For many months now we have been treated to Bill Clinton’s intermittent displeasure with Barack Obama. Sometimes it has been overt, sometimes covert. Most recently, while being fawned over by the ladies at The View, he allowed as how Hillary did not really want the vice-presidential nomination after all. (This makes sense to me, by the way.) At the Democratic Convention, he delivered a far better speech than the candidate, showing up the less experienced Illinois Senator without really doing anything for his presidential campaign. In fact, he seems to speak more postively of McCain–especially off the cuff–only the other day lavishing praise on the Arizonan and defending his decision to skip the first debate to work on the financial crisis with an obvious fact most of us had forgotten - McCain had previously asked Obama for repeated, even constant debates, which the Democratic candidate refused. (The mainstream media made nothing of this, needless to say.) Indeed it seems Clinton wants Obama to lose.
The explanation for this behavior, says the conventional wisdom, is that Clinton wants McCain to win to give his wife another shot at the presidency in 2012. I wouldn’t doubt there is validity to this. But I submit there is a second reason, perhaps equally important: Clinton genuinely wants McCain to win for the good of the country.
I have no proof of this, I know, other than my instincts watching the man. But we all have a lot of experience of Bill Clinton - the good Bill and the bad Bill, the charming, brilliant politician and the liar. When Clinton is at his most relaxed and spontaneous, he appears–and possibly is–the most truthful. When he is enraged and tense (as in the Monica finger-wagging episode), he has Pinnochio beaten around the block. There is also a middle ground, when Bill puts on a show, as in his speech praising Obama at the Convention. It was well done, but I didn’t believe a word of it. it. Since then, he hasn’t had much at all to say in favor of Obama.
Of course, I am not the only one to observe this. Katherine Seelye of the New York Times Caucus blog wrote today:
Clinton Continues to Praise McCain Barack Obama might be forgiven for wondering which side Bill Clinton is on.
All week, beginning with an appearance on “The View” and then on The Late Show With David Letterman, the former president has seemed to praise John McCain, while giving short-shrift to Mr. Obama.
It was just a month ago when Mr. Clinton lavished praise on Mr. Obama at the Democratic National Convention, asserting he was ready to be president. But now, as the campaign intensifies, Mr. Clinton seems to be taking every opportunity to promote his rival.
This morning, Mr. Clinton continued the pattern, giving a platform to Mr. McCain at the Clinton Global Initiative conference.
“I am personally, profoundly honored that Senator came here today,” Mr. Clinton said, then went on to praise Mr. McCain’s environmental record.
Seelye goes on, but you can read it at the link. Coming back to my “second reason,” we must remember that Clinton is a centrist (like Bush and, even more, McCain). No one knows, perhaps even Obama himself, what Obama is. Maybe, like many of us, Bill Clinton is genuinely worried. He would know, wouldn’t he?
PJM Home
70 Comments
1. David Thomson:Bill Clinton’s behavior doesn’t surprise me in the least. He and Hillary are existentially convinced that the zeitgeist of our modern age demands they run the country. Barack Obama obviously has no right to replace them. If he captures the presidency—the two Clintons are marginalized to a secondary position within the Democratic Party. What’s so hard to understand?
Sep 25, 2008 - 10:33 pm 2. Keith:Roger, are you kidding me. You can honestly watch those Palin interviews and that “press conference” about the New York Community and look at yourself in the mirror and say these people take the governance of the United States seriously. Remember, at the end of the day everyone is still going to be giving about 30% of what they make to the government - why don’t we want to elect people who actually take governance seriously. I bet you’re a fun guy to watch a Laker game with but this is all too much - are you better off than you were eight years ago. Is an unblinking march to war with a pathetic Iranian nation really what should be constantly advocated. The Hitler comparisons are an insult to Holocaust victims, we all know Israel is a thousand times stronger than any of these oil theocracies in the middle east. The Fear Mongering Must Stop! Sarah Palin is no friend to the Jews (watch the witch doctor tapes -much more concrete than the Wright/Ayers BS) this is a joke. Would someone explain why 8 more years of Republic rule is good for this country, stop the nonsense. Stop the obfuscation, the country first grandstanding, the media bashing, I am in no way a troll, just someone who’s been reading your posts for a long time because I care about other’s opinions. Roger, you would have laughed all this shit out of the park pre 9/11 - things haven’t really changed that much. Keep your senses.
Sensible Liberal Jew from PA who lives in liberal Santa Monica -
Bash away people, or laugh me off - but let’s get the BS off the table
Sep 25, 2008 - 10:35 pm 3. ic:3rd reason,the Clintons will be sidelined forever to irrelevance when the Obamas move to the White House. Bill will be the second Carter, not the only Democratic president who won twice. Since the Obamas and Dean who will be credited with the ‘06 and ‘08 wins are their mortal enemies, the Clintons are in deep dodo. If they don’t help Obama, his wife may not win 2012, and may even lose her senate seat without black support.
Poor Bill.
Sep 25, 2008 - 10:43 pm 4. Seven Machos:If Palin is “no friend to Jews” because of some “witch doctor tapes” at her church, what does that make Obama in relation to America?
God DAMN America! Right?
Please think your thoughts through before posting them. Really, it shouldn’t be this easy.
Sep 25, 2008 - 11:35 pm 5. ic:Talking about “no friend to Jews”:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced support for Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign yesterday. …Today Ahmadinejad met with one of Obama’s most well-known supporters, Code Pink founder Jodi Evans. Evans, a vicious anti-American, is a “bundler” who has pledged to raise $50,000 for Obama.
Evans described the meeting as “a major step forward.”
http://townhall.com/blog/g/c3fdc130-9e86-48f0-884d-3e907f24e33f
Once Obama is elected, there won’t be any more “friend to Jews”.
Sep 25, 2008 - 11:59 pm 6. heather:Roger, that is a very interesting insight. I watched Clinton on “The View”, and was impressed. He really came out for McCain.
And thinking about Obama, with his connections with Ayers and Chicago, and etc, and his really ugly reactions to NRA ads, etc.(see Belmont Club today). and I might add, his (reported) inability to dominate that meeting today (after the other Dems had ‘allowed’ him to do so) makes me think you could be right: Clinton is genuinely worried for the USA.
Sep 26, 2008 - 12:06 am 7. chrisa798:Was Palin serious when she toppled the incumbent from her own party with no org. support? Was she serious when she cracked the whip on corruption in both parties up there? Was she serious when she acrrued 50%+ approval — from AK DEMS? Was McCain serious when took those earmarks–oh yeah, he never did. Was he serious when he spearheaded major bipartisan legislation? When he went against RR and opposed the USMC to Lebanon debacle? When he chose to stay in a commie jail over selling out his brothers?
Keith, why not be honest and instead of saying “serious, intelligent, non-evil” just tell the truth of what you think and say “i hate people of different beliefs and different cultural milieus.” Is it because that would make you sound stupid? Well it’d be a 2-3 decibel move, tops.
Veiled swipes at Roger’s semitism? Stay classy, Obamians.
People like Keith, of course, would be the first ones accusing Israel of Nazi tactics were it to ever attack Iran, so his reference to Israel’s defense prowess is as disingenuous as Keith is.
Keith, have a few drinks, put on a few pounds, and you could be Kent Dorfman.
Sep 26, 2008 - 12:56 am 8. srlucado:As one of those people who wishes the Clintons would just go away (and have felt that way since about 1992), I would like to think that your hypothesis is correct, Roger.
I’d like to think that for once, a Clinton did something out of genuine concern for America, not just concern for the well-being of the Clintons.
I do agree that Bill wants McCain to win. But nothing in Bill’s track record (going back to his Arkansas days) supports the idea that he ever did anything without calculating the benefit to himself as his primary motivation.
Scott
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:42 am 9. AlanC:Roger, I hope you are correct but certainly wouldn’t bet on it. I have distrusted and loathed Clinton since 1992 when the race was between Lips, Slick Willie and the Texas Troll.
Given the latest from team Zero he is scaring me more and more.
Look at his supporters in MO who happen to be sherrifs and District Attorneys threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who puts out an ad about O that they deem to be false.
Look at the legal letters being sent by the Obama campaign to TV stations threatening their broadcast licences if they run an NRA ad that they don’t like.
Obama is a would be tyrant in the mold of Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, etc.
He has shown absolutely no regard for the Constitution or the idea of a common law.
He doesn’t believe in fair elections, only winning elections by any means. (See ACORN et. al.)
I truly believe that Obama is of the “one man, one vote……once” stripe of politician. Oh, and that one man one vote bit? Only if he wins.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:17 am 10. Paul From Hamburg:I still love Bill Clinton’s answers to a reporter a few weeks ago:
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:41 am 11. K T Cat:Reporter: “Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?”
Clinton: “The Constitution sets the qualifications.”
Reporter: “Is Barack Obama ready to be President.”
Clinton: “You could argue that no one is ever really ready to be President”.
I would bet that Clinton knows exactly who or what Obama is. After all, he’s got access to the insider’s view of the campaign. Could it be that after the Obama campaign accused him and Hillary of racism that the scales fell from his eyes?
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:42 am 12. jblog:“(watch the witch doctor tapes -much more concrete than the Wright/Ayers BS)”
More concrete than a 20-year association with an avowed racist and anti-semite?
What brand of crack are you smoking, bro?
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:48 am 13. Mike_K:Obama told his people to “get in their faces” and here they are. Amazing to see the attack of the trolls this week
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:55 am 14. jetski:Dude,
It’s Ramadan. After Ramadan, Clinton is going to really, really get to work on that electing Hussein deal.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:58 am 15. Tom Kelly:Perhaps Clinton has a more personal and practical reason for McCain to win. He is now in the highest tax bracket and he’d prefer not to pay Obama’s extra 40% in tax on the wealthy. At his income level, that is millions of dollars.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:59 am 16. Lightnin' Hopkins:“I am in no way a troll”
Maybe not, Keith, but you’re hardly what I would call a “sensible liberal” either - whatever that means anymore. In fact, reading the overheated rantings of the likes of you assures me that I am infinitely better off than I was eight years ago.
By the way, “…more concrete than the Wright/Ayers BS…” Seriously? YOU are the joke, Keith. Not to mention a useful idiot.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:59 am 17. Salt Lick:Roger, you would have laughed all this shit out of the park pre 9/11 - things haven’t really changed that much.
See, you need one of those special Network-only TV’s to dig how nothing’s changed since BushHitlerBurton took office. Oh, and a tinfoil hat.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:59 am 18. fred lapides:the Clintons: good cop/bad cop. but if Hillary runs and Obama loses,there will be a lot of Democrats who will not vote for her to even the score in the next election.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:02 am 19. fred lapides:Obama does betytyert in speeches than in debates; McCain doles better in debates than in speeches. Why then should Obama consent to a lot more debates than the national debate committee has asked for? Dujmb response, Roger. Go to timeout corner.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:03 am 20. fred lapides:sorry about clumsy typing. Old guy with fat fingers.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:05 am 21. Joel Rosenberg:Keith: I’m kind of stunned by the notion that Sarah Palin somehow demonstrated antisemitism by, once, getting a (from this POV) bizarre blessing from a strange, visiting preacher on a matter involving asking for protection from her not from Jews, but from, well, witchcraft? In your opinion, do a lot of Jews practice witchcraft?
Could you expand on that? Forget Barry O and the nutso religious ravers he put up with until it became politically awkward — should we also be suspicious of, say, Joe Biden’s antisemitism because the church he belongs to (the Catholic Church) still has the blood libel saints on their saint list? Or, perhaps, does Biden’s record as a strong supporter of Israel speak a bit more loudly? (Put me in the second category; whatever Biden’s flaws, it’s not that he’s an antisemite.)
And if his does, shouldn’t Palin’s?
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:06 am 22. Diggs:Roger, you may be correct. As much as I loathed the Clintons (being in the Army during their entire reign) I never thought that he disliked America. It’s pretty clear that Bill Clinton loved what America allowed him to become. He may not have had that many long serious personal talks with Obama, but he certainly has had those talks with people who know Obama well, and perhaps he’s sensed that there is no love of country there in the man. It clearly doesn’t show in his actions up to declaring his candidacy, only since.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:06 am 23. patrick neid:Grifters like Bill Clinton are always the most fun to watch and party with, just make sure you hold on to your wallet the whole time…
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:24 am 24. David Adams:Perhaps Bill has gotten a close look at the kind of people surrounding Obama and seen the hatred spewed out by his supporters among the media and the celebrities.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:26 am 25. steveaz:Those are the people who would be telling Obama what to do and what to say.
I agree, Roger.
The Democrat Leadership Council is the “God Bless America” wing of the Democratic Party and its luminaries include diehard Americanists like Joe Lieberman and Evan Baye.
These guys are fighting to take back their party.
The “God Damn America” wing is their frankenstein monster. For decades, the Dem’s have nurtured the academic speech codes, energy crisis, urban entitlements, hiring quotas and “subprime” lending that feed the monster.
While Clinton can’t dismantle all of that overnight, I think he knows he’s got to hobble the monster in some way this election year. Or, we the people, will pick up our pitchforks and our Smith & Wessons and storm Frankenstein’s castle. We’re all ready to go.
(Man, the Frankenstein metaphor gets more apt the more I contemplate it!)
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:32 am 26. exDemocrat:Keith, your tinfoil hat has sprung a leak.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:35 am 27. OldManRick:A variation on your second reason why Clinton would want Obama to lose is, simply, Clinton believes in his third way, more centrist politics. Clinton would support anyone who reflects this over the Obama. McCain, to many republican’s displeasure, is much like Clinton’s third way. Despite the rhetoric of the current campaign, McCain has been shown to be more compromising, less blindly partisan than Obama.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:40 am 28. fustian:You people crack me up.
The thought that Bill Clinton cares about the USA before his own wants and needs is just a real stretch. I mean, can anyone really say that with a straight face?
Personally, I’m not even convinced that Bill wants to see his wife President. He hates that woman with a passion, and the thought that she might have a more consequential presidency than his is a chance he will not take.
The more natural explanation for Bill’s behavior is that he just can’t stand Obama.
And Bill is probably still smarting from being called a racist when he was maladroitly trying to play the race card during his wife’s campaign.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:44 am 29. Alysium van Finegold:Clinton is an extremely perceptive person. He reads people like a book, instantly. William Jefferson Clinton understood the vapidity and inauthenticity of Barack Hussein Obama in a heartbeat–the moment he first became aware of the man.
Bill Clinton has many reasons to wish Obama to crawl back under the corrupt Chicago rock he came from, and one of them is no doubt that he understands the danger to the nation’s future and the nation as a whole.
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:47 am 30. Gears and Springs · Клинтон:[...] и гораздо более экзотические гипотезы. Rodger L.Simon вот здесь цинично предполагает, что Клинтон вообще-то может [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 7:58 am 31. mrkwong:They’re not mutually exclusive.
I suspect Bill sees the rise of the loony left (not to mention the resurgence of race-baiters like Alcee Hastings) in the Dem party, leading inevitably to a voter backlash that will not only marginalize his party but also his wife’s chances, as a greater evil than four years of McCain.
Further, while I’m personally quite hopeful for a Palin presidency come 2012, the flip side that Clinton’s quite personally familiar with is that incumbent VPs don’t necessarily get a free ride into the Oval Office even in good times.
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:12 am 32. Lamont Cranston:OldManRick -
You’re right. That is to say, McCain is a Republican in Name Only, and a liberal. I’m gonna have to vote one-handed come November, ’cause the other hand will be holding my nose.
Lamont
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:13 am 33. megapotamus:Keith has his orders, he’s gotten in our faces. Mission Accomplished. Thing is the Obots never have much to get in our faces with except their passionate certitude and do not know it. If the guy Barry sent to eviscerate Hannity is typical we can be assured that generally the Obots will find it educational though not to the net benefit of Team Messiah.
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:17 am 34. Crash; Throw Them Out Running Thread | The Anchoress:[...] Bill Clinton for McCain because he is genuinely worried? Roger L. Simon thinks it may be possible. We all know Clinton would rather see McCain win for a future Hillary run, but yes, it’s [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:29 am 35. Sioux Lady:Keith, I think a man who risked his life for his country takes government of the U.S far more seriously than a man who never accomplished anything worthwhile in his life. Israel is a thousand times stronger than oil theocracies because of the unwavering financial and moral support of the U.S. Do you seriously believe this would continue under Obama? Sarah Palin has an Israeli flag in her governor’s office; Obama has a picture of Che Guevera. One who believes things haven’t really changed that much since 9/11 is he who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Serious small “l” libertarian in South Dakota.
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:31 am 36. QuestionsforObama:My dislike of the Clintons is profound on many levels but in comparison to Obama both Bill and Hillary seem NORMAL.
It scares the hell out of me to think Obama’s “get in their faces” Chicago thug tactics and ACORN, a voter fraud organization Obama used to work for, may help him get into the White House bringing with him bomber and plotter Bill Ayers, “God d**m America” Rev. Wright, Fannie and Freddie crooks Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. And these are only his friends and mentors.
And by the way, why won’t Obama release the certified VAULT birth certificate which he is being sued to produce in the Berg vs Obama lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court. His lawyers are doing everything in their power to stop this lawsuit from going forward.
Let’s face it, if there wasn’t a problem he would produce it so fast. And the birth certificate on his website is the only one the public has gotten to see and many experts say there is a HUGE problem with it. When interest in this document increased his website manipulated the size and clarity of the printing. Why?
I could produce my certified birth certificate by walking into the next room and opening a drawer. How long would it take you?
Is Barack Obama even constitutionally eligible to be POTUS? Is he a natural born citizen or a citizen of another country first?
My question to Obama is WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? What are you hiding?
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:33 am 37. Yes, But:Makes perfect sense. Clinton is centrist, and although I would hate to be the first to admit it, deeply loves his country. I think if Obama loses, Hillary’s chances are completely over - I see McCain quitting after one term, and Palin in for two terms. That’s twelve years, kiddies, but only if Obama loses. If Obama wins - it’s a new ball games in four years, and Hillary has another shot, but still then it’s HIllary vs. Palin. I think Clinton is just telling it like it is - McCain loves his country, and Clinton has great respect and admiration for that.
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:33 am 38. BuckeyeBlog » Blog Archive » Wascally Wabbit:[...] Roger Simon has a novel take: Bill Clinton actually cares about something than himself. [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:39 am 39. ‘Okie’ on the Lam » Blog Archive » Is Bill Clinton “Concerned” About an Obama Presidency? Also, the Debate Is a Go!:[...] of the country? Is that why he keeps promoting John McCain and ignoring Barack Obama? Well, Roger Simon seems to think that is highly probable. [h/t: The Anchoress] The explanation for this behavior, [...]
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:05 am 40. Insufficiently Sensitive:Sarah Palin is no friend to the Jews (watch the witch doctor tapes -much more concrete than the Wright/Ayers BS)
Dear Keith,
If you equate a single day’s visit by an African minister with the 20 continuous years in which Obama basked in the God Damn America congregation, you have a ways to go before being taken seriously.
Likewise, Obama spent six years as a member of Bill Ayers’s CAC board, and pissed away $150,000,000 of educational money for no school improvement whatever.
And now Obama sends out his legal brownshirts to suppress the First Amendment rights of the NRA, has his email list fascists call radio stations to suppress interviews that question his CAC activities. Not to mention his long support of the actively crooked ACORN organization - which his campaign endowed this year with $800,000 until the whistle was blown.
In view of those humble items, it’s not surprising that even as flawed an actor as Bill Clinton might wish for better material than the all-too-glib Obama for chief executive of the USA.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:09 am 41. Stan:I used to believe Bill Clinton cared about the country first, but I don’t anymore. I think he is putting his own self interest first and I don’t like it. I am also not afraid of Obama, although clearly some of the bloggers here are very frightened. I think you need to inform yourselves rather than having knee jerk reactions to some of the craziness spouted by right wing blogs. This country is in terrible shape and it needs a leader who can inspire all of us to participate in changing its direction. Obama can do that. Please try to open your minds a bit and listen to him and read his proposals. Thanks
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:31 am 42. Paul:The Clintons (behind the scenes) and their media allies spent years undermining the Bush presidency, the war on terror, and American self-confidence, using every lie, smear, State Department “leak” and manufactured scandal they could get their hands on.
The plan was to set the stage for the Clinton Restoration, but the problem is that they did their work too well.
So much hysteria was whipped up the left that they overthrew the Clintons and appointed a Chicago hustler with absolutely no accomplishments in life or in governance as a vehicle of amorphous “hope” and “change.”
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:36 am 43. Konyok:I’ve been mulling over the same thought since the Democratic primary heated up. Hillary’s obvious exasperation with the vapid Obama juggernaut seemed more than just frustration at her own fading hopes. I got the feeling then that it was perhaps possible that she kept campaigning precisely to warn the country about the junior senator from Illinois.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:43 am 44. jag:The key to understanding Clinton is to realize he is a classic narcissist.
Narcissists are incredibly powerful and dangerous people because they have absolutely only ONE agenda; advance themselves.
Since nothing matters more to them than their needs they are able to LIE without ANY shame. They are pathological liars and, as such, its virtually impossible to see the normal “tells” that occur when virtually everyone else knowingly lies. Since accusing someone else of lying is extremely anti-social as well as being difficult to indisputably prove (particularly against a more powerful person) liars of “stature” can count on being able to fudge their way around virtually any lie, no matter how outrageous.
Clinton doesn’t care about America. He doesn’t want Obama to win because, as others have noted, that will DIMINISH his power, stature and “legacy”. Clinton can’t abide any diminishment of himself as witnessed by his meltdown with the ABC interview years back. He will bully any antagonistic “threat” to his supremacy. In fact, the only thing that gives narcissists an emotional “rise” is an attempt to hold them to account. On that score, at least, they are “human”.
My bet is that Hillary divorces him after this election. He was thought to be an asset in this cycle but she will have no need for him politically or financially going forward. He’ll oblige, “reluctantly” and with “sadness” and then happily get on with leading a life of near complete debauchery. Books will be written, someday, about this narcissistic animal and his amazing success but it is will only be “news” to people who don’t have a clue about human nature.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:50 am 45. jeanneB:Well, I’ll agree Clinton wants McCain to win. I can’t go so far as to impute the pure intention that he just wants what’s best for the country. Maybe, but also unlikely.
With Clinton, the question must always be “What’s in it for him?”. Here’s how I see it:
It’s a virtual certainty that the Clintons can expect a big fat nothing from Obama if he wins. On the other hand, McCain could use a boost and is always open to “bipartisan” deals. Clinton may very well be setting up an endorsement of McCain or, at a minimum, acting in coordination with the campaign. In return for….who knows what?!
That’s how the Clintons work.
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:52 am 46. Hap Hazard:I have also been thinking when I have seen Clinton in recent days that Clinton wants what is best for the country and is supporting McCain in part because of that. I remember Bill Clinton organizing the DLC. I remember Clinton hosting a retreat down in NC or FLA every fall to discuss public policy. I know he has his flaws (his discussions about Sarah Palin yesterday reminded me that he wanted to have his way with her), but I do think that he has a genuine interest in seeing that the country’s future is in good hands. I attribute some of that rank patriotism to Hillary as well, and have viewed her in a different light in recent weeks.
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:06 am 47. Lightnin' Hopkins:Stan: What you are reading here are not “knee jerk reactions,” they are reasoned opinions based on an examination of the facts. Obama is the last horrific gasp of left-wing radicalism. He is a two-bit agitator, a weak candidate, and he will lose this election - therefore I am not “frightened.” His astroturfing minions sure seem to be, however.
What I find amusing, as an ex-Democrat myself, is the cluelessness of the party in its failure to see the obvious: move to the “center” - even just give the appearance of doing so (see Bubba) and the White House is theirs. Well, too late for that. Thanks, kooks. I guess, in a roundabout way, you really *are* the true patriots.
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:16 am 48. Elaine:When Keith’s laughibly inept tactics didn’t work, Stan attempted to use reason to sway the readers here. The only trouble, Stan, is that Obama doesn’t stand for anything (good, anyway).
When more rational voices ask Obama or his supporters what change he’s wanting to effect, there’s only silence. He can’t give any cogent response, and neither can his fawning audience.
My reaction to Obama isn’t knee-jerk, and I’m pretty sure that’s true of most of the posters here… and is certainly true of our host, Roger.
I don’t like Obama because he doesn’t have the experience nor the mettle to be POTUS. I don’t like his thug tactics of attempting to silence any and all criticism; that’s not a “knee-jerk” reaction — it’s a survival instinct. If he’s using thuggery NOW, when he isn’t even president, can you imagine what he’ll do once he holds REAL power in his hands?
Personally, that’s something I don’t want to see…
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:39 am 49. livermoron:Roger:
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:44 am 50. James Stephenson:I have harbored a similar conclusion ever since the DNC. He knows the demands of the job and is actually afraid the BHO may win. In addition, I believe that HRC spent 8 years close to the Presidency and has a true understanding of the challenges of the role… and she knows too that BHO isn’t up to the job.
Relative to the rest of their party, they are centrist and recognize the harm that the ‘Keiths’ and his ilk have done to the Democrat Party.
Both Clintons have a fine line to walk this election season. They need to figure out what the minimum is that they can do to look supportive of the Democrat ticket while not actually contributing much. WJC will continue with his ‘high-road’ approach couched in terminology like ‘post-partisanship’ and ‘raising the level of discourse’ to give himself plausible deniability about the intent of his comments. It is he who will make the ultimate gaffe that sheds a bad light on BHO.
Didn’t the Obama campaign make a big deal two weeks ago of getting HRC out on the hustings? Purportedly she and other women were to go on the offensive as a way to offset the Palin Effect. Where the heck is she? Taking the Jewish holidays off? Sequestered with Dick Cheney somewhere? Baking cookies? She is the ‘dog that did not bark’ (read AC Doyle) in this election season. Her supporters recognize this and they ain’t all Sherlock Holmes.
And what can BHO do about it? He can’t complain too much or it will get into the public eye (I still harbor some hopes for MSM, naively perhaps) and reflect poorly on his ability to unite and institute change. He could threaten them privately, but if he doesn’t get elected the threats are meaningless…and the Clinton’s would rather bet on trying to make 2012 happen for her than on waiting for 2016 and having to follow what, in their minds perhaps, would be the failed Presidency of BHO.
Dudes, Rich people don’t pay taxes when they become too high. They hire Tax accountants and lawyers to make sure they don’t. When you lower the tax rate to something like it is now, where it is more expensive to hire the tax lawyers and accountants, Rich people pay taxes. When you raise it to the level that it is cheaper to use the loopholes available they do it.
Why do you think for the first time in the history of America that rich people pay 40%+ of the income taxes collected. Because it is cheaper to do so.
Raise taxes heavily against them, raise spending to that new hoped for revenue, Tax revenue actually goes down. Then they raise the rates on the middle class to make up the difference.
But you keep thinking that raising taxes on the rich helps, it always leads to more hands in the middle class pockets.
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:44 am 51. Kendall:Roger,
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:47 am 52. Heather:Provocative article. I considered the Clinton administration a largely cynical, poll driven organization that managed to stay just behind public opinion so as to always seem correct but rarely ever enough ahead to take a risk or be wrong (after the health care debacle). I considered Bill to be the living embodiment of “The Prince”. Having said that I am intrigued by Pres. Clinton and especially his recent activities and statements that could be fairly described as damning Sen Obama with faint praise. I certainly have
considered your thesis myself and wonder if Pres. Clinton is undertaking a Nixonian resurrection. I just can’t get over that cynical self-interest meme that is so “Clintonian”
Clinton genuinely wants McCain to win for the good of the country.
Might be the first time in his whole life he ever thought of the good of the country.
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:51 am 53. Godzilla:OT:
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:56 am 54. AlanC:Finally, finally, ((FINALLY)), McCain is a thorn in the democrats’ side.
As I said earlier I wouldn’t bet that Roger’s right vis a vis Slick Willie, but, I hope he is.
The Clinton’s have discovered the meaning of the saying
“Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.”
Obama is the tornado that has blown apart their political apparatus. Unfortunately I believe after close examination he would have the same impact on the country if elected. His mentors, from his mother to his present crew, are admitted Marxists, terrorists, Chicago crime bosses and fervent racists. There is not one scintilla of evidence that he is anything other than an empty suit that’s been stuffed by these vermin. Read his books about himself and you’ll see how well the lessons took.
Sep 26, 2008 - 11:02 am 55. Herb:Question: Do you think Richard Dreyfuss’s Cheney will be better than his Moses Wine?
Sep 26, 2008 - 11:35 am 56. Jeff Weimer:Stan:
I think you need to inform yourselves rather than having knee jerk reactions to some of the craziness spouted by right wing blogs. This country is in terrible shape and it needs a leader who can inspire all of us to participate in changing its direction. Obama can do that. Please try to open your minds a bit and listen to him and read his proposals. Thanks
Sep 26, 2008 - 9:31 am
Stan, in case you haven’t noticed, we HAVE informed ourselves. We HAVE looked at his proposals. We HAVE looked at his past associations. All of it leaves us wanting. The man has no backbone to stand up to anyone in his party - what makes you think he’ll get any of his proposals done if he can’t challenge his own party when necessary? Looking at his proposals, they are the same laundry list of center-left social programs and giveaways the left has been attempting to implement for the last 40 years, so he doesn’t even have a controversial idea that might conflict with the party.
Also, the idea that Obama would inspire all of us is frankly, laughable at best. He couldn’t inspire half of his own party to vote for him, despite the minor differences between him and Hillary.
Sep 26, 2008 - 11:35 am 57. CRAZYNANNAN:Disgusting!… Lib Group Headed By Howard Dean’s Brother Releases Vicious McCain Cancer Ad : Founding Bloggers
——————————————————————————–
Sep 26, 2008 - 12:01 pm 58. Mike Shuster:Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.
I think there’s another issue that explains Clinton’s behavior to a large extent. Like all recent ex-Presidents he prefers, in his new role as Global Statesman, to remain above the fray a in terms of politics. I mean, I can’t remember an ex-President *ever* going negative when they stump for their party’s candidate in a subsequent election. I’m sure it’s driving the Obama campaign nuts, though.
Sep 26, 2008 - 3:25 pm 59. Amanda:Obama’s “Chicago crime boss” friends?? Are you people serious?? Why don’t you guys look beyond the mud-slinging BS and stop relying on political campaign ads to get your information. Its not that hard to get the cold hard facts, especially when every one of you has a computer. Just because a McCain ad said Sen Obama is linked to these people doesn’t mean anything. And the Obama campaign does the same thing to Sen McCain. Please do America a favor and before you vote, RESEARCH the politcal candidates instead of letting the biased media affect your opinion! Put aside partisan preferences and get the information.
Sep 26, 2008 - 4:32 pm 60. AlanC:factcheck.org
politifact.com
Amanda, how much does Obama pay trolls like you?
If you had half a brain you would know that the people that come here are intelligent and well read in the issues discussed.
Does the name Tony Rezko ring any bells? How about Mayor Daley? William Ayres? Governor Blagojovitch (sp?)? The entire Chicago political scene is riddled with graft, corruption and bribery. Obama is a creation of that machine by way of his Marxist and anti-American mentors.
How about CAC that strike you as a sterling resume enhancer? Why did they have to seal the records hmmmmm?
Go back to Kos where you will be with your like minded friends.
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:26 pm 61. Teri Pittman:Yes, this has been a power play to push the Clintons out of positions of power within the Democratic party. (And those pushing them out have been doing such a great job–just look at that 18% approval rating!)And I have to admit that the Obama supporters haver really done a number on the Clinton supporters. It’s even worse for blacks that dared to support Clinton. And I suppose it’s possible to ignore the shabby way Hilary was pushed aside. Ted Kennedy took it to the floor of the convention with less support than she had.
It’s also interesting how we had to ignore the fact that there were women who were genuinely excited at Hilary’s campaign. Let’s face facts: if the Dems had nominated her, it’s a sure bet she would have won. This should be a Democratic year after all. And so, instead, we got Obama’s bogus claims of Clintonian race-baiting. Geez that man has a thin skin. Obama has offered nothing to pay down Hilary’s debt yet somehow expects her to go out and campaign for her out of the goodness of her heart.
Bill didn’t get elected hanging out with the elites. He got elected hanging out with Bubbas. As a real politican, he enjoys their company (in fact would enjoy the company of anyone with a vote.) Do you truly think he would be supportive of a man who holds those same folks in such contempt? I’m glad that he has said such nice things about McCain, the same way that I am glad that Sarah Palin has said nice things about Hilary. I’m tired of this demonization of the other side. And it makes me feel a bit less disgusted at myself for voting for Bill those two times.
Sep 26, 2008 - 5:54 pm 62. mrkwong:Amanda - believe me, I have researched the issues. McCain is as honest as politicians get and, while wrong on many things, he’s right on the most important ones and he’s never shied from advocating even unpopular positions. I have little in common with Sarah Palin in personal beliefs but everything in philosophy of governance.
Barack Obama is an opportunist; he’s personally not evil, but he’s surrounded by scum, and he’s either consciously decided that his path to the top is best facilitated by doing so, or he’s just let it happen by following the path of least resistance for a young black Chicago lawyer. I believe he says not what he believes but what he thinks he can sell.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:36 pm 63. YouhaveAmnesia:You have your fact wrong.McCain did not challenge to debates…McCain Challenged Obama to 10 Town Hall Meetings.
I challenge you to set the record strait:
“an obvious fact most of us had forgotten - McCain had previously asked Obama for repeated, even constant debates, which the Democratic candidate refused. (The mainstream media made nothing of this, needless to say.) Indeed it seems Clinton wants Obama to lose.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/04/mccain_challenges_obama_to_10.html?hpid=topnews
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:52 pm 64. Bob:McCain prefers the Town Hall Meetings - he likes to stack them with supporters. Its lees painfull for the auidience also.
Sep 26, 2008 - 6:57 pm 65. ahem:Amanda: You’re right: it isn’t hard to get the cold, hard facts right when you have a computer, which should make you doubly ashamed of yourself.
Sep 26, 2008 - 8:21 pm 66. Mike_K:Watch this video.
Sep 26, 2008 - 10:00 pm 67. Helena Shaw:You people are sick with hatred and divisiveness. That is what is wrong with our country! You are a bunch of little brats. You all make me sick.
Bill Clinton answers questions in clear rational response. He does not get down in the dirt like some of you and claw the skin off of folks. Is that what you hate-mongers want? Blood??
Stop the hatred.
Sep 27, 2008 - 2:40 am 68. Promoguy:” You are a bunch of little brats.”
Helena Shaw, speaking of brats…………..it is Oktoberfest time of year.
Sep 27, 2008 - 10:39 am 69. John:I said this exact same thing in a comment thread over at Hot Air a week or two ago. I said I thought Bill realized how bad Obama would be for this country. As much as I dislike the Clintons, if it ain’t McCain, I’d rather it be Hillary than Obama.
Sep 27, 2008 - 2:20 pm 70. newscaper:I decided *months* ago that if it was going to be a Dem, I’d gladly go for for Hillary over Obama.
My calculation was that, as much as I didn’t care for her (she’s more of a leftie than Bill ever was IMO)… she’s a totally known quantity unlike the scary Obama, and she’s enough of a Clinton opportunist to be willing to make some deals Republicans might be able to, however reluctantly, live with.
And when push came to shove wrt national defense, she does have a certain very real toughness.
Sep 27, 2008 - 9:13 pm