It's the long and winding road that gets tiresome.

He probably helped Barrett in Wisconsin as much as he hurt Obama in the rest of the nation?

they are already voting for Barrett and they are already turning out for him.

for the less engaged, the presence of Bill Clinton overall helps turnout and will help Barrett.

so while I hate it when Bill Clinton has to be everybody's friend and be charitable, it kind of goes with the territory and some people, many in the center, like that schtick and if while he is delivering that message, he's telling people to vote for Barrett and that there really is something wrong with Walker --even to a guy who says some nice things about Romney...then I think it's okay.

i hate Third Way nonsense and i think the Romney way of making money is what's wrong with our version of capitalism --we traded manufacturing stuff for manufacturing money. but Bill Clinton has his value, politically, and on balance, his presence was helpful.

...other than perhaps bad politics.

But when he complimented Romney while tearing down the argument of Barack Obama of why he should be re-elected and not Romney, then that is a different matter.

If, in fact, Mr Romney's record was "sterling", then, by inclusion, his record at Bain was "sterling" also. And the Obama campaign has just been shot down.

Nice stimulant for the heart. He's nothing but a fake out for his own self interest. Same with Hillary.

He's casually leaning against one of the columns having a cup of joe. That reads exceedingly relaxed like his participation in this rally is 3/4-assed. I remember him campaigning and it didn't look like that.

He worked the crowd well. Did you hear his speech? It was, as always, great. And he stayed for about 45 minutes after the speeches talking, shaking hands, signing things, hugging people.

I think your assessment of his body language is not a statement on how he behaved, as much as how you personally perceive him.

I have learned to view the Clintons with a grain of salt and have seen BC campaigning exclusively for those people that endorsed Hillary in 2008. No exceptions. He even told one guy who had remained neutral that that was the same thing as endorsing Obama. I have not known him to do anything that didn't benefit him/Hillary first and foremost. The bizarre loyalty demands (Gov Richardson felt his wrath, for example) in 2008 were really shocking and he's still in payback mode.

So yeah for Wisconsin if this motivates Democrats to turn out. Obama has all 60 offices of OFA in Wisconsin working exclusively on the recall and GOTV. I hope the recall is successful.

To me, that is far more helpful than showing up and make it about him.

Turnout will be the deciding factor in this recall and Bill is popular with minorities and many who tend to not show up in mid term and special elections. Milwaukee is the key. Walker won (and Feingold lost) because 125,000 folks who voted Obama had something better to do that fateful day in 2010. 108k in Milwaukee alone. I was very glad he came out to rally today. Despite many things we don't like about him, he can work a crowd. And he did.

The other half is getting them to the polls.

BILL CLINTON!

Don't you get sick of having to remind people, especially here at DU of what the real issue is right now? I see some DUers undermining every attempt to reach out to the people in Wisconsin. I think Clinton did an excellent job and that his support will make a difference. Hang in there!

This vote in Wisconsin is going to set the tone for all the country. If Scott wins then the Right will just double down. If Barrett wins then hopefully it will make the Left double down. Whatever happens it will dictate the course of action that we'll take from Tuesday on. That's how important I think this election is.

that he's still shilling for the ruling class. After all, they've been very, very good to him.

a lot more Liberal than Clinton though.

Then he was swept out of office 2 years later by Frank White riding on Reagan's coattails, and, according to the Arkansas Times, Clinton apparently took that to mean he himself was being "too liberal". So when he defeated Frank White in '82, he set out on a somewhat different course.

I am tired of this "best Republican President" meme.

Finishing off the Great Society and preparing the New Deal for demolition were very Democratic things to accomplish.

came to his taste in VPs

I don't know that much about his administration and lived through Clinton's.

my understanding is that historians now consider Eisenhower's presidency to have been fairly accomplished. Please note this is something of a revisionist view, as for a long time Ike's presidency was seen as stodgy and overshadowed by the youthful dynamism of JFK's presidency.

Off-hand, I can think of a couple signal accomplishments of Ike:

The armistice in the Korean War
The interstate system

What signal accomplishment can one point to during the Clinton years? Welfare reform? NAFTA?

I'm not an Americanist (my background is modern European history), so I'll defer to the experts in American History and Historiography who frequent DU as to specifics on this new-found appreciation for Eisenhower and his presidency.

I've never understood the Korean war at all. As always, I've got/had relatives that were in it and have many stories, including a couple about Big Mac going a bit nutty at that time. Of course, his farewell speech warning

Did you know that they built the highways specifically to move an army around the nation? Everything from the depth of the roadbeds, width, grade and angle of curves/turns was determined by what it takes to handle the transport of a (1950's) main battle tank.

earning every penny of her 300,000 im sure.

Democratic party behind 50 years

He's a Capitolist who unfortunately has done the aw shucks routine so many times people believe what he says.

And I'm afraid President Obama is also at heart more Capitolist than Democratic.

We need a jobs program NOW-By executive order.


We have done it before -we can do it again as the old song goes.

WPA &CCC for the younger folk who need a how to guide.

"sterling" in May.

And across the aisle they treat anything Clinton says with contempt so him praising Romney plays with the RW base about the way it would if say, Michael Moore came out and endorsed Romney based on Romney-care. It short circuits their minds.

Who usually decide elections. They`re the ones the latest Obama ads were aimed at, and they`re the ones who might be swayed by the fact that a Democratic ex-president claimed otherwise. It was, not a slap in Obama`s face, more like a kick to the groin. Inexcusable and incredibly low, as someone else said above: Disgusting.

I will be real curious to see how this plays out over at the site that shall not be mentioned -- a Clinton Romney lovefest!

I now think this may provoke bi-partisan disgust for Romney and Clinton.

and I would be curious to take another look at Gore 2000 and see why they didn't want Clinton campaigning with Gore. Of course at the time they said it was Monica but Hillary destroyed a post-9/11 Giuliani 2 years later in the Senate race. Also there has been talk of replacing Biden with Hillary and the Clintons could be pressuring team Obama to re-arrange the line-up going into November. In other words, Bill may be signaling with this betrayal that he can spoil things if the Clintons aren't made an even bigger part of the 2nd Obama administration -- meaning VP so that Hil can top the ticket in 2016.

Giuliani was politically dead when he told the media he was getting a divorce before telling his wife. It was a scandal headline a day for months - even in the RW tabloid! He then opted not to run due to being diagnosed with Prostate cancer. Hillary ran against Lazio.

I would hope the Clintons would not be so sinister as to essentially blackmail Obama. That is a pretty damning charge.

Maybe Gore did not like things like Clinton having a big exclusive interview on how he found forgiveness for his affair the weekend before the convention - because this was exactly what Gore wanted the country focused on. As an encore, in late June 2004, he put out his memoir, where most of the many interviews started with his "because I could answer" of why the Monica affair. Just what Kerry wanted - especially when he added additional injury by saying those - like our nominee!- questioning the war or how Bush was fighting it was wrong.

Clinton is best campaigning for Bill Clinton - even for Hillary he was not that good.

saved me some research. I would have sworn it was after Rudy was mayor that he ran for senate. I loved that race because the more they saw of Rudy upstate, the lower his number went. And then he made an excuse and bowed out to avoid the stomping.

I hope it is not leverage also and the Gore and Kerry interruptions make it seem like BC just gets attention starved when the Presidential race does not involve him. Politically he does best when under attack perhaps.

In 2004, someone spoke of how Clinton was a moth drawn to the limelight - and he was interesting enough to the media to take in all the oxygen. In 2004, I had thought more negative reasons - that Kerry was too much of a liberal to be in the Clinton wing of the party and Clinton might have wanted him to lose and that with Gore, it might have been resenting that his time as the leader was nearly over. The reason I believe your reason is that he was pretty bad in Hillary's campaign.

I suspect that we have to take the good with the bad - he is a very talented politician who can be very useful, but he will always consider Bill Clinton to the exclusion of almost anything else.

That would also be incredibly low, but I wouldn`t put it past him. However, the VP doesn`t necessarily have to be the head of the next ticket. There could be a primary fight between Hillary and Biden, or some newcomer.

fake '9/11 hero' propaganda. That only worked with people who had never heard of him before, but in NY we knew him well and were never fooled by the lie that he was a hero. We knew, eg, that his refusal to outfit the FD with proper communications equipment probably caused the deaths of hundreds of Fire Fighters that day, they still blame him for that. He was a petty despot who tried to use 9/11 to extend his term as Mayor beyond the legal limit, and NYers were not having any of it.

He also thought he could use the phony 'hero' claim to win a Senate seat, and found out again, that NYers knew him for what he was, a washed up politician with about 25% approval rating before 9/11, hated by so many for his petty, dictatorship administration, his hatred for the poor etc.

Most NYers were appalled that the rest of the country actually bought the 'America's Mayor' nonsense. He failed to protect his city, always brushing off warnings of an attack, trying to bring MONEY to the city, and claiming it was the 'safest city in the world' when he had been warned over and over again that it was not. And most NYers knew that to be false.

He should have been dragged before Congress to answer for his incompetence but the Bush gang turned him into a 'hero' along with his criminal Police Chief, who at least was finally exposed for the fake that he was.

Giuliani never had a chance of winning anything in NY after his behavior as Mayor, and his treatment of his wife and the FD, bigotry, treatment of the poor among many, many other things. But he was hoping NYers would forget everything and fall for the 'hero' snow job the Bush administration perpetrated on the public.

I predicted he would run for President, always an opportunist, and hoped he would as that was the ONLY way the rest of the country would get to see him for what he really was, and they did.

He was deflating and infuriating on CNN last night.

He was brilliant in Milwaukee campaigning against Walker.

That's Clinton in a nutshell.

and that is his and the Democratic's party problem. Ego as large as multiuniverses

Corey Booker and Deval Patrick too. They may disagree with tenets of the Obama campaign, but they are not entitled to step on it. They are assumed to be surrogates, but they are self-serving and almost certainly not terribly concerned about how they might be affecting the campaign. Bubba wants control of the party again. Putting Debbie WS in as chair of the DNC puts the party back in Clinton hands in 2016. I'd love to know how/if a bargain was stuck. Whatever. We have bigger fish to fry than trying to figure out what's up with either or both Clintons at any given time.

outspoken. I don't believe for a moment that they both didn't calculate this stunt.

They secretly want Obama to lose. It's just now becoming most apparent.

And Holder? He is deliberately not acting to stop voter suppression. Another Clintonista.

I don't trust him or his wife. Never did!

When four surrogates (Clinton, Deval, Booker & Rendell) tag-team sucker punch the main core of your argument in the campaign, best check your shoes because something really stinks.

It's his nature

President Clinton came to help out those of us who are trying to oust someone really horrible in the governor's seat in Wisconsin and we really appreciate his generosity on our behalf. He is a generous man by nature.

(((HUG)))

Without harming everyone else in the other 49 states. And arguably you folks as well. You may end up trading a bad governor for a bad president.

If the Big Dog can't help you campaign against a terrible Republican governor in one state without singing the praises of a terrible Republican presidential candidate at the same time -- one who would make life miserable in all 50 states, not just one -- then he should just stay home.

Kapiche?

I hardly think a single sentence from Clinton is going to help elect Romney in this state by anyone who wasn't already planning to vote for him.

the direction your political thinking is headed as of late....

And they should be ignored as a matter of course.

It's not just freeper types who think this. They also felt a need to differentiate the anti Romney from anti-capitalism/private equity and they got in trouble for it.

I heard a wealthy person say that it annoyed her that people were so focused on their "lack." This is a person who is a die hard Democrat. She and her husband donate to liberal causes and Democrats.
For some people voting for Democrats is about charity. It's despicable, but we do need their donations and votes.
A lot of us are very angry. The anger from our party representatives can only go so far. If we aren't careful the rhetoric will be interpreted as calls for "revolution." We will lose if republicans can present themselves as "safety" vs. revolution.
The arguments here regarding some of the OWS actions and idea of general strikes should be instructive.

The story about the "angry black man" who is Obama is now being pushed in a book. They are looking at a single quote "I experimented with black anger" and running with it.

Those of us who post here, participate in OWS or even local party politics are unusually invested in politics. Sadly, most people just show up and vote with a handful of arguments and ads in mind. Campaigns keep that in mind or lose.

It's always unlikely that a single speech will be decisive in an election, but Bill Clinton's appearance at a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, rally for Tom Barrett, the city's mayor and the Democratic challenger to Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's recall election, definitely seems like it will provide Barrett a boost in the last days of this close race. The rally is reported to have been well attended, but most crucially, coming on the heels of a debate in which Walker seemed newly defensive, Clinton's speech adds Barrett's (perceived) momentum and provides a widely reported frame for what's at stake in this election.
Clinton focused on this election as an opportunity to move away from Walker's divide and conquer strategy, saying:

For 100 years now, people have looked to Wisconsin from all over this country to see a place of small towns and vibrant cities, ... to see a place where there were vigorous political debates, closely held elections and then people got together and figured out what the heck to do. And now, they look at Wisconsin and they see America’s battleground between people who want to work together to solve problems and people that want to divide and conquer.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/01/1096574/-Bill-Clinton-calls-on-Wisconsin-voters-to-reject-Scott-Walker-s-divide-and-conquer

He was the most visible Democrat for many years, and I don't think Obama has managed to get out of his shadow yet. Maybe Obama will make more of a mark in a second term, if he is able to win one.

Clinton is fast becoming a footnote. He was the most visible democrat, being the most recent elected president.

Until Obama won his election. Now Clinton is Coolidge to his Hoover, Ford to his Reagan. Clinton is now a bystander. A vocal, potentially helpful or harmful one, sure. But whether or not Obama wins another term, Obama will be the one people remember in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years.

I think that is what is getting under Clinton's craw. Jealousy. He is quite capable of massive jealousy and would loathe to be renamed Little Dog compared to Obama.

yeh, Obama will be the one remembered, for sure.

all those things that made everyone go whoa... where did that come from. Self absorbed and very very rich. I don't think it will matter in the end. I think the President will come over all of these people like a huge tank

One thing we should have learned about the Repugs ,Corporatists, RW Repug and MIC fanatics.... Always look carefully when they make a huge fuss about something. There's always something different going on that they are trying to cover up. We are often pointed in the opposite direction by the Mainstream Corporate Media than where we should be looking for the real information.

And many of us Dems got so caught up in defending Clinton because the RW'ers were so crazy and agressive in going after both Clintons that we weren't really noticing what was going on behind the scenes. We got NAFTA at the beginning but it was followed with Vince Foster and wild stories about Hillary...then in second term crazy Newt along with "Monica Gate Witch Hunt" and then we got the "Welfare Reform Act, Commodities Futures Reform Act and repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I've never understood how the Clintons put up with all of that plus the Starr Investigation and seem to have not had it make them work harder to push reforms. Instead they've both done very well and not suffered psychic damage from any of it.

nt

Bill is paid back for repealing Glass-Stegall and for saying the message that you mentioned.

has always been best friend to certain notorious hated republicans. Ryan the genius math guy is one of them. As a democrat look at what he did to welfarerolls, yeah he screwed over more people than all the rethugs put together. He's a buzz kill for any democrat running for office. If I was running I shy away from him like Willard to "W"...

To have not one, not two, but four surrogates praising Bain despite all the fallouts that keep occurring!?

It seems like they're trying to neuter this subject and go back to the usual, safe, political slap fights on social issues. I expect the talk about predatory private equity practices was making some deep pockets on Wall Street angry.

I'm not happy about what Clinton said, but Obama isn't going to win based on what Romney's done.

We like talking about it because we're political junkies, but for most voters it's going to be about their judgement of Obama's record

And I don't believe for a moment that he was just freestyling here, either-- especially after that Corey Booker fiasco.

It seems to me like our political leadership would like to move on from this whole 'predatory 1%er' narrative if they can. Maybe it's because they want money from Wall Street and it was pissing them off, or maybe it's because the issue resonated more strongly with voters than they expected, and they don't want to end up in a position where voters expect them to actually do something about it.

took up to stretch their audience to siphon away the FAUX/CNN Viewers.

But, I do believe that the 99%'ers Movement is starting to scare the shit out of both parties.

After all they both have always appealed to and tried to manipulate the "little people" of America.

You know...us "working stiffs." Now there are these THREATS...sheesh! like those Scum who tore the country apart in the late 60's and early 70's. Anyone remember the History Channel talking about those scum drug dealling .rowdy Hippies~

There are vast interest groups who are now so invested in both parties that this would be UNTHINKABLE!

So...there's probably that...and that something MORE might be expected of them sends them off into their legislative "Hidy Holes" to concoct NEW RULES for HOUSE AND SENATE and NEW DISTRACTIONS.

We already have possible WAR WITH IRAN/SYRIA. There will be more distractions. BUT...the Biggest is in the AMERICAN PEOPLE's POCKET BOOKS with their Shenanigans that is killing us as a country.

They don't see it because THEY ARE...NOW...the 1%! It makes a difference in your thinking when you can have Private Jets and Security all around you...and you can meet with "your own kind" over FANCY MEALS and GO ALL AROUND THE WORLD bringing HUMANTARIAN RELIEF from HEDGE FUNDS AND THE LIKE and Spending it like drunken sailors on pillaging the suffering.

But, it IS WHAT IT IS...and will go on and on...UNTIL? UNTIL??

but you wouldn't want it to actually lead to anything...

"stellar" politician...probably one of the greatest!!!

He knew what the fuck he was saying today, just as he knew damn well what he was saying and doing in 2007 and 2008 with his race baiting bullshit during the primaries!

Why liberals continue to embrace Bill Clinton is fucking beyond me! You have the "top dog" Democrat dumping on the single most important and compelling argument that President Obama and the Democrats have for defeating Mitt Romney.

BILL CLINTON DID THIS DELIBERATELY!!

Yeah, I said it! This was DELIBERATE!!!

so has Hillary as SOS.

Clinton has made millions and more and gives speeches pulling in big numbers about he and George Bush's work in Haiti and their other humanitarian efforts all over the world that have been aided by Hillary's position and Dem President Obama.

There's NO WAY they want to bite off the hand that feeds them, I would think.

Why do you think this would work for Clinton? Would Romney be better for the Clintons than Obama? If so, How?

a disasterous President Romney term would make the perfect set up for a Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2016. If Obama wins another term, there's a chance that if Hillary wanted to run, she'd have to defend Obama's record and run against Jeb. Not as easy a win as running against a disasterous Romney (because we do all know he would be disasterous).

along in years and they've had their power and been benefiting from it.

I don't believe either of them would want the "day to day" that goes along with being President of USA in these turbulent times.

But...they do love the "Power Behind the Throne"....so, I expect them to PICK the Next Team for the rest of us. And the election season goes on the minute that Obama is Re-Elected the Power Brokers "behind scenes" start their press releases and work with the Cable Group and NPR and elsewhere to ramp it all up again and we have another eight years going where we hear from the same folks we've heard from...but, with a few "New Folks" thrown in like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Tom Harmann, Steward and Colbert and the other Usuals....and it will be the same.

WHIP it UP! Another generation will fall for the same old crap we've been falling for for Decades and THE GAME BEGINS AGAIN.

I wish I could be more hopeful.

that, except perhaps his favorite collaborator Newt Gingrich.

Many people think welfare still exists, until they need it, then they find out it is now a temporary 24 month at $375/mo stipend paid to those that work 40 hours a week slave labor, then they get that it's dead.

Or hear on MSM because it is all too often wrong. That is again the case with Bill Clinton's comments. Here are his actual words.

“There’s no question that, in terms of getting up, going to the office, and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who’s been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.”

"But he shouldn't be elected, because he is wrong on the economy and all these other issues.

Also see my response below that contains links to quotes.

Those are significant. Do you have a link?

The first quote can be found in this link. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/bill-clinton-mitt-romney-a-sterling-resume-article-1.1088300

The second quote can be found in this link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014134096

That was in using the adjective "sterling" to describe Romney's record.

If his business record is "sterling", then that would contradict what the Obama campaign has been saying about him being a job destroyer, not a job creator.

I think the ties to equity capital has some folks in the Democratic Party worshiping two gods. You cannot be a Party that represents the working people of this country and still support those in the private equity business. Choose your side.

Made it too easy to use in an out of context manner. He was focusing too much on the framing and not enough on the word choice and ended up with an unforced error.

Cal Ripken had a sterling career but he was not a job creator so I don't see the close linkage. The nature of the private equity business is to make money off of other peoples money so jobs are not part of the business equation. But your point is taken about choosing sides. We went through this a generation ago with tobacco companies -- legal businesses doing offensive work.

The media is dealing with Romney's background in terms of Private Equity, not vulture capitalism. People will hear private equity and know that's where their pension money or 401k money is invested and see that as an attack on them. People also realize that private equity is a major source of investment capital that creates jobs and will not understand why Obama would want to attack that. Nobody is going to bother differentiating a venture capitalist from a vulture capitalist.

The term "vulture" might sound bad, but a vulture capitalist buys troubled companies with the intent of turning them into a profitable business, not running them further into the ground. If he is not successful, he will most likely lose money, perhaps a lot of money. In many cases, the company purchased would have gone under anyway costing everyone their jobs. If the vulure is successful, some jobs will be saved, even if some are lost and some benefits reduced. I don't see a problem with that - would it be better if the company in question just went out of business?

I don't see how a fund can make money by buying a profitable company and then bankrupting it and I doubt most voters would see it either. One of the most important consideration in a fund's acquisition of an asset is its terminal value (i.e. the value when they sell it) and a bankrupt company would be worthless. It would illogical for a fund to bankrupt a good company and that is something an average voter can easily understand. I think you run the risk of being seen as intellectually dishonest if you try to paint a different picture.

footage to last until at least October.

DOMA supporter, NAFTA, telecomm dereg, welfare "reform"
Bill just shut up and fade away please.
I supported Obama because he was running against your wife.

has always been Bill.

..in the Wisconsin race. I had not seen at all.

Instead, the story in the media was about Bill Clinton's "sterling" remark. After seeing his very effective comments in support of Barrett, I can see why the media would prefer to make the story about the "sterling" comment, rather than the anti-Walker comments that Clinton made so effectively. The media created a story to keep from showing the comments from Bill Clinton. I, along with others, may have been played by the media on this story?

If Clinton's comments had been the story, instead of his "support" for Romney, it would have been a favorable turn for Barrett, in my opinion.