Daily Kos

Bill Clinton Seeks Third Presidential Term (and Loophole to 22nd Amendment)

Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:41:25 AM PDT

Bill refuses to get off the stage:

Dubbed the "Billification" of Sen. Clinton's campaign by some insiders, Mr. Clinton has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks. He has been pushing for harder and sharper attacks on Sen. Obama. While she has jabbed her opponent over his "elitist" tone and controversial statements by his former pastor, Mr. Clinton delivers his own slams on the stump, calling Obama ads misleading.

The former president says he's in uncharted territory. "Being the spouse is more difficult than when I was the candidate," he says in a brief interview. "When you're running, you're out there driving every day. But when you're the spouse, you feel more protective. It's much harder."

Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife's drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: "We're not quitters."

On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: "We've got to take him on every time." At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher.

Mr. Clinton also told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances. "Look at this schedule -- you've got me down for four events," he said the week before Pennsylvania's primary, according to one operative. "Give me six, eight a day. Get me to the suburbs where I can make a difference."

Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee, but a small part of me wishes she would have won and then become President to see her and Bill fight for the microphone to answer those questions shouted out to "President Clinton."  

  • ::

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, President, Democratic Primary (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 446 comments

  •  there will be blood (14+ / 0-)

    t

    o see her and Bill fight for the microphone to answer those questions shouted out to "President Clinton."

    He'll drink her milkshake!

    We drew our heavy revolvers (suddenly in the dream there were revolvers) and exultantly killed the gods. -- Jorge Luis Borges, Ragnarok

    by Hobbitfoot on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:43:44 AM PDT

    •  The worst thing about Hillary Clinton losing (35+ / 0-)

      the nomination is that we'll be denied the chance to be ruled by two families for three decades.  Where is everyone's sense of loyalty and tradition?  

      Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

      by ShadowSD on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:50:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you mean royalty and tradition? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ShadowSD

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  end of the day (0+ / 0-)

        Is there anyone in the world--outside Osama--that doesn't wish that Bill Clinton had two more terms as president?  The Bush's destroy--Bill rebuilds.  That said, Hillary ain't no Bill.  Too bad.

      •  Like Greece.... (5+ / 0-)

        Papandreau and Karamanlis.

        I went to Edwards and then Obama because of the sickening thought of "ascendant" family rule in America.

        It is one thing to be related to several former Presidents like Roosevelt and yes, I think Bush too.  But when it become blood/family ascension then something in America is broken.

        Today, 7/2/08, 4113 Americans, and untold Iraqis are dead, tens of thousands more maimed. Bush lied, how soon before your family pays the price for that?

        by boilerman10 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton dynasty? I would love it! I'm not afraid (0+ / 0-)

        because there have only been 2 Democratic presidents in my 40 year lifetime (discounting the tail-end of LBJ's presidency).

        After Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, and Clinton dynasty means there's at least a DEMOCRAT in the White House!

        I'll support whomever the Dem nominee is in November, but I don't fear a Clinton dynasty. All I fear another Republican in the White House, as I've seen over and over except the reprieve Clinton brought in the 1990s.  Carter's term was so disastrous for Democrats, it's hard to think of that period as a reprieve.

        •  The last line of the post you're replying to, (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Alexander G Rubio

          that I ultimately decided to omit right before posting, went like this "You OWE Bill Clinton for being the only Democrat in the White House for the last thirty years"

          I never thought my sarcasm would be manifested literally.

          Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

          by ShadowSD on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Serving Shadow Bitterman, table for one.... (0+ / 0-)

            You're right that no one owes the Clintons anything.  However, there are people who appreciated having a Democrat in the White House for a change and remember President Clinton's tenure fondly.

            It's also true that there's no logical reason to disqualify someone automatically just because a relative previously held the office--despite what a disaster the underqualified Bush, Jr turned out to be.  

            There's no such disqualifying amendment (and we know the 22nd Amendment was put in place by bitter GOP'ers after FDR's 4 terms, now don't we? ;-)  

            Your fear is unfounded.

            •  Sorry, wrong (0+ / 0-)

              Read for yourself: http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

              by ShadowSD on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:00:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No nostalgia for the nineties.... (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              ShadowSD

              there's no logical reason to disqualify someone automatically just because a relative previously held the office

              It is the appearance of impropriety that is important to avoid. This is the measuring stick for most ethical standards, isn't it? People aren't stupid, although they may be shallow and myopic. Hillary doesn't deserve to be president because her husband is fondly remembered by a large percentage of people who have been traumatized by eight years of Bush Cheney.

            •  Let me add a couple more things (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Alexander G Rubio

              Since you brought him up, FDR was an example of how a multi-term President could be a blessing.  However, instead of thinking only about the benefits of such a system, Americans also contemplated how such a precedent could be hijacked in the future by those with less honorable intentions.  Indeed, humanity and history teaches us that such things are over time inevitable, and our Constitution itelf is a testament to how many careful rules and balances must be in place to prevent a potential power grab by SOMEONE at SOME POINT; the further amendments to our Constitution are further testament to that fact.  None of those concerns came out of fear, they came out of wisdom.  

              A further amendment to prevent a two family monopoly like the one we have experienced would not curtail freedom any more than the two term limitation that came as a result of FDR, but is equally important in preventing a potential power grab of our government in the future; the possibility, however small it may seem, is unacceptable, if we are to adhere to the standard the Constitution's framers agonized over to make everything as airtight as they could at the time.  

              Lastly, I don't get your bitter shot; if you're trying to imply that I'm elitist, I should inform you that I'm a metal guitarist in a band whose one child household makes a combined income in the 30's - not exactly your profile of a latte sipping snob.  I know the Clintons and McCains like to stand behind their tens of millions of dollars and call people with a fraction of that wealth "elitist", but really, it's nothing to emulate.  I mean, I guess I appreciate the implication in such a statement that my posts are eloquently written, but if we want to label all intelligence elitism, we end up with Presidents like Bush; let's leave this line of attack to the Republicans, please.

              Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

              by ShadowSD on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:32:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I retract the bitter joke, it was just a joke (0+ / 0-)

                Your points are well thought out, but I think misapplied here.

                A further amendment to prevent a two family monopoly like the one we have experienced...

                But we haven't experienced a two family monopoly.  We had a single two-term Democrat (the first to win 2 elections since FDR) and 12 years of a GOP father/son combo wrapped around it.  Needless to say, I think the current Bush has ended any contemplation of a further Bush "dynasty".

                I would submit to you that the Bush's are beneficiaries of Reagan nostalgia, and you might view their terms as part of a Reagan dynasty.

                Democrats have never been as cohesive as Republicans in my lifetime, and President Clinton's wife is not going to win the nomination even though he was the most effective Democratic president in over 40 years.

                I think your concerns about a dynasty are unfounded.  The fact that both Clintons now get pounded on this progressive website as vigorously as they get pounded by Sean Hannity and Ruch Limbaugh is a testament to the fact that the nation get "fatigued" easily.  

                Hillary Clinton is unable to even win her own party's nomination despite the advantages of a former president husband (who started out, anyway) so popular within the Democratic party. I think that kind of proves my point.  The longer one stays in politics, the more toxic one typically gets politically, especially Democrats.  I think Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and John Kerry might agree. Democrats revolt against yesterday's Democratic hero much faster than Republicans do against their own heros.  Reagan-worship has only grown among Republicans since the days of the Iran-contra scandal.  

                •  I agree with that last point (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dogtracks, Zebras

                  Thanks for the retraction, I may have unintentionally taken a snotty tone with you initially so that was partially my fault, too; I've been arguing with some wingers on politico lately, and I may have been too much in that bomb throwing mindset when I replied to your post.  We're all on the same side here, and plus, we know who our nominee is going to be, so there's no reason for real discord.

                  That said, I think the Obama campaign's ability to defeat her was a combination of a brilliant strategy, fortunate timing, the fact that a community organizer/vote-drive organizer was the candidate, and a hundred other factors without which Obama well could have failed; the more you look at how he beat her by exposing her primary strategy's weak spots, the more you realize that any other delegate approach by him would have resulted in failure.  It took the jaws of life to defeat the Clinton campaign with all its institutional advantages, and so I must disagree that shelf life was what primarily did her in; she would have made it despite that factor if Obama hadn't done everything precisely the way he did.

                  But I agree about the way the Bushes have benefitted from Reagan nostalgia; I just can't ignore how unique in American history it is for every American under 50 not to have voted in a Presidential election that didn't result in a Bush or Clinton on the winning ticket.  That's some serious business right there, as far as I'm concerned; there's no comparing that to the Roosevelt cousins or the Adams line, both examples that involved a full generation in between.  When you consider that such a statistic applies to all Americans under 50 - more than half the country - it's not an experience I'd ever want us to repeat.  That's all.

                  Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.

                  by ShadowSD on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I can't help but wonder (0+ / 0-)

        what all of you would be braying if Obama had never entered the race. If Hillary really WAS the best candidate running.

        She isn't, not now. I voted for her in the primary. I will gladly vote for Obama in November.

        But the tone of attack is completely unwarranted here. It's outrageous, ridiculous, Republican, neoconservative in spirit and effect, and Obama doesn't have to do the dirty work you're all doing for him.

        Comparing the Clintons with the Bushes is the most undignified insult somebody could heap. It's beneath anyone but a mouthbreather. I hope the lemming mentality on display in here dissipates eventually, when Obama finally gets the nomination.

        Republicans act like this, people--not progressives!

    •  Strengths and weaknesses ... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dogtracks

      Ambition, drive, relentlessnes ... these are not in themselves despicable.

      What do we expect Bill C. to do? Roll over and play dead?

      Outraged Conservatives: Stop Picking on McCain's Trollop

      by Bronxist on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he's had his 8 years (6+ / 0-)

        What do we expect Bill C. to do? Roll over and play dead?

        Well,  I expect him to take his $100 mil and go away.  I don't feel any obligation to fulfill his fantasies or desires.  Even if I did see the Clinton presidency as a good thing, I would see it as long since a part of the past, and feel it was time for new blood to emerge in our civic life.  That's the baseline expectation, which isn't dependent on any assessment of his current behavior.  

        But when you go on to consider the damage he's doing to the Democratic Party, and particularly the destructive racial divide he's encouraging, it becomes imperative that our #1 National Narcissist be retired.  

        At this point, who can look at anything the Clintons are doing except in terms of monstrous ambition?  Since when is that a good thing for all the rest of us?

    •  you finally made a (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      StrayCat, LogicaLizE

      "there will be blood" reference ok on daily kos.  one out of 8 million.

      The irony is Michelle's story only happens in America, according to its most fervent patriots. Cindy McCain's happens in any country with concentrated wealth.

      by Nulwee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huhuhuh Hobbit said "Milkshake" (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      StrayCat

      At least he's drinking her milkshake...huhuhuhuhuh

      The MSM is propaganda.

      by mmuskratt on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  babe at every christening, bride at every wedding (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      aisling, NMRed, Nimbus

      corpse at every funeral (Th. Roosevelt's daughther Alice talking about her father) - these words apply to Bill!  Anyone seen his negatives lately?!  

    •  Yes, a more likely variation of this.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..would be her strongarming her way to the nomination and being abandoned by progressives and blacks.  Then the fight will be not to lose as badly as Dukakis.

      "A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having." --V

      by moondancing on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The post-Clinton era cannot arrive soon enough (57+ / 0-)

    Bill and Hillary Clinton have become fishbones in the throat of the Democratic Party. Reform of the party cannot begin in earnest until both of them leave the stage--and they show no inclination to do so under their own power.

    John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

    •  I may make this: (19+ / 0-)

      Bill and Hillary Clinton have become the fishbones in the throat of the Democratic Party

      my new sig line. Nice to see you around DTM! I had the misfortune of meeting the real TM the other day, BTW. Couldn't be avoided.

    •  Absolutely. (3+ / 0-)

      The party's done so well for itself since Bill left office.

      The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

      by raatzie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill's sockpuppet ran the party from 2001 to 2005 (21+ / 0-)

        I forgot the fellow's name (he's been on the teevee a lot lately) but under his "leadership" the Democrats achieved the rare and dubious distinction of losing seats in both houses of Congress in an off-year election when the other party held the White House. Of course, it wasn't his fault; he "managed good, but boy did they play bad."

        John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:49:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks to Bill's zipper problem (11+ / 0-)

        the election between Gore and W was far closer than it would otherwise have been, close enough for the Supreme Court to be able to vote twice. Gee, thanks, Bill!

        •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dogtracks

          That was thanks to Gore's decision to distance himself from Bill, instead of embrace him.

          Among other mistakes Gore made.

          What will we blame Bill for next, the Kennedy assassination?

          The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

          by raatzie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:59:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the only person who should have been embracing (3+ / 0-)

            Bill was Hillary. That was the problem, remember?

          •  What the evidence said: (5+ / 0-)

            Clinton Fatigue Undermines Gore Poll Standing

                  Released: April 17, 1999

                  Introduction and Summary

                  Personal image problems and fallout from Clinton administration scandals are contributing to Al Gore's declining favorability ratings and his poor showing in early horse race polls. As the vice president has inched closer to the Democratic presidential nomination, his favorability ratings have fallen and he has slipped further behind GOP frontrunner George W. Bush in the horse race polls.

                  Despite Clinton's strong 62% job approval rating, few Americans wish he could run for a third term. Only 29% of the public would like to see four more years of Clinton; 69% would not.

            Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests

               CNN, From staff and wire reports
               October 24, 2000

               Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.

            More evidence/data here

            Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
            Prosperity, Progress and Peace

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:21:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If Al Gore had acted like (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              raatzie, StrayCat

              Barack Obama with the Rev Wright scandall he would have won hands down instead he waged a campaign of fear of being tainted with a very personal scandall...and threw out all of the good with the personal bad...that is why he did not win by a big enough margin...

              The Al Gore of today would have handled the situation like a Barack Obama and would have changed the game instead of campaigning out of fear.  

              Think about it, isn't it silly that Al Gore who we all know that maritial relationships is squeaky clean would be tainted with a personal indescretion?  But we will never know because Al Gore chose to follow those initial polls instead of fighting like the brave Barack Obama...

              Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

              by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama responded well (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                ImpeachKingBushII

                on the Wright controversy. But, you can't claim that the matter didn't hurt him in PA. I think it did have some fallout.

                "he waged a campaign of fear of being tainted with a very personal scandall...and threw out all of the good with the personal bad..."

                That's a false and specious talking point. Gore ran a campaign of fairness, hope and prosperity:

                Gore's convention speech:

                For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight, millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton.

                (APPLAUSE)

                Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes.

                (APPLAUSE)

                Above all, our success comes from you the people who have worked hard for your families. But let's not forget that a few years ago you were also working hard. But your hard work then, was undone by a government that didn't work, didn't put people first, and wasn't on your side. Together, we changed things to help unleash your potential, and unleash innovation and investment in the private sector, the engine that drives our economic growth. And our progress on the economy is a good chapter in our history.

                (APPLAUSE)

                But now we turn the page and write a new chapter. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. This election is not an award for past performance. I'm not asking you to vote for me on the basis of the economy we have. Tonight I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.

                The fact of te matter is, like Obama came back from whopping leads by HRC in the primary, Gore overcame whopping double digit deficits in the face of a hostile media and hostile Nader factor, to win the popular vote and likely the election as well.

                Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
                Prosperity, Progress and Peace

                by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:48:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You keep pointing to his... (0+ / 0-)

                  convention speach which was his best speach ever...we all know that...but that was too little too late...he had already successfully told the American people that he would be quite a different POTUS than WJC personally and policy wise...one great speach did not change that...he die was already cast for change so people thought well we can go with the stiff guy or the guy from Texas we like...

                  Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                  by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Too little, too late? (2+ / 0-)

                    After that speech Gore took the lead in the election for the first time, and eventually won the popular vote.

                    Gore was out-raised by several tens of millions of dollars, hounded by a malicious press core that ignored the flat-out lies of his opponent, running against someone who positioned himself as a moderate, coming from an administration that had just seen a massive scandal, also had an opponent running to his left, and was dealing with a complacent electorate-most of whom had no clue just how horrible a GWB presidency would be.

                    And the fucking Republicans still had to cheat to win.

                    I'm not one to ignore or disregard Gore's mistakes.  He made plenty of them, and ultimately he's responsible for adapting well and/or dealing.  His failures cost him the election.

                    But can we not pretend that there were no organizational, institutional, and social issues effecting the outcome?

                    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

                    by Sinister Rae on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes he needed to address the issue head... (0+ / 0-)

                      on early in the campaign and move on like Barack Obama did...I agree that Al Gore won but not by enough to prevent the Republicans from stealing the election...and there were plenty of issues outside of Al Gore...but WJC's personal failings were and could have been one of the minor ones...

                      Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                      by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  you're again conflating (0+ / 0-)

                    "he had already successfully told the American people that he would be quite a different POTUS than WJC personally and policy wise"

                    Gore had to point out that he was a different kind of person (because Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, that too in the oval office (an American institution), and lied about it in broad day light to American public. That's pretty bad image for his successor to carry on his shoulders).

                    But, Gore DID NOT say that he was going to radically change on policy (that's where you're conflating): his message was that we should build on the progress made and the prosperity gained and spread to a broader cross-section of American. His message was the perfect one for the times (and set the stage for the populism we've seen from Democrats since then).

                    Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
                    Prosperity, Progress and Peace

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Unfortunately... (0+ / 0-)

                      that message was not clearly delivered to the American people until the convention speach and by that time the American people had already decided that change was going to happen whether we had Bush or Gore which opened up the votes for Bush...

                      Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                      by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you're mistaken. (0+ / 0-)

                        Gore turned double digit deficits he entered the convention with and turned into in a slight lead after it.

                        Convention was about the only time Gore could communicate with the public enmasse directly w/o the media filters.

                        Gore had to overcome FOUR major opponents, Bush (Rove), Nader, Clinton fatigue and the media smears. And he did manage to do just that and win.

                        His comeback is actually mind-boggling (I mean it) given the hostility and circumstances he faced.

                        Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
                        Prosperity, Progress and Peace

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not true... (0+ / 0-)

                          what kind of audiance did Barack Obama get when he did his famous Rev Wright speach...that is the yardstick I am using...greatness of Barack Obama...

                          He got a great audiance.

                          He managed to overcome 3 major opponents...1 minor opponent and himself (after the convention) to narrowly win...

                          The other thing he did wrong was Joe Lieberman which was also a scared move to select a VP who was very pious to counteract the WJC person failings...it was strategic in terms of FL but having a religous jewish person (and I am jewish) hurt him in AR, TN and the midwest where he could have easily let FL go...

                          Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                          by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the Democratic nomination IS the focus of (0+ / 0-)

                            the political world as it has been since well over a year ago. That gives the attention and audience. Even if the nomination race had gone on longer, the fact that this was a GE issue (and not a primary one) means that convention was probably the best time for Gore to address the Clinton scandal matter and he did it quite well, from the excerpts I've posted.

                            Nope, Gore couldn't have given a "Bill Clinton and I" speech out context w/o looking like a total weirdo.

                            "The other thing he did wrong was Joe Lieberman which was also a scared move to select a VP who was very pious to counteract the WJC person failings"

                            I don't think so. Gore chose Lieberman for strategic reasons that includes but goes well beyond FL, IMO.

                            "it was strategic in terms of FL but having a religous jewish person (and I am jewish) hurt him in AR, TN and the midwest where he could have easily let FL go..."

                            The exit poll question didn't show a large biased voting because of Lieberman's religion. It showed a small positive edge:

                            Lieberman Religion Make Him
                            Better V.P.   17 %
                            Worse V.P.   8 %
                            No Effect   72 %

                            Sure, individual states may have played out differently on this aspect, but I don't there's evidence to support that his religion made enough difference adversely for Gore to lose any state on that as the definitive reason.

                            Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
                            Prosperity, Progress and Peace

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:02:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  But your %'s are nationwide... (0+ / 0-)

                              not in the heart of the bible belt where they have never even met a jewish person...in order to substantiate your claim you would need state level polling, nationally it makes little difference but in AR and TN a huge difference...

                              FL has a statisically significantly jewish population that is friendly to a NE Jewish religous person and it did make a huge difference...

                              You are just spinning now about why Al Gore could not have made a great speach without sounding like a wierdo....now you are sounding like a Gore Apologist...

                              Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                              by dvogel001 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:00:43 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  It's not my job (0+ / 0-)

                                to substantiate your claims. You need to show evidence to support claims you're making, eg, please provide real data supporting this claim of your: "but in AR and TN a huge difference..."

                                "You are just spinning now about why Al Gore could not have made a great speach without sounding like a wierdo"

                                Such a speech was inherently complex because Gore needed to keep the support from those that supported Clinton while trying to mitigate damage from others. That's not an easy task. Obama is facing a similar dilemma: he needs HRC's voters in the fall, but he risk alienating them if he goes all out to  knock her out of the race.

                                "now you are sounding like a Gore Apologist..."

                                Naah. I'm just sick of all stupid stuff people want to throw at Gore. AFAIC, Gore inherited whopping double digit deficits and fought back against extremely adverse conditions such as media smearing, nader and naderites attacking him relentlessly to find a way to win (the pop. vote and likely the election). As a teacher, I consider that to be solid effort and performance, and case is closed.

                                Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:
                                Prosperity, Progress and Peace

                                by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:56:08 AM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  I have... (0+ / 0-)

                                  already provided clear evidence of how a transformational speach makes a big difference...you have never acknowledged that Barack Obama did a great job with an equivalent complex situation with a 20 year close relationship with a guy who said and did some really controversial and some would say anti-American stuff.

                                  You have never acknowledged that Al Gore could have made that transformational speach...but was either to scared to do it or incapable at the time

                                  I love Al Gore and I love WJC and we just have different rankings of what the reasons were for Al Gore's narrow win...You believe it was primarily WJC's personal failings I believe it is primarily Al Gore.  Nobody will say that there were not some contributing factors to allowing the Republicans to steal the election...the question is what were the relative effects of the things he did and could have done.  Obviously we can measure the things he did but cannot measure the things he did not do...

                                  Al Gore is a great man and I would support him again for POTUS if he ran.  He has grown and learned so much in the last 7 years.

                                  Here is some polling on the jewish issue for you to ponder...

                                  http://www.latimes.com/...

                                  • Among self-identified independents, Mr. A's lead drops from a 43 point lead to a 31 point lead (60% of independents said they would vote for Mr. A when they did not know he was Jewish, and 17 % planned to vote for Mr. B. When told that Mr. A was a Jew, his support drops to 55% among this group, with Mr. B jumping to 24%)
                                      • Among moderates, Mr. A leads Mr. B by 63% to 22% when they do not know he is Jewish; when told that he is Jewish, Mr. A gets 48% to Mr. B's 30% among this group.

                                  Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

                                  by dvogel001 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:00:59 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

          •  But Bill did (4+ / 0-)

            set the stage for W. to be able to say he would restore dignity to the office of presidency. A lot of people bought into that. It seems like a joke now, but then many like Bush's claim.

          •  Yes, there were numerous mistakes, but you can't (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Cyber Kat

            dismiss that Bill's infidelity gave great firepower for Bush to use against the Democrats. Remember his whole "return respect to the office of the Presidency" theme? What do you think he meant by that?

        •  Yes, Bill was a problem for Gore in 2000... (0+ / 0-)

          but totally putting the blame on Bill is ridiculous. Gore had a litany of political problems in that election, not just Clinton.

          "The only thing I would trust Dick Cheney on is if I had a dead hooker in my hotel room." --Jon Stewart

          by DemBrock on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Bill cost him enough votes to lose (0+ / 0-)

            As did Nader. Bill bears partial responsibility for W.

            •  If some of those votes resembled my family (0+ / 0-)

              and friends in 2000, some voted for Bush as a protest against Bill's VP. I think for some, it was a factor. Maybe it is my personal experience but some of my friends and family who are now supporting Obama ( Bush shocked them back into the  fold) strayed from the Democratic party in the late 90s, disgusted with Bill.

              Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by wishingwell on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  But some aides of Gore (0+ / 0-)

            said Al Gore did have a very frank talk with Clinton after the election where they said Gore was not happy with Bill and let him know that before they left office.

            Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

            by wishingwell on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That was the least of it (6+ / 0-)

          Gore chose Joe fucking Lieberman for his running mate.  Lieberman fellated Cheney in their debate.  That didn't help.  He also pandered to the right in other ways and alienated the most passionate part of our base driving some to Nader and "inspiring" many more to stay home.  It was a trainwreck of a campaign.  He pompously bored everyone to death in his debates ("lock box", sighing, etc.)

          As sour as I feel about Bill these days.  That flop is on Gore.