He is the past , he doesn't need to endorse .
Anything that will remind the country about the scandal ridden administration is not needed .
Besides he is a gaffe machine , so he wouldn't be of much help. He played the race card in the primary , that should rule him out.
Your snark sustains me far more than the tears of the unemployed....
Does it occur to you that some of us could have misgivings about President Clinton without hating him? That we could be disappointed in him without disliking him?
I'm proud of his Administration. I don't have to be proud of every dumbass thing he does, though.
Looking at purely political or objective?
You're Bill Clinton. You have been painted as a racist, at best as a race baiter. You had the 3rd highest member in congress ( clyburn) say you are disliked by AA's.
You also happen to be the only one w/ a record , which I believe shows to be the best president in the modern era on economic growth/policies.
...and a president post his tenure that has done more for the downtrodden thru his charity than any president ( dollars and sense)
What do you do?
I hope he is better and larger man than me, in that situation. That's just being honest on my part.
and he can endorse when he feels like it. After what those guys in chicago did to him, how is he supposed to feel? He won two terms, a first for a Dem since FDR, and gets called a racist? Because he made our party palatable in issues which we once were extremely vulnerable on, like crime and welfare, which beat us 5 out of 6 elections from 1968-1988? before he came along, we used to average 113 electoral votes. We do way better than that today. Before him, we used to lose MI, CA, ME, NH, PA, VT, IL, NJ, DE, MD, and CT. now, we usually win those states in elections, all of which add up to a lot of electoral votes. He'll endorse when he feels like it. he restored our credibility on the economy which Carter RUINED. He can endorse when he wants.
that being said, I think he'll wait until next month. He is not going to do something because Wolf Blitzer says he should. He will do it when people know: it means something. He is acting on how he feels, not how the media feels. Perhaps even at the convention.
Correlation isn't causation. Bill Clinton isn't the reason Dems do better now than when they were at their nadir. Perhaps you didn't notice, but we lost both houses of Congress when he was President and if he was as great as you seem to think 2000 would have been a walk.
because he clearly made Democrats better off in terms of Presidential elections than we were in 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, or 1968. Just look at the fucking electoral map. Thats what matters. Look at the states we never used to win and mostly lost in those elections I mentioned that we now always win. These include Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, CALIFORNIA, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Maryland, all of which are worth an amazing amount of electoral votes, over 170. We lost nearly all of those states in those 5 elections. Also, we used to get blown out in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and they not only were won by Clinton, but even with weaker candidates, are still close. We only lost Congress because of corrupt Dems and an amazing amount of scandals that happened before his term. You also forget how poorly the media treated him. Gore also won more votes than Bush, but you also forget what an abysmal campaign Gore ran. He had no message nor did he try to define Bush, and he also picked a bad running mate. But how many times does our party get called "weak on crime" or "soft on welfare" anymore? Those are why we always would get killed in elections. If yo have any memory, those issues are what killed us from 1968-1988. We averaged 113 electoral votes during those years. We always do much better today. And it was Bill Clinton, not Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, or Hubert Humphrey who fixed our image on crime and welfare.
truths about the Clintonmessiah. We lost those elections because we had bad candidates. I love how you just omit 1976 because it doesn't fit your thesis. Your worshipful analysis is too simplistic to take seriously. It was not just "crime and welfare" that hurt democrats in that time period.
Bill did some good things but he didn't single-handedly save the party.
Likewise, Bill didn't singlehandedly destroy the party, either, as some continuallly suggest.
Denigrating his accomplishments for political gain by Democrats has been shamefull.
maybe we lost it because after 40 years of dem congress rule . They were fed up w/ us? :)
Btw, did that loss stop the American people on economic prosperity? .... Oh hell no...
he left office after his 2nd term holding the highest rating as president in 40 years before him.
if you give us the economic prosperity of the 90's . I'm happy...
or cheap oil. So there's no going back to the 90s. Balancing the budget like Bill did would be a good first step.
thank you!! I was going to post this info, but you beat me to it
It is amazing how some people rewrite history to slam BC
No, his administration was not the primary cause, but his missteps certainly did not help. His inexperience in dealing with Congress wasn't helpful. I hope that Obama does better, given the fact that he's about the same age as Clinton was when he ran. He's got legislative experience so hopefully he knows how to finesse Congress.
and the unwillingness of the Congress to work with Bill Clinton wasn't helpful at all either.
Many factors played a role. The ones you mention and also Bill's political missteps at the beginning of his term. Bill has many good attributes but he also has some very unhelpful ones.
Let me begin by saying I don't agree with everything you say all the time. Sometimes I am slightly suspect about your motives and the 'gist' behind some of your commentary, but this is spot on.
There was no reason for the person who TR you to do so. You spoke absolute truth to the issue. The sad legacy of this primary will be the progressive wing of the party turning on the only successful Democratic POTUS of their lifetime because they needed to denigrate his spouse and derail her chances. Bill's accomplishments were even downplayed by the nominee himself on the campaign trail by his continual raising up of other's accomplishments while refusing to acknowledge Bills. That was shameful, and anyone believeing otherwise has bought into the 'fairytale' about Bill and Hillary's rascism.
This issue alone is one of the reasons I simply do not trust those who hold themselves up as 'progressives' yet they continue to deride the Clinton years as shit.
Bill is a political force that still has drawing power and usefullness for the party. However, if I were Bill, the way he has been portrayed and treated this campaign season, I would happily sit home on my hands and read Mad magazine.
Heh heh, I don't usually see snark from you lori.
Give Bill two weeks; I think he'll endorse him in Arkansas and have a "torch-passing moment." I don't really expect him to be on the stump too much for Obama though. The other Clinton will be with Obama a lot and will serve as one of Obama's four de facto vice presidents (her, Warner, and the Udall brothers); frankly, she's a much bigger figure in the party than he is right now.
You are probably right .
I expect him to be stumping a lot though , of course not the way he almost killed himself with all the small town trips for his wife , but substantially.
Yeah i am in a swell mood tonight , just got a call from a loved one.
Couldn't resist when I saw the diary , I said it during the primary that the same folks crucifying both Clinton's and telling them to get out , would be the same folks who would be telling them to get back on the stump for Obama.
He is the Democratic nominee and as such leads the democratic party.
the "him" in my post was Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama.
uprating because (coming from lori) this is snark...right ?
