Rendell On Bill Clinton's Alleged Hard Feelings Towards Obama: "Get Over It," "Shake It Off"
When you write an item about leading Hillary supporter Ed Rendell, you are required to describe him as "blunt." And here is Rendell again, being, well, blunt about Bill Clinton's alleged hard feelings towards Obama...
Bill has to "get over it," and "shake it off," Rendell says. Did someone say he's blunt?
Ben Smith noted yesterday that Obama's campaign has harmed Bill in some ways, because Obama has run an implicit campaign against his presidency. That said, who the heck knows if Bill is really "miffed" with Obama, as everyone keeps saying; the original report that got this going is based only on the word of an anonymous Democrat who supposedly spoke to Bill.
I don't know if Bill is "miffed" or not. He very well may be, and if he is in fact "miffed," Rendell is right; he should get over it. Either way, it has now become true that Bill is "miffed," and there will be no changing that, ever.
Someone needs to explain to Bill that since Hillary was running on a third Clinton term, Obama had no choice but to run against his presidency.
June 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree blmack.
Hillary ran on his Presidency and Obama had to counter how that Presidency was not the greatest. Obama did a great job enumerating the weaknesses of the Clinton administration. Bill is just pissed because of how effectively Obama did it by stating they needed to build a bridge to the 21st century and how Reagan transformed politics...Bill hated those remarks because it was a direct hit at his legacy.
Tough. Bill put his wife out there running on his administration and he found out why it was not so great.
Like Rendell said he needs to 'get over it' and he also needs to move on about his belief that Obama used race against him, when the record clearly shows Obama did not mention race. Rather, the black community and the black media were outraged about Bill's comments. He was warned by Ted kennedy and even Donna Brazile and Clyburn told him to chill after his 'this whole thing is a fairy tale'. Bill chose to go for the jugular instead and now his legacy is tarnished and the black community will not ever support a Clinton again.
Bill needs to grow up and move on...he was the one who claimed politics was a contact sport and if you didn't wanna get hit, don't come on the field.
Well, Bill you have been hit, get up, suck it up and act like a man.
June 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dead on.
June 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZOMG!!!!!!!
Ed Rendell said someone has to "get over it"!@@!!!! Those words, I've been informed, are the WORST.POSSIBLE.WORDS.TO.EVER.SAY.TO.ANYONE!!!@#$!!!.
Hilarious that it was a true blue Clinton supporter who said them.
June 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, how dare him? A Clinton should never be expected to simply "get over" anything! Ever! And now, I'm going to my room. To stew.
Harumph!
June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite description of Rendell came from the immortal Al Giordano, who called him a candor junkie.
June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No there won't - it's already CW. But Bill added to that perception to make it become media fact. I'm betting "miffed" is mild, but it hardly matters. He'll have to get over it - he has no choice except to sulk and lose more relevance.
June 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed, actually. he probably is miffed or a lot worse. his tepid one sentence statement endorsing obama the other day was perhaps an indicator...
June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I just think it is too soon. And Bill got a lot of bad press. Frankly, I think he just wants to give it a few and he'll be back in the game.
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel you, but come on - no one died here. He's being a drama queen.
June 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's rather difficult to put a different spin on all that "terseness" out of Bill, Greg - at least for me.
I'm sure he's hurt for Hillary, I'm sure he's hurt for himself - but this is what politicians do and surely someone who has been running for office since forever knows that by now -
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, it just shows that Bill is a sore loser, as he encouraged Hillary to be as well. Bill was the one who kept Hillary in the race, telling her 'we're not quitters'...well guess what...there comes a time when you have to acknowledge you were not only beat but you were beat fair and square.
Bill has just not ever loss when playing the race card and he can't believe it. Tough.
June 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Especially coming from the guy who almost wrecked his presidential ambitions by giving an unbearably long-winded keynote address at the 1988 convention.
June 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooo yeah..I remember that..it was insufferably loooooooooooooooooooooong.
June 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: I am pretty sure you are a retired Judge. So, how do you feel about FISA, I have wanted to ask you for a week now.
June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
O my dear - thank you for the compliment but I've never had a bench - I was merely a self-employed criminal defense appellate lawyer.
FISA is way complicated - the statute tried to set up a system that would protect our rights and of course, Bush didn't follow the law - and the requirements couldn't be looser or easier - he had the legal authority to get wiretaps in place without any warrants - all he had to do was go to the FISA court after the fact and get it to sign off. He didn't.
Bush broke the law, violated the constitution and should be held accountable, but this whole telecom immunity thing is a red herring IMO. We don't have any fucking constitutional rights vis-a-vis private entities - only the government. The telecoms did violate the constitution, apparently, but I fail to see how holding them responsible for doing this helps us at all. We don't have any constitutional rights to sue anyone. And civil lawsuits are just money making endeavors for lawyers. Especially class action suits - they are gold mines for lawyers and not for the class, which usually gets spare change for damages once the lawyers get paid.
I never have understood why suing telecoms got tangled up with our constitutional rights under the 4th amendment. They may have violated citizens' rights, but our real quarrel is with the government who told them it had the right to ask them to do that. I don't see how telecoms can be held accountable under those circumstances, or why they are so damned important to people.
It's Bush - he broke the law. He clearly broke the law. But if Congress isn't going to try to hold Bush accountable, trying to substitute the telecoms is no way to get to where we want to be - which is someplace where Bush is held responsible for what he has done because he's the one who broke the fucking law and he's the one the constitution guarantees our protection against.
I don't like FISA as it was written. I don't like the concept of a secret court, but the statute has been around now for years - this didn't just now come up - the FISA court has been signing off on warrantless searches now since the statute was enacted. It would never have become an issue if Bush hadn't totally gone around the FISA court and just done what he wanted to without trying to make at least a pro forma showing of exigent circumstances.
So the bottom line is that Bush violated the constitution, but it was always going to be difficult to hold him responsible for this particular violation since the whole thing is about national security - the statute, everything. That means evidence won't come out in court because of national security, even if we could sue the telecoms.
June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
- Barak Obama
June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well-said, Tena. And the longest comment, every from our friend from the Southwest. We need more of this from you.
June 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me the issue of telecom immunity matters only in that civil lawsuits against the telecoms were our best chance of revealing the scope and nature of the eavesdropping. Bush has argued executive privilege and state secrets to every congressional attempt to uncover the basic facts of what was done. They argued state secrets in the civil case too, but at least you could have multiple suits in multiple courts and have a better chance of a sympathetic judge.
Maybe it becomes less relevent as Bush leaves office, but I don't think we should just place blind trust in Obama (or, much less, McCain) to fix all the constitutional overreaches of the Bush administration outside of the public eye.
On the other hand, I personally don't think a private company should be put in the position where it has to defy the federal government to uphold the constitution, and if it doesn't, it is liable. When if they had just defied the government, they could probably have faced charges of obstruction. We assume the major telecoms had boatloads of lawyers to evaluate the legal underpinnings of the requests, but the Patriot Act also includes the ability to impose gag orders which prevent the recipient of a national security letter from even consulting with an outside lawyer. I am sure that under the patriot act, many more companies have violated the 4th amendment, but it is unfair to expect a video rental store or a library or a landlord to have (in-house) the constitional law background to take on the Department of Justice.
June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is correct that one major impetus in securing Telco immunity is to keep executive criminal activity out of court, the other major motivation is money. If class actions were permitted to proceed against the Telcos, only one would have to hit to bankrupt the major companies. And remember, at least one of the majors - Qwest - had the stones to say no when the feds came calling asking for extra legal access to your phone records. This, by itself, is great evidence of the other Telcos breach of their duties to you, the phone customer. If Qwest could insist on warrants under the same legal regime, why couldn't Verizon and the rest?
June 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the government is the main and most important threat to our Fourth Amendment rights, but the telecom angle is a good way to roll the threat back because:
1. Suits in civil court are easier against the corporations, because you can skip government immunity issues.
2. The suit will be a giant battle, but you can get lawyers to commit to the battle on the promise of a contingency fee.
3. The companies hate the suits and the publicity, because it will disturb the stockholders even if they win in court.
4. The disturbed stockholders can, if disturbed enough, force corporate policy to say they won't play ball with Big-Brother anymore.
5. The management will hate the idea of disturbed stakeholders so much that they may well enact the policy even if they could win in a full-on stockholder fight.
I'm glad telecom leaders wanted to help fight terrorists, since there are some terrorists out there. But they have a choice of methods:
• the constitutional, lawful, decent, American method that requires lightning-fast warrants.
• the lying, cheating, stealing, scared-of-your-shadow, Rove-Cheney-Addington, stomp-on-the-flag-and-all-it-stands-for method that pretends warrants don't matter.
Suing the corporations gives those leaders a hands-on reason to make the right choice.
June 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: This may or may not appear in order as a reply to your post. Never mind.
Your FISA analysis was cool, clear, and succinct -- and, therefore, refreshing. Please consider posting it as a separate blog. Or not. In any case, thanks.
June 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to post this as a blog entry. This should be its own thread. Great explanation, and further validation for me not freaking out about this.
June 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton is a decent guy, and I think he is hurting for Hillary right now. I know I feel my spouse's losses at times more than he does, I sure take longer to get over it. Bill will bounce back, and I am sure he will help Obama. He looked tired, and I think he needs to recoup.
June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
June 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the reason that Obama will win in November is that the country wants a Democratic president because Bill Clinton was the best president the country has had since the '60s.
June 26, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering who else was in office during that period, I agree.
June 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just did a mental scan and sadly, you're probably right.
June 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damning with feint praise there...
June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Riiiiiight!!
anyone with any sense knows this was like going to the SuperBowl...it is way harder to win the division playoffs to GO to the SuperBowl than it is to win the superbowl.
Obama won the democratic primaries which is way harder than the General, based on his background. Afterall, there was a presumptive nominee when the race started!!
June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope the Elder-Statesman, Past President Bill shows up again and adds some of his charm and intelligence to the race this Fall. I miss that guy.
June 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do too.
June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama ran a villify the oponent campaign in the primary and is now schocked that some of his opponents fans are not willing to kiss and make up. Good short term tactics but poses a strategic problem now.
Obama has always been willing to tank the Democrats chances in November if it gave him a shot at the Presidency. The size of that gamble, the ammorality of it, and the arrogance involved that plan A will work and who the hell needs to compute the effect if it doesn't render him akin to George Bush(another great campaigner and promiser) and are part of the numerous reasons I'm voting for McCain rather than Obama even though I am a life long liberal Democrat.
June 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious! Is this snark?
And this is ever funnier.
You are a master of snark.
June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right. Tell this to someone who cares.
June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I am a life long liberal Democrat
Sorry. You're lying.
June 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, Democrats call themselves "progressives." "Liberal Democrat" is about as obvious a giveaway as "Democrat Party."
June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM...that post of yours was complete bovine excrement.
Do you have any facts to support your assertions?
Naw, you don't you were just spouting off without thinking, right?
June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
bovine, taurine, what the heck -- smells the same.
June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! The nerve, claiming your opponent isn't ready to be Commander in Chief, but the guy from the other party is! Oh, wait, that was Hillary that said that.
Oops.
June 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
some of my favorite comments are those that begin or end with "I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'm by god voting Republican this time."
When will y'all learn that no one ever believes that "I'm a lifelong Democrat but..." bullshit?
Too fucking funny.
June 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you started that civics book yet?
June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno about has always been; that's as may be.
Right now, though, he's being very mindful of down-ticket Democtats. Looks like he sees the value of (near-)veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate.
June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're voting for McCain because Obama ran even though he's unelectable?
This is brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Someone! A Nobel Prize for this fellow! Quickly!
June 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hated Rendell when he was "against" Obama, but I'm kind of loving having him on our side.
June 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
June 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree hyperRevue, Ed Rendell is like the Dennis Rodman of Politics - you absolutely loathe his ass until he plays for your team.
June 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Humanity...so who is gonna be Lambeer to Rendell's Rodman?
June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell is entertaining, but only up to a point. He is a bit of a loudmouthed jerk, too. Surely you can call to mind his notion that Fop News was fair and balanced in campaign coverage. And you know there is more...
But, he's got good one liners and he's never boring.
June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill should go on a special mission to help the people of Myanmar.
Not only should he get over this campaign, he should get the hell out of it.
Don't go away mad, Bill, just go away.
June 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent idea. I think some penance would do him and the rest of the world a lot of good.
June 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm guessing this is snark, but if it isn't...
Obama is setting up shop in 50 states...and in some, where they know their going to lose, he's doing so primarily to support downticket candidates. His campaign has said as much. Yet it's all about him? There's a big reason so many of the supers up for re-election this year got behind Obama - because they know he helps their chances - because of cash, organization, enthusiasm, etc. - better than Hillary would have.
June 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone voting for McCain should really take a hard look at the Supreme Court's decisions over the last week. Even when they were on the right side of an issue, the vote was 5-4 when they were slam dunk 9-0 cases.
Today they just ruled we can all shoot everyone (okay, slightly overstating) but they are a bunch of crazies. McCain will throw America into the abyss if he gets elected and appoints any more Justices like Bush did. And shame on the Congress for letting these guys pass so easily.
June 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to be a big gun control advocate, but I've finally capitulated to the hard facts - people are not going to give up their guns in this country. I just have surrendered on this issue. The 2d amendment appeals to more people than just the right wing. I have a number of heavily armed liberal friends who have the attitude that they don't trust the government and consider themselves citizens when armed, and merely subjects when disarmed.
I'm just afraid that gun control is a totally dead issue at this point.
June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem when talking about guns in this country. So many assume that there are those who want to take away their guns away, and that makes the discussion rather difficult. "Gun Control" is one of those phrases that turns many off. We need reshape the rhetoric, focus more on the aspects of "gun safety" and less on "gun control".
June 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Particularly for Jerseyites.
June 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. When the government tortures people, lies to the American people to create a casus belli, and engages in warrantless spying on its own people, some of us liberals are glad to be gun owners. Who knows what this administration might try if a significant number of Americans were not armed.
June 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire gun debate is an example of the American 'cocoon' mentality. Look at gun laws in any other developed, industrialized western society, places that have our nation's shared values so to speak, and you'll find the notion that any citizen can buy any sort of gun, including semi-automatic weapons just "because the want to", is viewed as wacky. It's nuts.
Even though I have never read any comparitive statistic on "access" to guns around the world I would guess that the US rates right up there with the bad-ass tribal areas of the border btwn Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of the ease that an individual can purchase a mighty powerful firearm just because they have the money.
Japan notwithstanding, few places have mass murdering sprees with anything but guns.
The idea that a "well armed society is a polite society" is, as you TinaHussein might say, fucking nonesense. Step outside the madness for awhile, e.g. outside of the United States, and see that most of the world gets along just fine in terms of individual political, social and economics rights and freedoms without the gun rights/control/lack-of-control madness.
June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm one of those lefties who doesn't think it's a good idea to keep a gun in the house given stats of how often those situations lead violent accidents, but who does not like the idea of the government enacting too much restriction on the rights of the citizenry to be armed, either.
but it is clear to me that the vaunted 2nd amendment doesnt mean a bit. as we saw in the wake of hurricane katrina, blackwater simply demanded people turn over their guns. so what solace people take in the constitution anymore (or the bill of rights) really makes me curious. i wonder how they feel so secure in the face of our government's ignoring each and any provision or either at the time of their choosing for their own disclosed or nondisclosed reasons.
June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I used to be staunchly anti-gun, I come around to your point somewhat.
I agree with the poster that wonders if the issue shouldn't be rebranded. We regulate liqueur, so why not guns?
June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gun control = dead issue? Was that an intentional pun?
June 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea--if Bill went on an important int'l mission it would rev up his reputation and his ego. I think, though, that he should join the campaign after that.
June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always about the Clinton's. They ran a divisive, polarising campaign. They threw the kitchen sink, the bath tub, the bath stall and more at Obama and he kept his cool. And Bill clinton is MIFFED????? I do think Obama is having difficulties "unifying" the party. The FISA vote at this point and all this petulant behaviour by Bill is NOT helping. And I am glas Rendell is calling it like it is. I hope he does more and shuts those two down. The unity thing is a sham. If she had a way to take down Obama she would take it in a New York minute. Clinton's=distrust.
June 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know raj
Those Clintons are just TOXIC...they are TOXIC to the Democratic party and any Dem nominee that isn't Hillary.
Ugh. can't atand anything Clinton lately ...toxic just toxic
June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill got bad press?
Bill got what he deserved!
June 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why taking stories from anonymous sources who claim a connection is no good.
You might as well get your news information from the chatter forums.
June 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the past few days I've seen the cable channels push the story that Bill Clinton is sulking. They have no actual proof to make such a claim, instead they base it on conjecture and speculation and rumor.
Rather than actually saying Bill Clinton is sulking or miffed, the media presents the story is the form of a question; "Is Bill Clinton sulking" or "Is Bill Clinton miffed?". Then some talking head comes on and they talk about Clinton being miffed as if it were fact. Others pick up those comments, and soon we have a story about Ed Rendell commenting about the need for Bill Clinton to get over it. The story magically morphs into "Bill Clinton reportedly upset".
I'm sorry to see TPM participate in this sewing circle journalism.
June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but it does force Bill to either let it ride or come out and demonstrate that he is behind this campaign. Is he an asset to this Party or isn't he?
June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Carol, but I disagree. It doesn't force Bill to do anything. What it does do is embolden folks to oppose Obama. No matter what, Bill still has power and lots of supporters who will not capitulate until Bill acts like the leader he proclaims to be and that Obama showed he wasnt.
Until Bill Clinton pulls his supporters in line, Obama is going to catch hell unifying the party.
He can and will unify the party without the Clintons but it will be far easier to do so with their support.
I predict he will not EVEr have their support or if they do support him it will be tepid and not fully embracing which only causes the flames of dissent to smolder looking for an opportunity to become fully ablaze.
Obama has an uphill battle right now. However, I am fully confident that he will weather it, it will be stormy..but Obama will prevail.
June 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to be sorry, we can disagree. :)
Except, I don't think we do. Whether Bill is sulking or not, the scuttlebutt requires that Bill either clarify his position in regards to Obama (which he was asked to do the other day) or remain silent and allow the prevailing opinion to speak for itself. If Bill chooses not to come out in full support of Obama, I would argue that he is not being the Leader that he should be in this Party. That is his choice. It's his legacy, after all.
And yes, I agree, Bill can choose to passive-aggressively attempt to undermine Obama's success, and there will be those who follow his lead. I don't think it will accomplish what Bill hopes it will. Obama's star is rising and there's nothing that Bill can do to stop it. And trying to undermine him, I think, will do more damage to Bill than it will to Obama.
So what's an aging, former President, with a tarnished history, to do? Bill's done some good things since he left office. He's done more than a few questionable things during this campaign. If I was in charge of PR for Bill, I'd tell him to suck it up, put away the beer and cheetos, take a shower, get dressed, and get out there and start campaigning in earnest for his Party's candidate.
But, that's just me.
June 26, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill is not going to get over this. He may pretend to, but we have many years of Bill to refer to, and I think we can make some assumptions based on that.
For one, he has a section in his own library on the impeachment! (A junior precedent to Bush Jr's think-tank library.) And he has hardly let the guilty media players go without retaliating in interviews, etc. He is an angry man, ask Richardson and Clyburn.
The fact is, and he probably knows this, Clinton was far from a transcendent president. Like Bush Sr., he is a footnote between Reagan and Bush Jr. Had Hillary won, his legacy (of being "better" than the others) would be safe, and he could even correct some blunders. Their reign would have been looked at as one, and, given what a historic moment we stand at, his image would be altered for the better. (Better meaning more historically resonant.)
Instead, Obama will probably take over at this moment that, unless Obama and the Dems completely fold, lends itself to true reforms and great speeches and all that Bill missed. (Tech booms don't make for great speeches.)
He may play nice--and he better--but Bill ain't ever getting over it.
June 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are dead on jweb.
And Obama has highlighted that he is a footnote.
Obama will have a far greater legacy and Bill knows that.
June 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to be dead on, thanks!
June 26, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
who cares if bill clinton is 'miffed'. i mean, it's not like the msnbc fratpac harbors illwill against the clintons and be willing to make shit up -- esp joe scarborough.
it's just another opportunity to clinton bash. yahoo! everyobody in the pool.
June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol lol lol
last one in is a rotten egg!!!!!!!!11111
June 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons' ego is always in play. Bill and Hill will go along and get everything they can from Obama's campaign and when the DNC show begins they will have their egos satisfied to a point. The problem as I see it comes after the convention and what role will they play in the general election when it kicks in. I believe Obama is pushing them now and giving them a chance to be team players. If they don't come along and show "unity" now and at the convention, they won't be all that visible during the GE. Who is betting that Hillary will release her delegates and push complete "unity" for Obama's ticket, of which she already knows that she will not be on the ticket. Bill will not handle losing the role of being the Democratic "king" party leader and Obama will continue to be focused about it being his campaign and his election to win. I'm all for Bill fading into the role of former "leader" of the democartic party.
June 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill and Hillary Clinton are the Brad and Angelina of the political world. It's a love/hate relationship between the Clintons and the media. They use each other equally, and all sides profit.
June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to cut President Clinton some slack on this issue. Many people said that his mouth actually hurt Hillary during the primary season. Now that he has shut up, some people are complaining about that. I think that the less he says the better. This is Senator Obama's campaign to win or lose. Having Hillary campaigning with him makes sense. Having Big Foot Bill doing so, not so much sense. Count your blessings. I prefer the rarely heard from Bill. Obama does not need him out there causing some daily distractions.
You have not heard Bill Clinton make any gaffs recently that took the spotlight off of our candidate. That is because he has kept his mouth shut. Isn't that a good thing.
June 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Liam, while I agree he needs to shut up ...the problem is that he hasn't wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorsed Obama. After he does that, I will be happy to give him some slack.
But right now, bill is trying to leverage his political capitol to make Obama kowtow to his demands and Ob ama is not having none of it. Obama is not making enough concessions behind closed doors for the Clintons not to make leaks about him to the press.
It does make sense for Bill Clinton to campaign. He needs to show he can be a leader and endorse and campaign for someone other than his wife!
Bill has political capitol and it is time he expended it on behalf of the PARTY vs. his own narrow self intersts.
Democrats have stood behind Bill thorugh his worse and darkest hours..and it is time he paid that bill.
Up until now he hasn't,he didn't help Gore and he was a thorn in Kerry's side...well it is time for him to pay up.
It is time for William Jefferson Clinton to demonstrate that the Democratic Party, interests and goals are more important than him.
Bill needs to step up to the plate and hit a home run.
He needs to show all of the leadership he claims to have and put allof his resources behind the nominee for a Democrat to be in the WH.
Piss on his sulking...we have endureed too much as Democrats based on bill's actions in the oval office.
He OWES us!!
Get busy Bill we are waiting for you to show your gratitude to all the Democrats who did NOT abandon you but who stood buy you and weathered that horrific Lewinsky scandal.
Bill owes ALL of us.
June 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be perfectly honest - yeah, I don't actually want to see Bill out there on the trail. But, a prepared statement here and there would be nice. Full endorsement. Consistent message that indicates "I am fully behind this guy being elected out President."
Even if it means that someone who is well-paid and really competent has to write the words for him.
June 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, it just seems like Bill's always-far-from-perfect emotional control isn't what it used to be. Some people blame the heart surgery. It could just be a result of getting older and more possessive about his reputation and legacy (notwithstanding his own conscious decision to put them at risk by plunging into this campaign). Maybe he's always been this way but we didn't see it because he had a lot more people between him and us.
Regardless, Obama could do worse than to drop by Bill's office soon, before the Convention, and spend an afternoon (and then probably an evening) chewing the fat with him. And not just to soothe Bill's feelings. I think he'd hear some things that would be useful and really think they'd both end up enjoying it and would emerge bff's. Or at least BF's for a week or two.
June 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he's always been this way but we didn't see it because he had a lot more people between him and us.
says you NC Steve...
The dude has been OBVIOUS about lack of control for a long time.
June 26, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Nebraska, Gun Control means hitt'in who (or what) yer aim'in at.
It's insane that members of a community ravaged by gun crimes can't determine that their own community is incapable of creating a peacefull environment without outlawing gun ownership.
It's insane that one guy can put so many at mortal risk because he doesn't want to move to a place where hand guns aren't outlawed.
It's insane that a Clinton supporter would vote for McCain because they are so pissed off. That a Democrat would even say this with the court hanging in the balance like it is, is all the evidence any of us should need to conclude that gun-control is not a winning issue for us and it's best to take Rendell's advise to Bill and just let it go.
Maybe....just maybe, CHANGE will mean; impact will finally be more important than issues.
June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also...about a year and a half ago, here in Nebraska, the legislature passed a law allowing a person to carry a concealed weapon. Now, there are signs visible in the entrances to some offices and stores that say "Concealed weapons not allowed".
Vote Obama for sanity from the Supreme Court!
June 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU, Tena! I, too, am a lawyer -- not a judge but working next to them in the area of civil and governmental liability -- and I haven't been able to see the telecome immunity issue as anything but a red herring myself. As you say, the telecoms can't be sued for constitutional violations and even if there is a statutory right of action against them for turning over information unlawfully ..... following the direct order of a lawful authority is a pretty big, strong defense! So what's all the shouting about???? -- Now a civil rights action against Bush, etc. under section 1983 .... that has real promise, I'd think. -------- It's nice to have company! I'd started thinking that maybe I didn't know what I darn well DO know.
June 26, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2 and Tena: Both of you are whip smart, fearless direct speakers... yet you rarely, if ever, submit blogs of your own. I hope you will reconsider that circumspect habit. Do you concur?
June 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
June 26, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't listen to any of 'em, Bill!
I'd go to my grave "miffed" if I'd spent ten million dollars in a losing cause, too.
June 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's ego NEVER ceases to amaze me.... He stuck his OWN foot in his OWN mouth numerous times during the primary and not wants to act "miffed" at Barack.... why - because if he acts hurt long enough, he is hoping that people are dumb enough to believe that he has a right to be mad... Bottom line is that Bill has never taking responsibility for anything Bill did - he's always looking for someone else to blame... Once again, "it" (whatever the meaning of it is) is NEVER Bill's fault - let's get this right - first, the right wing media was to blame, then the left wing media was to blame, now it's Barack??? ... of course, Barack will be bigger than Bill and act like nothing is wrong.... Bill needs to not only get over it, he needs to understand that the Democratic Party is no longer his little playground - it is now lead by Barack's and Nancy Pelosi and a whole new generation of leaders.... Thank Heavens...
June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Bill Clinton simply doesn't think that Obama would make a good president and -- out of loyalty to the party -- he's paying lip service to Obama's candidacy. Not all Hillary supporters are willing to pay lip service. Some of her supporters are calling for voters to vote McKinney.
June 27, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink