?
Hillary just found her voice? ugh. sounds a lot like the voice of yesteryear.
Give Obama a chance.
SIMMA DAN NAH! I SAID SIMMA DAN NAH.....
It's good to have him campaigning - It helped me rule out Hillary as someone I can support (leaving McCain and Obama - both of which I'd have a tough time choosing between in the general election at this time). Hillary vs. any-Republican-but-McCain - I'm voting for Bloomberg.
Did we ever reach a consensus as to what "is" really is?
She needs better campaign management. I say dump Mark Penn and bring back James Carville.
I really did want to keep overall positive view of him that I had when he was president, even though he was a fallible guy that could make mistakes.
He's doing a hell of a job destroying that for me.
Thanks Bill.
I've been an observer of the Clintons since '88 (back when Bill gave that 90 minute speech at the Democratic Convention) and an unrepentent supporter of them since '91. But their miscalculations in South Carolina couldn't have been more disappointing.
One reason I always admired them so much is that they knew how to win, something Democracts always seem to have trouble with. They made the tough choices and did it with some degree of panache, they seemed to be the first people on the left since Bobby Kennedy to understand that politics ain't beanbag. But their choices last week were a huge mistake and only served to sully their legacy as racial healers.
By employing the "vote for Hillary, she's the white candidate" strategy, they divided their own electorate and evoked the GOP at its Macchiavellian worst. What's more, it not only went against everything they've been about, but it was grossly out of step with where the current electorate is. Their argument might have flown in the 80's, but (big news flash here) times have changed. The very fact that Obama is as strong a candidate as he is should tell them that more and more of the country is past that race-limited thinking.
And I find it disspiriting that Bill and Hillary would not be encouraged and energized by that, but in fact see it as a threat, so much so that they would have to resort to old-school, divide-and-conquer, a-black-gain-is-a-white-loss kind of thinking.
What would have been refreshing is if Hillary went into SC and said, "You know what? I know you're inclined to vote for my opponent because he's of the same race, but I'm a better candidate and here's why..." and gone from there. That seemed to be her approach for a while. Then she got scared. Then Bill stepped in. And the rest, I fear, will be history.