In the Interest of "Equal Time"

Monday, July 7, 2008
In the interest of "Equal Time" for the 'tards on the left, am I the only one who thinks Bill Clinton is really being a childish jerkoff in terms of Hillary losing to Barack Obama?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

15 comments:

Random Michelle K said...

Am I missing something? I mean, during the primary he seemed to be doing everything possible to ruin her chances.

John the Scientist said...

No, he wasn't trying to wreck her. She shot herself in the foot by distancing her staff from his both in private and in public. She did not contact big donors / supporters of his in her bid to be seen as independant.

It killed her.

Bill Clinton sees this as a war Hillary lost, rather than one Obama won. And he's probably right. So he's gonig to take some time not to be so bitter.

And I'm not sure you should blame him. This race is going to be a lot closer with Obama than with her as the Dem nominee. I would have crossed party lines for her, because I was impressed by her maturation since HillaryCare. I didn't like her, but I mistrust emotion in politics, and disagree strongly witht he Obama supporters who think you should vote for a candidate you like.

I will not cross lines for Obama, because I agree with his supporters that he is another Kennedy.

I may be alone among the UCF is thinking that Kennedy was probably the worst president since Grant, but if he had lived to run for a second term, I think history would vindicate that opinion.

I'm working on a post about all the reasons I won't vote for Obama. Unfortunately, I'm also working on one about all the reasons I won't vote for McCain. That leaves me with the Libertarians (gag).

As George Hayduke once said, politics is deciding which bucket of buzzard puke to drink from.

Janiece Murphy said...

Michelle, I heard on NPR today that Bill is privately making comments about how Obama will have to "kiss his butt" if he wants Bill's support, in spite of Hillary making some moves towards a unified party.

Classy, dude. Really.

John, I agree with you regarding voting for candidates I "like." I'm not picking my favorite friend, here, I'm selecting the next leader of the last remaining super-power. But character does matter, and while selecting a candidate of character in American politics is like eating at an air banquet, Hillary did not make the cut.

And I won't help McCain load SCOTUS with still MORE conservative judges, so I guess my buzzard puke is named "Obama."

I'm an election judge this year, and I suspect my instructions to the electorate will include, "Hold your nose and pull the lever."

Which makes this year just like every other year, in many ways.

Cindi in CO said...

"Classy, dude. Really."

While I never hated Bill Clinton as President, "classy" isn't exactly a word I would ever use to describe him.

If the RS article I IMd you about is correct, HILLARY'S campaign team did more to undermine her candidacy that HILLARY did herself. For them, it was all about their own egos.

Not so with Obama's team.

Janiece Murphy said...

Cindi, I never thought he sucked, either, although I have to admit I didn't vote for him.

But yeah, not the greatest guy.

Cindi in CO said...

"Cindi, I never thought he sucked, either"

Oh sure, now you're the straight man?

:D

Janiece Murphy said...

Ba-dum-bump!

Eric said...

Worst president since Grant? Even if I were to agree Kennedy was bad (I think overrated, yes; bad, no), I'm a little astonished that anyone would consider him a worse President than Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. But perhaps that's entirely me.

Clinton ran a mess of a campaign in all sorts of ways, and in the end I suspect she alienated as many voters as she appealed to. JTS might have crossed party lines to vote for her, I would have abstained from the presidential election had she been the nominee.

My support for Obama has largely been based on support for a law professor with a history of community activism, a history of successful bipartisanship as a state legislator, and (yes) an ability to inspire. The latter has little-to-nothing to do with liking someone, though I do find Obama likable: we elect a leader for the country every four years, and the ability to inspire others is a component of leadership. Clinton inspired me with mistrust--not what one might look for in a leader. (By way of a totally nerdy SF analogy that I think some UCFers might appreciate: by the end of the primaries, Hilary Clinton was playing Burke to Obama's Ripley, as far as I was concerned.)

I suspect there are two things that explain Bill Clinton's behavior. The first is that I think that he genuinely loves his wife even if he happens to be a pretty shitty husband as most people would reckon it. I don't think he's ever looked at her campaign rationally or as an objective political wonk, and I think he's taken the rejection of his wife (and some of the insults aimed at her) personally. He won't ever really come around to Obama because the public's rejection of his wife was a rejection of him.

The second issue is a riskier hypothesis: there's been speculation that Dick Cheney's behavior was radically altered by his open heart surgery; this is apparently something that's been documented as a common issue in bypass patients. Nobody knows if it has something to do with changes in bloodflow to the brain or is entirely psychological, or if there's even a definite (much less causal) correlation for that matter. Bill Clinton has certainly seemed more aggressive and impatient since his own run-ins with the cardiology teams a year or two ago. Or, again, maybe it's just me. But I'd throw it out there as a possibility.

Childish jerkoff? Yes, but maybe with a reason.

Janiece Murphy said...

Eric, I think he's tarnished his legacy, and I think that's unfortunate.

And yes, I do believe that Dick Cheney fundamentally changed from a half-way decent SecDef to the Insane Clown Posse member that we see today. Was it a result of his surgery? I'm not qualified to comment.

Eric said...

I see your point, tho' to be honest I wasn't a big fan of Clinton's legacy. It wasn't the sex with an intern I minded so much as the way he screwed up healthcare, sold out the gays, and generally seemed to deliver less than what I sort of naively hoped for. (In my defense(?), I was a foolish college student and maybe expected too much(?) from the President Of The United States.) On the other hand, I also have to admit President Bush has been extraordinarily good to the Clinton legacy--he's made Clinton look like one of the best leaders in history. And Clinton's presidency did have its high points every now and again....

Random Michelle K said...

John,

I won't agree or disagree with you about Kennedy, because my interest in history is really skewed, and I'd be arguing from a loosely tied log raft in the middle of a current.

HOWEVER.

When I see comparisons to Obama to Kennedy, two things come to mind. First, they are both incredibly orators capable of inspiring people.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Inspiring Americans to help others seems like a really good use of oratory skills to me. Far better than in a time of tragedy asking people to go out and buy things.

Second, where I think Kennedy and Obama can be compared is that they are attempting to overcome great odds and blind opposition based solely upon what they are (Catholic, black) rather than what they have done.

I don't see much in the way of comparison after that (son of privilege and a political dynasty versus son of a single mother.)

As far as Obama's strengths, I see a man who has walked the walk. In his past I see a man who parallels in some ways my senator. No, not Byrd, Rockefeller. Rockefeller came to WV looking to work in the community as a Vista volunteer. He then saw that there was so much more he could do, and took the steps from there to affect change as best he could.

That history of work in the community, of time spent with individuals and learning their problems parallels for me Rockefeller's path. The difference is that where Rockefeller fell in love with a state and has worked since then to better the state in which he lives and the state he came to love, I see Obama in love with the country, and working hard to better the country.

I hated Bush from the get-go. I always saw him as a fake who was interested on in his own power, and nothing during his presidency has changed that opinion for me.

What I see in Obama is someone who has a true love for his country, and a desire to make things better. And in that desire I see him choosing those to assist him who are strong where he is weak.

I also don't see him as surrounding himself with yes men, something that has damned more politicians than I can even begin to count.

Combine that with a policy plan with which I agree more than disagree and I see a person I can support in this election. Without holding my nose.

As far as Bill, he has/had charisma, and that took him far. Hillary had all Bill's weaknesses, without the charisma he used so effectively. And with that she never had a chance in a general election.

Er... did I natter on too long there? Don't I have some books to read or something?

Steve Buchheit said...

Bill is from the "dog fight" school of politics. He'll need some time to lick his wounds, then he'll come out in the fall to help the cause. But Obama may not want him. Bill appeals to the big donors and the grist mill kinds of politicians (those that get the work done, working with lobbyists, etc, the old network). Obama has intentionally distanced himself from that style of politics. I don't think Bill can change his spots that way. My guess is that there will be a sea change for Obama after the convention. Money might start drying up, and then he'll need the whales and other big money to keep going strong to the election (this is the money he is directly not asking for now).

None of that should be taken as a dissing, I'm still voting for him over Capt. Pander. So far Obama has shown he plays in reality, one of his strengths. When the going becomes a slog through to the general, that's when he'll need the other powerful members of the party to help clear paths. And Obama will do what is necessary to make it to the election.

Eric said...

Well said, Michelle.

Anne C. said...

It seemed that Bill was a bit of a loose cannon during the primaries, which certainly doesn't reflect well on him as a public figure. This recent stuff is just more of the same. I think he was looking forward to another Clinton presidency (as was Hillary), and forgot that there was a long stretch of reality in between now and her acceptance speech. In fact, one could say that a similar assumption of success is what got us into Iraq.
Personally, I found Hillary's rampant ambition to be a turn off, and I think Bill's rampant ambition and loose tongue, how ever well intentioned, brought attention to their combined "We will rule you" impression. Also, I'm sure she found it an uphill battle to be (essentially) the encumbant during a time when people want change.

I'm sure I'll dislike both candidates by the time the mudslinging and positioning is over (election day).

Janiece Murphy said...

Anne, you make me laugh. I'm sure I'll be sick of them both, too, but you're so matter of fact about it. Hee!