He's still two steps behind Elizabeth Edwards in the combative spouse division. Personally, I think the spouses of the candidates get way too much attention. That goes for Bill as much as any of the wives.  

Neil

"Ken Starr spent $70 million to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon."

Why would President Clinton think it is a good idea to remind everyone about Ken Starr's investigations? I would think Ken Starr is the last person the Clintons would want to mention.

Well, second to last.

I do feel a little sorry for them. But, damnit, everyone wanted Hillary to run in 2004. Once Gore decided not to run, Democrats were looking for someone--anyone--who they could rally behind. Hillary was the natural choice. But she refused so that she could get re-elected to the Senate and I guess avoid carpetbagging attacks.

When it comes to the presidency, you have to run when people most want you to; otherwise they may move on to someone else.

If this election cycle has taight me anything, it's that Bill and Hill have the exact same personality (Type A control freak), but Bill is just better at hiding it under his skin deep charm.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons pretending that Barack Obama didn't come down on the right side of our war of choice in Iraq, for the right reasons, right from the get-go.  The comments Pres. Clinton points to from 2004 where Obama said he could only conjecture a guess as to what he would have done in make-believe world as opposed to what he did do in the real world were said in the context of Barack Obama trying to defend people like Sen. Clinton who decided to ignore the more experienced opinions of people like Al Gore, Carl Levin, Bob Graham, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, and Ted Kennedy while voting to give this President a blank check to do as he pleased in Iraq.  Moreover, note folks like Sen. Clinton didn't do much complaining when the President decided to cash that check in when we went into Iraq in March 2003.  As for the funding argument, Obama has always said we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting into Iraq.  Just because Obama's voting record in the Senate reflects this understanding that getting out of Iraq will involve more than clicking our heels three times and saying there's no place like home does not mean he has somehow been inconsistent or unclear in his opposition to the war.  The Clinton campaign's comments to the contrary exhibit either a striking ignorance or willingness to deceive.    

As for the wrong, but still overblown, Punjab memo, until Pres. Clinton is willing to go after his wife's campaign for calling Barack Obama a drug dealer because of his adolescent drug use, I sure hope he doesn't expect to get much sympathy on that issue.    

Two points:  First, the press did cover -- intensively and harshly -- the "Punjab" memo.  And Obama APOLOGIZED for the Punjab memo, very promptly and thoroughly.  So that charge by Bill is absurd.

Second, Hillary herself was at the "15 debates" Bill speaks of, and she knows how not to be a potted plant.  She could have easily found a way to respond to his "I opposed the war" statements with the challenge Bill raises.  It's sour grapes for her to complain now, especially because the press did indeed do stories about Bill's chestnut regarding Obama's ambiguous 2004 convention statement (made to protect Kerry and Edwards' -- and Hillary's -- left flank!  That's some loyalty Bill is showing to Obama!).  Obama was aksed about the 2004 statement and he explained that he did not retract his opposition to the war, but rather said that "based on what I had seen and read, I opposed the war, but I did not have access to all the intelligence Sens. Kerry and Edwards had, so it is possible I might have voted the way they did.  We now know that nothing in the intelligence was different from what Obama knew, except for the stuff that Hillary did not read, and that stuff undercut the case for war.  So it is truly impossible to imagine that Obama would have supported the war, since the additional information confirmed his doubts about the case for war!

As for the George Bush comment, that was  made  in July 2004, not long before his keynote address at the  convention, when Obama  was  trying to minimize  the  differences between his own anti-war position and that of  the two candidates who were then making up the  Democratic  ticket.  

I wouldn't have chose those exact words, but given the semantic jujitsu Kerry went through to justify his vote,  it's  hard to blame Obama for having a hard time synchronizing.

A journalist who has time to write a good story should take on the Bill Clinton/Howard Kurtz myth that Obama got a "free ride" from the press.  In truth, I know, since I've been following Obama extremely closely since February of this year, that his coverage has gone through three cycles, typical of any other candidate in similar circumstances.

First:  the admittedly adulatory coverage that came from Obama's being a fresh face entering the fray against a giant in the Democratic party.  

Second, however, and completely ignored by Bill:  Intense scrutiny about whether Obama was living up to the high expectations he set by his own lofty ambitions.  During this long period from about May or June through October, Obama was: "Obambi," who was too afraid to criticize Hillary; the guy who bored Iowans to tears at town hall meetings and could only communicate through 'big' speeches; the guy who was "naive and inexperienced" on foreign policy; the guy who was the beta male at the debates to Hillary's alpha; the guy who was not black enough (memo to Bill Clinton -- did the press ever do a single story on whether Hillary was feminine enough?  I don't think so); the guy who did not live up to his "hope" aspirations because of the Rezko matter, and because he took occasional (indirect) shots at his opponents.  During this same negative period for Obama, it was HILLARY who was receiving adulatory coverage; when she said at one of the debates that she did not want to answer a hypothetical question about how to deal with evidence of a plot against the US being fomented by Al Qaeda in Waziristan, she said "A Presidential candidate cannot always say what they are thinking; they need to hold back for when they are elected."  She rightly got loudly booed for that imperious line,  but the press ignored it, because the narrative in the summer was "Hillary is flawless at debates."

If you pull up the Jon Stewart show on which Obama appeared in late August, it is interesting that Stewart begins the interview by saying, "There is the media narrative that you are inexperienced, and she's deeply experienced and invincible, yet in years of service in elected office you actually have more, unless you count her years as first lady.  And why should that count?  The press assumes it does count."  Obama meekly said, "Well it's hard to change those narratives so I am just going about doing what I am doing, and at some point none of us can predict, the narrative will change."

That long second phase was very long indeed, to the point where the best stories about Obama said, maybe he's just trying to get a VP spot.  

That -- finally --  led to the third phase, where Obama was gaining on Hillary in Iowa after Hillary bumbled a bit in the Philadelphia debate and again in the Des Moines debate.  HIs coverage has been good since then, just as Hillary's coverage was adulatory during Obama's dark "second" period,

Obviously, I'm not doing a comprehensive study; just sketching out what I think such a study would show.  But I'm confident that there is no real case to be made that Obama has been given a free pass.  Indeed, it's entirely possible the reason that there has not been a lot of negative stuff about him is because his few sins have been uncovered (e.g. Rezko) but they are very minor sins indeed.

So Hillary is crying and Bill is pissing and moaning. Anyone sense that they have realized they screwed up a few months ago and need a good scapegoat? (i.e., the press)

Hillary was practically granted the nomination by coronation by the press for months, noting wide and ultimately meaningless differences between her and Obama in national poll results. They kept second guessing Obama's strategy. I distinctly remember an above-the-fold Washington Post headline from October questioning whether Obama's appeal to unity would work among angry partisan Democrats fed up with Republican rule.

Well, it has so far. Hillary gave incredibly evasive and incoherent answers to debate questions, and Obama seized the opportunity. She can't blame anyone but herself. And guess what -- it has nothing to do with her being a woman!

Painful to read. It's like Bill is self-destructing-by-proxy for Hillary.

Or maybe I should say...  It's like Hillary is self-destructing-by-proxy through Bill.

Obama's 2004 comment on the war was actually quite noble.  Having explicitly opposed the invasion from the start (for sensible, pragmatic reasons), he publicly stated -- at a time when the war was already highly unpopular within the Democratic Party -- that although he would have voted against the war had he been in the Senate in 2002, he could not know what he would have done had he seen the same intelligence as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc.  

He knew then that he was going to run for president at some point; it would have been easier to loudly trumpet his own prescience and play to the strong isolationist and pacifist sentiment in the Democratic base. Instead, he decided to deflect criticism of Kerry from the left in the midst of an important political campaign.  Who can fault him for that?  Maybe I'm missing something, but given the circumstances, it strikes me as a humble and selfless thing to say.  And there is certainly nothing inconsistent (as Hillary has also implied) about Obama's votes to fund the war after it had begun.

The others above are exactly right about Obama's comments in 04, he was trying to protect Kerry [ugh], and what is more, Bill knows that full well. He has gone on and on about this like some crazy crank, and I keep thinking, "aren't you supposed to be suave or something?" I do know that people are generally more vehement when defending others than in defense of themselves, but he still sounds nuts. I think he got really really used to the massive love by press and population, bought into this idea that he could do no wrong, and became completely arrogant as a result. He doesn't have to woo anyone anymore; he's Emperor Emeritus.

The Clintons have made the flip-flop argument about Obama's position on the War in Iraq so many times it is beyond time for someone in the media to finally assess the substantive merit of that charge.  It isn't black-and-white, but the charge is pretty weak, and yet no one in the media has reported on that (talk about a free ride).  

Clinton might also ask why so little attention has been paid to his wife's failure to read the Iraqi intelligence estimate for herself, an issue she delicately batted away when it was raised last spring.

You can bet that if she becomes the nominee -- which is still a possibility -- the Republicans will be only too delighted to ask some very tough questions about this.

Amen to all of the above -- especially deldickson0.

That man needs to get laid.

you know that a candidate is in trouble when they take off the gloves, start talkin' some straight shit, and get in deeper trouble for it. Almost all of what BC said was true...but at this point, what does it matter? Obama is clearly the Man of the Moment and there ain't nuthin' that Bill or Hillary can say or do right now to stop that train.

Losing sucks and both HC and BC will have have to decide how they want to go out. Truth telling is only seen as virtuous when you're winning. When you're losing, it comes off as sour grapes.

Bill evidently values capturing the presidency for his wife more than capturing it for his party. Hillary is going to lose the nomination. Bill's venomous comments about the Democratic nominee will then be repeated ad nauseum in Republicans' ads. He still has a responsibility to the party he represents, and he needs to think about something beyond his wife's hurt feelings.

One more time: Obama's 2004 comment on the war was as bold as Ann Coulter coming out against abortion: look where he was in the polls and look at his ultra-left state senate district.

Hillary can console herself with this: come 2011 she might be in the same position as Ted Kennedy was vs. Jimmy Carter -- hopefully this race will give her the experience to avoid Kennedy's hideous campaign.

During the 1992 primary campaign in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton was heard to say to some voters late one evening: "If you stick with me, I'll be with you 'till the last dog dies."  Who knew the last dog would be his wife?

Lymon1,

Hillary should run against Obama in 2012 if he is the President? Are you mad? It is time for you to come clean on you hatred for Obama: did he kick your dog or something?

Whiners never prosper. Apparently the buck don't stop with Hillary.

Anyone else feel like the Clinton-Bush era is over?

Please, someone, put us out of their misery.

tep-

Agreed: Hill's tears and Bill's jeers may have indeed marked the end of the Clinton-Bush era.

But perhaps the best post on this thread (about Bill's fury) belongs to virginiacentrist:

"That man needs to get laid."

Time to hit the links, Bill -- in Ireland: blogs.tnr.com/.../most-creative-explanation-for-hillary-s-troubles.aspx

Which is why, JosephCuomo, Bill never really has wanted Hillary to win the presidency.  

And why he has periodically sabotaged her with clueless (or accidentally on purpose) utterances that pulled the rug out from under her.  Did you watch is "I can't make her tall, can't make her young, can't make her male" utterance two days ago?  Followed by almost saying, "But you should vote for her anyway."  Devastating.

If she somehow takes office in '08, he will be looking at the prospect of 10 years (including the past one) without a bimbo.  (I assume he has been a good boy all through '07.)

By the way, say what you want about, it takes strenght to show your vulnerability, if any male presidential candidate had delivered something akin to her "...it's tough campaigning sometimes (choke-choke)" they would have been laughed down the road and kicked in the rear end besides.  they would get far worse than Muskie got.

lymon1, we can't afford another Jimmy Carter at a time like this.  And you're right, there is the danger that Obama would be a more attractive, but just as feckless version, of JC

ChanRobt-

Nice to be exchanging with you again.

But I think it's very difficult to know what's in Bill Clinton's heart (other than lust, that is).

I do agree, though, that his recent (and publicly recorded) hissy fit hasn't helped his wife. Indeed, as tep suggests, it may have simply signalled that for HRC's presidential aspiriations, the end is near, very near.

But it's difficult to say that Bill did this deliberately. Indeed, it seems more likely that he sees the HRC primary vote (whether in NH or elsewhere) as a referendum on his own presidency. And the loss in Iowa, as well as the anticipated loss today in NH, may translate, in his mind, into a rejection of his own political legacy.

Ergo: the fury.

I agree with your analysis, JosephC.  the run for the nomination and the presidency was inevitably a referendum on BC's legacy.  And, found wanting.  I think if Bill had been able to run in 200, he would have won.  If he ran now, he would not.

Meanwhile, I was not precise enough.  I don't think Bill is purposely sabotaging Hillary.  Or, even "accidentally on purpose".  

I think it's a classic Freduian thing.  He keeps doing saying things supposedly in her defense and on her behalf that are awkward gaffes.  He has hurt her several times in the last ten days.  

This from a man who is supposed to be so deft, a political genius who is supposed to know better.  And, on top of that, he seems to say "I" a lot more than "she".  

Bill Clinton seems massively ambivalent about Hillary's success.  Inasmuch as it might be considered a vote for Bill Clinton's third term, he is for it.  Inasmuch as it will massively cramp his style for a decade-- and not just sexually-- he's gotta conflict of interest here.

ChanRobt-

Thanks for the clarification. It's true that even though he is a brilliant political strategist, Bill C has hurt HRC's chances several times recently.

And maybe you're right that on some subconscious level, he doesn't want her to win.

But I think his ego is too large for this. I think he does want her to win, and win big. For one thing, as I've suggested above, he would see this as a validation of his own presidency, his own political legacy.

As for your other point, the problem you think a Hillary presidency would pose for Bill--that it would "massively cramp his style for a decade"--I'm sorry, Channy, I just don't see this.

If anything, with HRC in the White House, Bill returns to the White House. He becomes much more relevant than he is now, as an ex-President. He becomes co-President. Every utterance of his would take on even more significance than it does now. In short, he'd have more power.

And for Bill C, I think this is irresistible.