Young voters, join the 40 states: you don't matter, either! Did someone just step on his hughe ego, like with the Reagan comments?! Yes, his triangulation did cost us dearly.

Your link is not working but President Clinton is bashing Obama for comparing him to w.

It is ridiculous comparison but at least you did not spew this headline like the obama post:

"Bill Clinton Suggests
Young Voters Are Foolish"

Congrats.

Ego much?

And they have the nerve to get all bent out of shape because they say Obama was insulting people.

Apparently rural PA, and old people in large states that vote democratic but who's states don't have caucuses are smart enough to vote.
(oh, and all of MI & FL)
Silly season of politics indeed.

It's always all about him, isn't it?

Exactly right. Reagan's legacy--agree with or not--has lasted 20 years. Bill's legacy was the George W. Bush administration. In the end, the man failed.

When I was 20 years old, Bill Clinton ran for President. I loved him. He was smart, he was cool, he was clever. He could play sax late night on Letterman and wonk-out like a master on Sunday morning talk shows. He ran circles around Bush Sr. He was the first politician ever to excite me. I was at Oxford during the election. Bill had attended as a Rhodes Scholar. The whole damn university was nuts about him. The Brits would talk to me about him endlessly. I stayed up at an election party until 5am to watch the results come in. I was proud to be an American. I was 20.

Now I'm 36. I have a new candidate. He's smart, he's cool, he's clever. He can do the top ten late night on Letterman and wonk-out like a master on Sunday morning talk shows. He's the second politician ever to excite to me. I listen to his speeches, I debate his positions, I spend hours arguing for him on a certain blog. Next weekend, I'm going to campaign for him in Philly.

And here's Bill Clinton. My old flame. Telling me, now that I'm a good sixteen years older than when I cast my first presidential ballot (absentee) for him, that I'm too young to know better.

You know what? Fuck you, Bill. I've moved on.

Here is the link -
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/bill_clinton_ol.html

Not that the comments are a scientific sample of reaction, but it looks like this offends older voters as much as it offends younger. Lots of older voters are commenting about being old enough to remember the utter lack of ethics of the Clinton years with a few sniper comments thrown in for good measure.

Under different circumstances I might feel sorry for Hillary given how incapable Bill appears to be at putting her first. He couldn't do it in the White House and he can't do it on the road to the White House. But you reap what you sow and she benefits from Bill since she would never be running for President if it wasn't for him.

Sounds like these "young lads" got "duped":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpDTvlSd0x4

I'm 1/2 expecting somewhere soon down the line that after talking about himself for 45 minutes, somebody will ask Bill Clinton about Hillary Clinton's health care plan and he'll say "who?"

I am older and am really convinced that Obama supporters are the worst group of candidate supporters ever, they simply like to say that someone is “hating” or a "racist" if someone does not know why they should vote for Obama. The guy has done little for the country at this point and has little experience. Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t exactly say, “Look at all of the work Obama’s done as Chairman of that Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee,” because he hasn’t done a damn thing. You Obama supporters also couldn’t say, “Look at how well he organized those neighborhoods and looked out for minorities in Chicago,” because we should all know by now that he and his pal Rezko sold those folks up the river and let a number of his “constituents” freeze their asses off in the dead of winter due to political expediency. Those were Black asses freezing might I add. You could not say I agree with the man spiritually, unless you hate America.
Obama has no chance in the General. Hopefully the blind worthless Love affair with Obama will soon be over.
Hillary for President, if you have a brain.

"When they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 o'clock at night, too." Bill Clinton

Hehehehehehe......

hmmm... an attempt at manufacturing outrage... shouldn't that be the headline... talk about trying hard to be upset!

Well,I dont know why Dembilic would say,"vote Hillary,if you have a brain".Ignoring the obvious insulting suggestion,I would like to point out that it is not just one quality that wins the nomination but a sum of all desirable qualities.All two candidates are not perfect but as far as I'm concerned Hillary's dirty politics and mudslinging are certainly not the qualities I would like in a democratic presidential nominee.Remember is takes more than that to bring a good man down."Man" in this case is generic.

Monica's young. Wonder who she'll vote for?

Weird, I think it is also no coincidence that Obama gets more educated voters than your wife.

Hmm....what is a better judge of how smart someone is, age, or education..?

Here, let me give my grandma a BlackBerry to play with while I try to figure this one out...

Bill also said that he and Hillary were the "poorest couple" to get into the White House in "100 years." Anyone want to fact check this statement ? I believe that the poorest president honor goes in fact to Harry Truman, who failed at every business venture he ever tried before getting into the White House.

As if there was any doubt before, this quote makes it clear that Bill Clinton thinks this election is all about him. It's not about electing Hillary, it's about defending his legacy.

And in doing so, he sounds ... well, pretty damn defensive. And grumpy. Like one of those old people he's talking about. It's almost like listening to Frank Sinatra talk about music was cool when it was him and Dino and Sammy, and now those rock and rollers have come along and ruined everything.

Bill Clinton: Out of touch.

As a young(ish) American, I think that the under 40 types should pause for a moment and thank Bill Clinton for pointing us towards the wisdom of our ancestors. I thought I knew better, but I was clearly just being uppity and immature.

welll, the people who are being fooled by Obama are basically anyone who has not attended an elite law skool and witnessed how shockingly unqualified African-American students and faculty are. In my skool, there was not one AA faculty member I judged to be a real scholar, although I can say I felt about the same could be said of a third of the non-AA faculty, notably the feminists among them. And the AAs were both acutely insecure, to the extent they realized they didn't really belong there by merit, and fiercely protective of their egos and quite, quite condescending towards people they considered their inferiors, particularly poor and working class white people. I found their behavior and lack of ability to be profoundly distasteful.

Interesting discussions... As a 61-yr. old voter and strong Obama supporter my question is: Who is running for President, Bill or Hillary. Bill's comments seem to imply he is running again and no, I would not vote for him either (although I did on two occasions). One would have to be quite forgiving to not remember all of the problems created for the Democratic Party during the "glory years" of Bill Clinton. It seems that the solution to all our problems was adapt the right leaning position. I used to tell my 70+ mother (a huge Bill Clinton fan) that at least he is our republican. Now it seems both he and Hillary are McCain's republicans creating his talking points. Stating McCain is better suited for the White House than Senator Obama.

Headline should read ...
Clinton's call anyone under the age of 50, STUPID
(but not bitter)

Bill Clinton said a stupid thing. But let's be honest: the country was much better off under his leadership. That sounds like damning with faint praise, and in some ways, it is, but we should give him credit where it's due: the economic gains of the 90s were much more evenly distributed than before or since and working and middle class wages and prosperity did increase during his 8 years in office. As to whether things improved much in small towns where industries had already shut down in the 70s and 80s though? Didn't happen, and nothing much was done to help those people out. In fact, as others have noted above, lots of things were done that left those folks worse off: welfare deform, failure to deal with health care, deregulation, etc.

That having been said, he needs to STFU. I don't know what's going on, but there is something almost Freudian about his repeated gaffes during this campaign. I put it down to a passive-aggressive desire to not let Hillary ever be top dog in their personal relationship. It's truly kind of twisted, because you just know Bill is salivating to get back into the White House and gets his hands at least closer to the levers of power. But at the same time, it's as if he can't countenance the idea that this time, it's her show. He never made these kinds of "mistakes" when it was his ass on the line, so you have to wonder why he now is making them so often. There has to be a subconcious component to it.

As for those who continue to whinge on about Obama's "lack of experience" - the man has more experience in elective office than Hillary does, and as others have pointed out, McCain would win the "experience" argument against either of them. Are you really claiming that length of time in office, and not what was done with the tenure, is more important? Because that's a dumb argument. Granted Obama has never held an administrative elected position. Neither have Hillary or McCain. So it is a little bit of an unknown about how effectively he can push an agenda. But I do know this: the skills needed to get people on board are exactly the same ones needed to do community organizing, and it's a lot harder to motivate the least empowered than it is the most powerful. And it's impossible to be blind to the experiences of the least powerful when you've spent years working one on one with them. From that standpoint, I think Obama's got the strongest resume we've seen from a Democratic candidate in quite a few years. With Hillary, we've only got one example of how effective she is at pushing an agenda, and that's with the health care debacle in the 90s - the answer to that would be, not very effective at all. And let's be honest here - the plan she's pushing now is not much different than the one she was pushing them, in that it attempts to co-opt the insurers into the system, guaranteeing them a monopoly on skimming off the top. Even with this massive accomodation, they didn't go for that last time; does anyone really believe that this time around they'll be fine with it? Sounds to me like it falls under the heading of "functional definition of insanity" - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

In fairness to Hillary, Obama's health plan is not better than hers. But at least he has the excuse of not having tried almost the exact same thing before and having failed monumentally. Bottom line: neither of them have an acceptable plan for dealing with health care, so that's not sufficient rationale for making a decision on who to support.

So it really comes down in the end to what candidate do you like better? Which one inspires you, which one do you trust? Which one do you most identify with? I have no doubt that a lot of older people, particularly older white people, support Hillary on this basis. And let's not kid ourselves: there is a racial component to that. The older someone in this country is, the more likely they are to have racist attitudes. Not because they are bad people, but because of their life experience growing up with segregation, Jim Crow, etc. So Bill Clinton is right in one regard - older people are more willing to support Hillary. But it's not because of their fondness for the happy sparkle pony land we lived in during his presidency

As for me, one of the factors in my support for Obama is his youth. I'm tired of fighting the Republicans over stuff that happened in the 60s. I was a small child then, and it's really stale and has little bearing on my life today. And I know if we have a Hillary vs McCain race that we'll be fighting that stupid battle over what happened 40 years ago all over again. I could perhaps take it if the Democratic candidate had remained true to their ideals from the 60s. But Hillary hasn't. She marched against a war back then; now, she votes to enable them and then refuses to admit error. Back then, she worked on investigating crimes committed by the president; now, she enables the criminality and does nothing to investigate it.

So go ahead, Hillarybots, and accuse me of "drinking Kool-Aid". It may be true that I don't know everything about Obama that I'd like to know - but I know more than enough about Hillary. Don't think for a second that there are not an awful lot of Obama supporters who have made their decision in the same way. And stop pretending that it's not a completely legitimate basis for making that choice.

Bill, this isn't about you. I know you think this is really The Restoration, but it's not.

You need to go home - you have pump-head and I'm glad someone finally tumbled to that - I thought so all along.

Doctors are so cute - they do not tell patients what will happen to them when they get a by-pass. It is not like getting your appendix out - it messes up your head and Bill has pump head.

Charlie Parker imitations only work with Boomers.

The Clintons stubbornly hold on to the notion that they're hip.

The youngsters aren't buying it.

They have the potential to give the White House to the Democratic Party and Senator Obama.

STFU, Bill, and take one for the good of the Republic.

Tell her to withdraw.

I am older and am really convinced that Obama supporters are the worst group of candidate supporters ever

I'm older as well. When I was in my 30's, I worked tirelessly for the election of Bill Clinton. The group of Democrats I worked with opened a Democratic Headquarters in a heavily Republican area that had not seen Democratic activity in years. It was such a big deal that Al Gore's parents (Sen. Al Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore) came to the opening. We were motivated and energized, and looked to James Carville for guidance on how to campaign. It was very much an "us against them" atmosphere.

Over the years this atmosphere became toxic. Winning became the goal, not doing the right thing, and the country suffered as a result. By no means did this type of politics begin with the Clintons, but there's no denying they perpetuated it.

Like much of the country, I've felt hopeless this past decade. Watching Gore go down in flames, watching Bush show breathtaking disregard for our Constitution, feeling more and more cynical about our government.

Then four years ago, I watched Barack Obama give a speech at the Democratic Convention that made me believe again in the fundamental goodness of America. After the applause died down, my husband turned to me and said, "we just watched our future president."

And then the heartbreaking loss of Kerry and four more years of Bush. Within those four years, we would see a family member sent to Iraq, watch the Bush administration pervert the Justice Department, wire tap it's own citizens, and destroy the economy. When Obama emerged as a candidate a year and a half ago, I was quick to sign on.

Older, wiser, and infinitely more hopeful - I never want to revisit the politics of the Regan/Bush/Clinton eras. I think it is imperative for the survival of this country and our system of government that we shift course, and realize that creating divisions among ourselves is a clear path to failure. The days of 51% have to go.

Watching the Clintons continue to use this strategy makes me even more sure of the fact that Senator Obama is the better choice.

It's all about Bill, isn't it? Is he telling me that the same old voters who voted for Bush (twice!) are smart? Okay...

I must be younger than my 65+ years would indicate. I've been for Obama from the start of this campaign.

The second Clinton term turned my husband from a Democrat into a Republican, although I continued to support Clinton and give him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, this has led to some marital tension over the past decade or so! But I'm not clear on who said we weren't well off under Clinton--has Obama said that?

Speaking of old people, it looks like Maureen Dowd is permanently off the Christmas card list; everyone see her column today jumping on the bitter bandwagon?

And further on old people, Pittsburgh is an aging city but our hometown newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just endorsed Obama--yay!

Too bad about that pesky 26th Amendment.

The Clintons are bad for America. I hope they can drive a stake through her heart before she and her husband can do anymore damage. My God, it's only going to get worse if she ends up running against McCain. Heaven help us and help the USA.

It's really kind of sad to see Bill Clinton devolving to this.
Beyond pathetic.

Since Bill Clinton is now over sixty, and by his own admission, subject to becoming tired and forgetful, I though that I would help him out by putting this helpful reminder in print for him:

Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Clinton finds his surrogate family
Growing friendship with Bush clan pays political dividend to all

By Peter S. Canellos | April 12, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Born after his father's death, Bill Clinton has spent his life searching for connection. His need for approval was, arguably, the yearning that propelled him all the way to the White House.

Now it appears Clinton has found his surrogate family. He is part of a sprawling clan, legendary for its warmth and unity. It is a clan that is so accustomed to acquiring surrogate sons and daughters that adoption has become a part of its strength.

Clinton has become a member of the Bush clan.

Last week in Rome for the pope's funeral, the clan sat lined up in a pew: Laura, W., Dad, surrogate daughter Condoleezza, and Bill, all seeming more at ease than most families on Christmas Eve. Clinton may have looked a little out of place, like a Great Dane who thinks he belongs to a family of dachshunds, but his contented expression suggested he was exactly where he wanted to be.

Like many relationships in public life, the friendship between Bill Clinton and the Bush family is both genuine and opportunistic. At the highest levels of power, personal and political desires tend to merge: The person and the job become one.

Clinton's need to be accepted led him to speak movingly to all segments of society. Skeptics insisted that it was a ruse, intended to convince people he was someone he was not: a pure liberal to liberals, a moderate to moderates, a budget-balancing conservative to conservatives. And, politically, he was all of those things and none of them. But he was true to himself: He genuinely wanted to be respected by everyone.

Likewise, the two Bush presidents replayed their family roles on the national stage. George H. W. Bush was the genial patriarch and polite host, inviting celebrities from all walks of life to join him at the White House, at Kennebunkport, on his cigarette boat. If his friendliness seemed artificial at times, more a function of noblesse oblige than true empathy, it was all genuine to Bush: The good manners his mother taught him proved to be more deeply embedded than his politics.

George W. Bush, the family enforcer in his father's administration, relies more on loyalty than charm. He offers uncommon backing to his underlings: Bush recently draped a Presidential Medal of Freedom on the shoulders of a smiling George Tenet, the former CIA director whose overhyped intelligence briefings led the president astray. In return, Bush's underlings stay loyal to him: No presidential team has stayed as free of damaging leaks as the current one.

The with-us-or-against-us ethos carries down to the current president's supporters, a rock-solid base that lifted him to reelection in a difficult year.

Clinton's friendship with the Bushes connects with all their personal and political desires. The friendship began with Clinton and the elder Bush, two famously nice guys who happened to have been at odds in the 1992 election. Clinton's need to be forgiven for ousting the older man, and Bush's classy urge to let bygones be bygones, led them each to be very considerate of the other. Their friendship blossomed on their trip last winter to raise funds for Asian tsunami relief. They became so close that former president Bush suggested to the Houston Chronicle that ''maybe I'm the father he never had."

The current President Bush won over Clinton with demonstrations of his loyalty to the presidential club, praising his predecessor effusively while unveiling his White House portrait and helping dedicate Clinton's presidential library. Clinton repaid the debt by telling people how much he liked the president, even while many Democrats were trying to demonize him.

Now, as tends to happen in politics, the personal friendship is paying political dividends for all parties. President Bush's failure to express immediate concern for tsunami victims and his modest initial offer of aid could have been devastating to his image. But Clinton, who remains deeply popular around the world, stepped in to defend Bush and join the relief effort.

Since last year's election, Bush has made a concerted effort to woo European allies. Having Clinton in his pew at the pope's funeral in Rome did more to boost Bush's reputation overseas than a hundred bows to Jacques Chirac.

Clinton, who may be seeking to return to the White House as the president's spouse, probably senses that any viable Democrat must distance himself or herself from the Bush-hating left. What better way to demonstrate that distance than by embracing those very same Bushes?

The hug is sincere, but so is the ambition.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.