If you have "no place to go," come here!


Big Orange already noted this, but let me add my tiny mite:

In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not even close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama.

Well, that tells me all I need to know!

Please, I'll vote for any Democrat, but please, please....

NOTE I was going to put a "Village People" album cover up, since Clinton is being so, so Village here, but I just couldn't. Sorry.

No votes yet


leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I could have watched and I didn't. I should have. But I knew it would be too painful.

It isn't that Bill doesn't know how to fight back, he showed that he did when almost no one, but his wife, let it be noted, had his back. And Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, but that was also about their horror at the sewer journamalism that was going on in Washington, then to be spread through-out the land.

It is perfectly appropriate for Bill, the ex-Mr. President. to reach across aisles and streets and even chasms to engage former "enemies" in his post-presidency work.

It is not appropriate for any Democrat who is running to replace Geroge W. Bush.

What is so confounding is how much of all the wrong lessons both Clintons have learned from their experience in the White House. Clinton himself was startled to learn what a mess the economy was in once he took office, the way the debt issues were so much worse than advertised. What the hell does he think the next President is going to find after Bush?

My fear, Hillary will feel that moving forward means not looking back. That was Clinton's attitude in 1993. No interest in Iran-Contra, ready to be all clubby with the Republicans to move America forward. And immediately Bob Dole announces that Clinton's decisive win in the electoral college is compromised by the three-way split of votes, Dole claiming equal power with President Clinton because most of Perot's votes came from Republican-bound voters, an assertion without evidence.

For eight years, Republicans treated Clinton as an illegitimate president.

Within weeks of Clinton taking office, Dole then proceeds, along with the rest of the Republican Party, to hype a meaningless and completely legal attempt to put Democrats in the White House Travel Office, which are appointed, not civil service protected positions, and suddenly a "gate" is added onto Travel by way of proclaiming it to be a major scandal, and the press plays along. That non-story, along with innumerable other phony scandals, is kept alive for the next five years. The Washington press corps soaks it up, and the stage is set for impeachment.

It's always astonishing to me how many liberals/progressives have soaked up those same anti-Clinton lies, and now spew them forth in comment thread after comment thread, expressing actual loathing for both Clintons, using all the rightwing memes to attack them, when there are plenty of reasons to oppose her candidacy on its merits, or the lack thereof, and on what they are saying and doing right now.

Thank-you Lambert, for not being among this group of critics.

All this rotten history is going to come up again if she gets the nomination, and I am beginning to believe that a majority of voters are not going to want to be dragged through that part of the nineties again. And like the press, they are as likely to blame the Clintons than the attacking Republicans.

More and more I've come to think that Hillary Clinton is not electable, and for none of the reasons cited by the press. It has nothing to do with her personality, or her voice, or the way she claps her hands, or even that she is a woman, or that she triangulates, or that she and Bill are ethically challenged, or secretive, which always strikes me as the most bizarre attack; have any two public figures ever been allowed to keep less secrets?

It's that they simply cannot represent the kind of deep change that a majority of Americans long for. Call it too much baggage. Granted, much of the baggage shouldn't be baggage. But nobody ever said that life is fair, and political life these days is even less fair than life is, especially since Republicans got away with impeaching the Clintons, and don't kid yourself, Hillary was being impeached, too. And Republicans did get away with it. (See an upcoming post)

No two people should know that better than Bill and Hillary Clinton, God love 'em. But I fear they don't.