He just summed up his and his wife's political philosophy: passionately embrace only what we are certain is politically attainable.

And here's what else is sad about that whole conversation-- he pretty much admitted that he only got done what the Republicans would agree to. No wonder we have a Democratic leadership that for some reason plays fucking footsies with the Republicans every chance they get. It's what they've been doing since 1994. They're still in the minority EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY!
Oh fuck I am worked up now.

Any of you here who have read my past entries know that I am firmly for Barack Obama and believe that Hillary should drop out of the race.

That said, I think the take on this is a wee bit over the top.

1) Bill is absolutely correct that a law forcing all states to recognize gay marriages performed in MA would create a massive backlash, not only in staunch red states, but possibly in states such as CA, where a majority of the voters passed a law banning gay marriage when it was on the ballot.

2) Accusing the democrats of bowing to the republicans while in a majority situation, and citing 1994 as the year in which they did it, is shading the truth just a tad. The republicans won back the house and senate in the fall of 94, and held them both as long as Clinton was in office, and beyond.

I also didn't see the "snippiness" you mention about Bill toward the end. I though his question was reasonable and should have been answered. It is fine to have staunchly idealistic goals and to work toward achieving them. It is also essential that one remain grounded in practicalities. The old saying is "pick you battles".

Now, having said all that, I think it is ludicrous for anyone to say that it is wrong for states other than MA to be required to recognize gay marriages legally performed in MA, when it is legally required for those same states to recognize heterosexual marriages legally performed in MA and vice versa.

Oh Bill we miss you. Remember the old sax playing Bill? Remember when we use to fight the Right to defend you. BJ? Who cares, keep playing that sax baby! Now you have let us down. We do miss our Bill. It was nice having a slick salesman fight for our side. However it turns out you were just a slick salesman fighting for your side, not ours.
Did you stop playing the sax? Is that why you are so angry. I remember when I cheered when you took Chris Wallace to task for trying to attack you. Now I cheer when I see Obama put you and your wife in your respective places...

We miss you Bill, come back to us...Unfortunately I think you are to far gone. We had some great years didn't we?

-Fan of the old Bill...sax playing and all.
Obama '08

When did President Clinton become such a bitter, pissy old man? What is going on with him? It can't all be due to Hillary's (failing) run, can it?

I feel like I was really duped for 8 years when I completely supported this man. I believed he was different and honestly cared about doing what was right for the country, in spite of not being able to do right in his personal life.

It really is so disheartening to realize that he was just another politician, in it for himself. Pandering to the right and doing everything possible to make sure he looked like President Wonderful to his base. I feel like it was nothing more than a ruse and I am really pissed.

Of course I understand they are all politicians and certain behavior is to be expected in order to get things done within our government. But they don't have to all be fake and manipulating do they? Forgive me if I sound like I was born yesterday. It's just the more I see and hear President Clinton lately, the more distressed I get.

A question to my fellow Obama supporters here: Do you see this happening 4, 8, 12 years down the road with Obama? Do you think he's genuinely different? I mean President Clinton spoke of hope too, back in '91.

Baja they have been bowing to the Republicans since '94. Instead of pushing back- HARD- against every shitty piece of legislation the Republican majority brought up, we've had Democrats that have happily jumped on board. To make matters worse, we have Democrats in the majority now that cave the moment the minority threatens to make trouble. Why? Because the Republicans can convincingly make their case to their constituents on why not allowing gays to marry, not preventing torture, giving huge tax breaks to multi billion dollar profiting companies, and spending billions in Iraq for absolutely nothing is good for America. Ours can't make the case that those things are bad. The Democrats, instead of mobilizing an absolutely ready for action base, go along with whatever the Republicans want. We are actually debating whether or not torture -TORTURE - is ok. I can put my foot down right now and say No. It is not ok. My leadership, however, has to negotiate. Fearing a backlash, it has to pick it's battles. Bullshit. "Fearing the backlash" allows the opposition to set the rules and the agenda.

I, for one, am tired of that kind of bullshit cowardice.

Bill Clinton campaigned for and received the support of gays and lesbians because of what he said he was going to do to advance our cause. Then, when it wasn't politically expedient to do just that, he picked his battles and we weren't a battle he thought he could win. So he threw us under the bus. Just because he hired a bunch of openly gay Americans doesn't score him any extra points.

I could definitely see the snippiness. He was being called on the carpet by a few smart kids that wanted their questions answered and what they got was a Bill Clinton that didn't want how he did things questioned. It was revealed in that moment that, no matter what Hillary Clinton says during the campaign, she only intends to push for those things she knows she can win. These grand pronouncements about ending the war in Iraq, providing comprehensive national healthcare, fixing whatever needs to be fixed with the economy... none of it will be done unless it is politically expedient to do so.
She wont fight, she'll negotiate. Make concessions. Throw people under the bus...

I agree with you, Sammy & KidD. In reading your comments it occurred to me...now you know how we in CT felt when someone we liked & respected for so long in state & federal politics turned out to be the Lieberman-monster in 2004. (The Lamont supporters figured it out pretty early on but those who weren't paying attention voted for him in 2006 and now look what we're stuck with!)
I'm not convinced that Clinton was like this all along; I think something about this race - the seeing of a dream not being fulfilled or the loss of ... whatever was lost - has brought out the worst in both Bill & Hilary, and it's really too bad for them & for the country.

OK, Nano, I understand your rage; really I do. I just would like to hold off a tad more, until we have a complete majority government. We've seen how much good it does for Dems to pass legislation that's actually good for the country - Bush just vetoes it, and the majorities aren't big enough to override. I honestly believe that things will change, once we have full control of both congress and the executive.

Also - Hillary: drop out, already!

I'm a little worked up Baja after that video. I was realizing this morning where it was coming from and Sammy hit it right on the head - I feel utterly duped by this guy now. We thought we had this maverick Democrat finally that was working for us. Maybe he wasn't working directly with them, but he certainly was measuring everything he did against how it would be reacted to by the Republicans.
I just feel like I was taken in and should have seen this by now. Again, I think he showed both their true colors. This would be an excellent time for Barack's campaign to start saying "We're not going to work with a Republican minority, we're going to bring in a stronger Democratic majority and for a change, the Republicans can start working with US."

This might have been said already, but isn't it odd, too, that when giving a speech he wont even say Barack Obama's name?

I guess I really can't get my head around the tactic that we need to play nice with the Republicans until we have the House, the Senate AND the White House. That's clearly not how the Republicans have played it and their playbook has been terribly successful. No, I think the Democrats have to push back at every instance. Force them to vote FOR torture, force Bush to veto funds for the troops, force them to show their true colors at every turn and make THEM the obstructionists in the eyes of the voters. THAT'S a tactic that will work long-term.

Bill Clinton just doesn't stop disappointing me. All his arguments aside, does he REALLY think that aggressively counterattacking these kids in a televised interview is the way to open dialog to young voters? Does he REALLY think the way to bringing young people into the Clinton campaign is to somehow make them look naive or stupid? Good God, man, when did you lose your political sensibilities???!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: