Bill Clinton's attack on Obama and how it has changed my whole

view of this election.

Up until now, I planned to vote for Edwards in the NH Primary and whoever the Dems nominated in the General. Now I hear Bill C. on Charlie Rose attacking Obama for inexperience and I come to the conclusion that these folks are not nearly as committed to getting a Democrat into the Presidency as I am.

First, is Bill speaking only for himself? I doubt it. Anyone who thinks Hillary did not sanction this attack must have just fallen off the turnip truck.
Second, what does this attack really do? It doesn't attack Obama on his record or his platform, it really attacks him personally, raises experience...something Bill Clinton didn't have when her ran. It gives the Repubs ammunition, something the Dems don't need to be providing to the Repubs.
This election is so important that I just wonder whether the Clintons have completely lost sight of the stakes and that winning at any cost is their goal...not preserving what is left of our sad country.

There is a way to attack your opponent and then there is a way to destroy any chance your party has to win.

To be honest, I'm wondering if this is going to get so disgusting that I end up sitting out the General...a horrible thought, one I never thought I'd entertain, but I'm thinking about it and that's not a good sign for our party.

becoming very annoying and this negativity and slamming of other candidates is going to backfire big time. He is doing HRC no favors here.

I thought the Hillary hate and attacks would stop but they haven't. And this place is beginning to reek. All they do is attack Hillary. Obama is no damn angel. But you dont' see the posters, posting one after the other Obama hate vehicles. I guess the real heart and soul has gone and the Hillary haters have taken over. It is really sad I used to love this place.

outrageous distortions and lies, ya just gotta speak up. None of the other candidates are being given the treatment she is taking. I give her credit for hanging in there, very tough..

shortly before he killed himself.

k&r

I hadnt thought about it that way.

attacks via Bill and others. They're even picking up on Kerry's comments, as they've been discussed here all weekend. She disgusts me. And I used to be Big Dog's biggest fan, but I'm starting to get disgusted with him as well. When Tucker Carlson has to defend people from Hillary, it's getting pretty bad. Bill Clinton knows better than to pull this shit.

Let's not use the spelling that John Kerry, a true patriot uses. I hope John Kerry endorses soon. Me thinks he should endorse Obama.

Bill knows he might very well be historically downsized by him. The first black president ever, someone who can pull votes from independents and white liberals, and who would be governing at a time when the country is ready to move forward on big issues like health care and energy. Not to mention Obama's global impact, which would dwarf that of Clinton...scary stuff for a guy who could only move things incrementally and play defense.

I have never thought of it in that way, but I imagine that Clinton certainly has.
That would allow a far more clear-eyed view of the "accomplishments" of the Clinton presidency. Something that he doesn't want.

Maybe you did just fall off the turnip truck.Bill had been a Governor

for 11 years when he ran. Why do you haters always tell such

blatant lies and mix it in with a shit load of drama?:spank: :nuke: :scared:

And then the mouth breathers follow along:puke:

that the facts get in the way of their righteous anger. And we can't have them pesky facts interrupting the excitement and adrenaline rush of slamming either Bill OR Hill, now, can we?

If the OP thinks Bill was being "slimy" on the Charlie Rose Show, just wait until Obama gets into the General Election. The poor boy won't know what hit him.

More than 80% of dems love and respect Bill Clinton.

That is some tough shit for the haters to swallow

And he was fabulous on Charlie Rose. It is a pleasure to listen to such

intelligence. Yes, I know the haters hate that as well. BooHoo

And Bill didn't assume office with 2 wars raging and our foreign policy in a shambles. It was the economy, stupid! ;)

The Clintons care about nothing but winning and continuing their game. The Obamas or the Edwards would bring dignity back to the White House. I'm sick of the Clintons. And let me add....I'm so glad that I have all of the Hillbots on ignore so I don't have to read their responses to this.

They're in it for powersharing with the Bushes - a nice protective relationship.

Brinkley in April 2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's timely defense of Bush against the left in 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

The Carvilles on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Tonya Harding herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Why was there ever a Bush2 even possible?
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Any version would suit me fine. :hi:

IMO Obama does not have enough national experience to be POTUS. Clinton did not have a lot of experience when he became President but the Cold War was over and we were looking for a peace dividend. So we rolled the dice and got lucky.

Today we are at war and need a President who can take office and run the country from day one. If we were not at peace and living in a bubble, there is no way an inexperience George Bush could have gotten elected or been allowed to steal the election in 2000. Life was good so the Supreme Court rolled the dice for America and we lost.

I do not want to roll the dice in 2008, I want someone to run the country who has a track record that includes Washington, D.C. In order to run the country, the President needs to have first hand knowledge of how things work in Washington and the world. I firmly believe the best way to change any organization is from within.

You are free to roll the dice and I am free to vote for HIllary, but please do not blame the President for pointing out facts that you choose to ignore. In others words disagree if you like but don't join the Chris Matthews hate Bill and Hillary team.

There are others who can take office competently from Day 1. And there are a number of GREATER Democrats than Bushprotecting Bill Clinton, who a President Obama can tap into who are NOT beholden to the Bushes in any way - like Gary Hart, John Kerry and Al Gore.

I'l take Obama and Hart-Gore-Kerry any day over Clinton and Bush-Clinton-Bush.

I would take Obama or Edwards over Hillary any day after what has been coming out from her campaign! Bush's Daddy is too close to them and so are Murdock and the rest of the Corporate piggy banks! :kick:

then, momma needs a new pair of shoes!

Desperation is a pathetic site to see.

even in the senate. Some of us see this in an entirely different light. Personally I feel the same way about Mrs. Clinton becoming president that I did about the war in Iraq. It was bogus and the only people who gained anything from it were the corporations, you know the "new" owners of the country.

She is not in any way reflective of my values and I cannot support her. That is NOT a statement of hate just a strong dislike of having her in the White house for a continuation of 8 more years of the same thing we're just about to be "excavated" from.

If you doubt Obama's ability to lead or serve, vote for someone else.
This Presidential campaign veteran (10 of 'em, not counting this one) knows up from down, and ability from ambition. Barack has plenty of ability, and a sense of history and timing which led him, and me, to the place we are now.

Besides, the "Experience" meme will be neutralized soon. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Iowa is just the beginning.


woot.

One more rethug = at least another generation of a rightie SCOTUS.

As far as the Clintons, I doubt you will see one getting nominated.

And yes, it's just as much about Bill's dynasty as it (would be) Hillary's. Another reason to vote for any Dem by another name.

Then Chris Matthews pointed out that Bill had sent out some people to test the waters ~ and they found too many "bimbo eruptions" for him to run earlier.

Bill Clinton should know why he chose not to run in 1988. Just because someone wrote it in a book does not make it true.

The media whores are doing everything they can to kill Hillary's campaign. If Bill said the sky is blue, they would attack him. Bill Clinton knows we rolled the dice when we voted for him. Hell every election is a roll of the dice. You all need to stop letting the media whores like Chris Matthews tell you how to think. President Clinton is only pointing out the argument repukes can make. God knows everyone is pointing out all the arguments they will make against Hillary.

I am so sick and tired of hearing how unlikeable she is. I donot give a damn how likeable she is, I want a competent President that can restore America. Its time for a woman to lead the American people to our rightful place as the best country in the world. Let's roll the dice and give a sister a chance.

...Bill's "bimbo" problem back then ~ there's no getting around that one!

I wouldn't hold Hillary responsible for Bill's behavior ~ but she really does need to reel him in when it comes to her campaign. Weeks ago I suggested that maybe he should shut his mouth and just carry her bags.

and then the u.s. senate. it IS a gamble. one can choose to accept the gamble or not. how is that an slimy attack. he's siding with his wife. what is so awful about what he said. i don't feel any less of anything toward obama for it. ? How is it any worse than edwards calling HRC a corp. democrat? she might be, she might not be, it's up for us to decide. it doesn't throw her under the bus, same way it doesn't throw obama under any bus.

Or vomit in the voting booth and vote for Romney (who I can support because of his previous support for universal health care in his state). Still, I'd rather not vote for that plastic candidate. I pray my party gets it right, and nominates Edwards or Obama.

:crazy: :freak: :dunce: :boring:

Not saying I'd work for him. But I could see myself voting for him. I think he would be a spectacularly ineffective President that would surely lose in 2012.

Be subtle, to make it more interesting for us.

It's just one of Bill's character traits - to always see and point out the other person's better attributes. It pisses Clinton haters off when he does that about Bush Sr, but I think it's probably to the good most times.

But it was pretty sickening to watch him repeatedly compliment the 'immense political talent' and other assorted inanities about Obama. I don't think Obama's behavior in this primary warrants any respect, let alone what Bill heaped on his undeserving ass.

Clinton pointed out a very real, and important, aspect of Obama's not being anywhere near ready to assume the Presidency in any rational world - his virtually complete lack of experience in federal governance.

I know how much Obama's supporters just HATE that, to the point where they call discussion of relevant experience a "vicious", "vitriolic" "attack" (as opposed to them calling Hillary a "cold-hearted", "evil", "blood-stained" "bitch", which in their own twisted minds is somehow just honest political commentary). There is no balance to fanatical behavior.

Most of us, though, can't think of anything more important and relevant and fair to discuss than Obama's nearly complete lack of experience at either an executive level or in federal governance.

Bill should have just come right out and said what everyone knows: Obama hasn't earned, doesn't deserve and is far too inexperienced to be anywhere near the Presidency of the United States.

:thumbsup:

:toast: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

high school Civics.

in the White House while special prosecutors are breathing down his neck, fer heaven's sake.

If he did and he got caught, then he should have resigned.

But no, we saw Bill smiling and shaking hands with the man who stole the election in 2000.

Bill's legacy is safe, and that's all that ever really seemed to matter.

concerning Bill Clinton

The question was ..Would you be concerned having Bill Clinton back in the WH?

Only 15% had any "concern" 85% were fine with it

So you can take your little fantasies over to freeperland with the rest of your 15 percenters

And please take the stragglers here with you too. Thanks

i still want to slap him across his head for his colossal poor judgment in having the affair, and his selfishness for not resigning.

I'll never forgive him for that. We sure could have used it now.

beating the drums for your spouse? I think that this unrest about Bill is unfounded because naturally he is going to go all out.

I'd muzzle him if I were Hillary ~ "Stuff it honey pie!"

He's alienating other voters with dumbass statements ~ starting with lying about his position on the war. Just reminds people of the Clintons' downside.

Bill is out there working on it. We will see if it shakes out the way

Bill thinks it will. I say yes, but as a Clinton supporter I want the team

to go full throttle. I would be extremely disappointed if she lost and they hadn't

There's a lot I admire in them, but that ain't it ~ makes me cringe to think of him back in the WH when he starts lying.

If you want to know what the man is truly made of, visit

http://mycommitment.org/

...both the good and the bad. That's the problem ~ he's reminding us too much of the bad.

...or those of staffers like Penn ~ it really isn't helping Hillary.

You're busted ! You and Robbin have virtually identical posts. Hah!

Hillary's way of collecting on the 'Monica debt'. Can't say that I blame her but ... my guess is that Bill Clinton would rather be/should be off somewhere doing what he does best - and, that is not being a representative for someone else's ideas or ambitions.

You can almost feel his discomfort in the position every time he make a campaign appearance for her.

Sadly, it could undue his 'legacy'. And, I think he was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century, after FDR.

Am I following this right?

"It doesn't attack Obama on his record or his platform, it really attacks him personally, raises experience..."

But any possible definition of a personal attack in politics, questioning someone's professional experience does not qualify.

That is the quintessential fair, in-bounds, above board, marquis de Queensbury rules political "attack."

He was the senior governor of the country in 1992. Obama's great experience? Oh yeah, a few years in the state senate with a lousy voting record (one of the senators with the most "present" in his record) and a full year in the US senate around the time he decided that he was ready to be president of the USA. Please...........

but i think he should probably keep his mouth shut when it comes to other canidates ;)

wonder why normal ordinary type people can't tell or haven't caught on how that game is being played :shrug:

a candidate's readiness or "experience" is somehow "attacking" them. That's no attack, that's pointing out differences in the two candidates.
Apparently one cannot say anything, anything about Obama without someone saying it's an attack. He doesn't deserve any different treatment than all the other candidates get. And that includes his readiness to be President.

These are dangerous times we live in.:nuke:

you to be President. If I was looking for experience, I'd probably vote for Dodd or Richardson (and Dodd is looking pretty damn good today!). The fact is, Bill Clinton grew in the office because he had the personal and political tools to make something of it. He had good ideas and he implemented them and he had a great gift of communication. What I was trying to get to in this post is that this should be a battle of ideas and we need to wage it is such a way as to leave the ultimate nominee intact so he/she can win in November. That's all I meant.