Talk Elections

From TheHill.com

Bill Clinton in Denver again undercuts Obama 
By Sam Youngman 
Posted: 08/26/08 01:47 PM [ET] 
DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday. 
The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium.

Democrats concerned about what the former president might say when he addresses the Democratic convention Wednesday night would likely have cringed at his remarks Tuesday to a group of foreign dignitaries.

The former president talked about the importance of a politician being able to deliver on his promises following an electoral victory and how voters factor in that ability to deliver when picking their candidate.

During the contentious and at times nasty nomination battle between Clinton and Obama, the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed the question of whether Obama, a freshman senator, had the experience or the ability to deliver on his promises if elected. Clinton, they argued, was more suited to do so.

The former president devoted much of his sometimes-rambling remarks to solving the global energy crisis and the need to address climate change.

But time and again he returned to his great love of politics, noting that it was more than the closeness and intensity of the nomination battle between his wife and Obama that piqued his interest this year, but the "infusion of cash from small amounts by Internet donors and the explosion of blog sites."

"For those of us interested in politics, it was an endlessly fascinating process already, and it's still got some twists and turns between now and November," Clinton said.

The former president did say early in his remarks that the purpose of a party convention is to "introduce the candidate in a new and different and hopefully more positive way... [to] unify the party and [aid in] defining the battle" between the two parties.

The unifying-the-party aspect is what has many Democrats concerned about Clinton's Wednesday night remarks.

Clinton has been a media magnet throughout the year as his remarks have caused heartache and headaches to former and current supporters.

From when he called Obama's candidacy "a fairytale" to when he compared the Illinois senator's win in South Carolina to that of Rev. Jesse Jackson's, many Clinton loyalists, detractors and analysts feel that Clinton did irreparable damage to both his wife's candidacy and his legacy as president.

Now in a convention that continues to be racked with stories and questions about how unified the Democratic Party truly is, Clinton's appearance Wednesday — and his tendency to go off the teleprompter — has some Democrats very nervous.

Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama's candidacy.

"He's totally for Barack," Begala said Tuesday. "He's totally for Barack."
 

Sigh...

I honestly can't see how anyone can defend this asshole.  He is undermining Obama, period.  Anyone surprised?

Truth hurts.

Highly amusing on so many levels

If Bill Clinton is undermining Obama, then it follows that the sky is blue, correct?

I find it amusing, much like boris.

No.

Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

LMAO

Is Bill Clinton the leader of PUMA?

If she's so ready to deliver- why was she so unprepared for primary contests the month after Super Tuesday? Why could she not control the comments of the people around her? Why did she not remember that she was not under attack on that foreign trip?

The analogy above implies Obama can deliver and Clinton cannot. Where is this evidence that Clinton "Is ready on day one"? or that she can deliver in any substantial way? I'm tellin ya, that's the fairy tale.

Bill Clinton is an imbecile. Period.

His wife got over it, why can't he?

I get a kick out of that groups name.  :)

I'm not necessarily saying I would prefer Clinton to have been the nominee. I am saying I'm pretty thoroughly underwhelmed by Obama. Most of the last few months have been PR stunts, attempts to fight back against McCain's ads, etc. It's all defense, no offense. Add to that his series of flip flops on things ranging from FISA to declining public funding, and it's apparent that many of the negatives attributed to Clinton in fact apply to him as well.

I won't plug my blog article on this, but Bill is one of a slew of issues facing Obama and the DNC during the convention.  He's already been upset with his speaking duties, he still feels slighted about not being asked to be more of a part of the overall campaign following the end of the primaries, and his ego is bruised following the whole "race card" fiasco.  In many ways, it is like how Mondale had to handle Jackson during the Convention.  It might be better to just let Clinton say what he wants to say, and pray that it isn't controversial, rather than risk stoking a inter-party rebellion (that is already growing).

It''s sad that we haven't had a President worth a damn in 2 3/4 decades.

We have not had a [u[Democratic[/u] worth a damn since 1963.

More like 45 years, then. :P ...and depending on who is elected and how he does, we might not have a president worth a damn for almost a century!

The Clinton's are one of the most self-conceited family's in politics today. Give me one instance when the Clinton's weren't thinking about their self-interest, just one.

First of all Bill Clinton is 100% correct.

Second of all this isn't an attempt to undermine Obama. Bill Clinton explicitly said that the analogy did not apply to Obama.

Thirdly they could not have affected Obama's campaign even if they were applied to Obama. The comments were made to a group of foreign dignitaries who have no vote in the U.S. Presidential election. How Bill influences these dignitaries' views does not impact on the American vote totals.

Fourthly it is the media, in this case the Hill, that is damaging Obama. The Hill, which is speaking to an American (not foreign) audience, is assuming that Bill is saying that he does not think Obama can deliver. This assumption hurts Obama, because it robs Obama of Bill's credible endorsement.

ive grown to love bill clinton.   i kind of regret i never voted for him.

Bill Clinton is a terrible person.

^^

not only did Clinton not deliver on much of anything that he pledged to, but he actively counter-acted much of those aims in the last six years of his presidency.

And when the Obama people have this same attitude, that just creates more of a division. Obama was the one who derided Bill Clinton's record during the primary and his campaign was the one that tried to pain him as a racist, which if you know anything about his life, is the greatest insult that any could have said to him.
Obama undermined himself with his attitude. Three months ago everyone said: oh, those 25% of Hillary supporters that say they will vote for McCain and those 25% that say they will stay at home will come back to the fold - and they didn't do anything to bring them together. Three months later, the numbers are unchanged, and hardened imho.
Now the Obama people are trying to prevent a roll-call during the convention so Hillary's name is not even on the records - or if they do it, not to show it on tv and have the roll-call at their hotels.. that is the most ridiculous thing i've heard.
Despite all that, we'll hear Hillary tonight give a rousing endorsement to Obama.. just to show him what class is about.... although I'm uncertain it will work that well.

Carville is wearing Pumas at the convention!

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/2980/james-carville-is-wearing-pumas

()

Too bad he was being asked a question about international politics and foreign countries, even if he meant it for both. CNN reported it correctly, once, and dropped it. So all of you sound a little dumb, as usual.

22 million jobs, a surplus, decreased crime....take a hint.

Here's Carville rockin' Pumas:
()

If anyone tries to tell me that Rachel Maddow is intelligent when she keeps insisting to Pat Buchanan that Bill Clinton wants Obama to win, well...

What a peice of trash.

You do realize he's responsible for the only national Democratic wins since 1976, don't you?

No...he's an ungrateful hack who likes no other democrat but Obama.

Oh yes, I forgot:

"Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

BUMP

From CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley

 
Bill Clinton will reportedly not attend the convention Thursday night.
DENVER (CNN) – Hillary Clinton will be on hand for Barack Obama's acceptance speech, but according to a source close to former President Bill Clinton, he will not: the source tells CNN that Clinton will not join his wife at Invesco Field Thursday night.


Lol

He knows his wife is busy, and it may be the last chance he gets for a while to find some nice chubby intern to get it on with. ;)

This may not have anything to do with what you're saying, but if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination narrowly and Barack Obama were giving an endorsement speech, the talk about "buyer's remorse" and squandered potential for a victory would have been ten times louder.

I'll have to remember that the next time someone argues it was Perot.

I've never argued it was Perot, just the opposite.  :)

I'm wondering if this will be Invesco Field or Fiasco Field.