Well, even a hack knows when an ex-president is endangering the dignity of the office.

This country has a few rules, a few traditions, some codes of behavior that apply, if not to any other politician, at least to presidents and former ones.

Bill Clinton has never known how to behave properly.  For all his intelligence and talent, he just wasn't brought up right.  And it shows.

Most presidents grown into the office and understand certain things about it, no matter how humble their origins.  

It is one of Bill Clinton's great failings to be unseemly.  Natural nobility is just something he lacks.

I would see this as two committed Democrats trying to use their access to Bill Clinton to keep him from ripping the party in two.

But James Kirchick just thinks they're hacks. Fantastic insight.

Obama attacked Bill Clinton (ie. "The democrats haven't had any new ideas for fifteen years.").  Clinton isn't only fighting for his wife; he's fighting for his legacy.  

Personally, I think all of this was a strategic ploy by Obama to get Bill more involved in the race so that he can call the Clintons "part of the same old political machine."  Obama's trying to set himself apart.

Just because he claims to be playing a different game doesn't mean he's actually playing a different game.  Politics is politics.  It always will be.

Why doesn't Obama come out and say, "Hey, if Bill Clinton thinks I'm such a serious threat to Hillary, then that makes me feel pretty good about the strength and viability of my candidacy.' I think Bill's overplayed his hand and Obama could easily call his bluff.

But the game is still anyone's to win. Obama's a good poker player; he's probably biding his time until he really needs to play his hand.

Chan,

You're onto something about Bill not knowing how to act.  

One cold January evening in the early days of Bill Clinton's second term, I found myself drinking hot whiskey in the Eire Pub in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood.  There on the wall among the shamrocks and Celtics memorabilia was a photograph of the then current president taken in that very establishment, presumably during his '92 campaign.  He was seated on--not at--the bar with his knees bent up and his feet in front of him, his hands raised over his head and his lips pouting to shape the kind of redneck war whoop that fratboys make after they've chugged a tumblerful of Tequilla.  I was a Clinton fan at the time, but even then I and my drinking partner, another yellow-dog Democrat, were shaking out heads.  "This guy's our PRESIDENT?" we were saying to each other.  "Why does he permit himself to be photographed like that?  He makes himself--and the office--ridiculous."

It was more than a decade ago that I saw that photo in the Eire Pub.  I'd be interested to know whether it's still hanging.  Any Bostonians out there who know the answer?

Looks like Kerry might become Obama's Bill-neutralizer. He sent out a "stop the swiftboating" email this afternoon. Some people think Kerry is a joke, but I think he can debate anyone to a draw.

I feel compelled to point out that a great many of us regard Mr Clinton very highly, despite his overblown affair with Ms Lewinsky and of course, his unwillingness to admit his infidelity.  

Many of us also hold Mr Emanuel and Mr Kennedy in high regard.  

I'm much more likely to be interested in anything Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel or Ted Kennedy has to say than in the bitter and ill-considered sarcasm we sometimes find in this space.  

Some people can be counted upon to express their resentment and hostility to our former president, but aside from a few rabid Republicans, creationists, neocons in denial, and Mr Peretz, who really enjoys this stuff?

Neil  

it is strange to note how much more reserved Bush Papa was in his son's first run for office, even after his son got stomped on in New Hampshire. Clinton should have taken note of it.

Neil, you're a bright man.  I know this from your many posts.  Does not the axiom go that it is the sign of an excellent mind to be able to hold two opposing opinions at the same time.

If you wish to hold Bill Clinton in high regard, that regard is not without foundation.  For starters, he is overall the most talented politician of his generation.

But, that doesn't mean you have to be in denial about his offsetting great weaknesses.  And, I don't just mean not being able to keep percy in his pants.

It is Bill Clinton's lack of comprehension of certain dignities required of the president that got him into so much trouble.  The man simply and frequently seemed and seems unworthy of the presidency.  Despite his intellect, despite his talent, despite his ability.

We have a tradition of presidents who come from humble origins.  And another tradition that they manage to achieve a certain nobility or, at least dignity, that the American people, naive though they may be, expect of the person holding the office.

I hardly think Teddy and Rahm are "hacks". They are both deeply committed to compassionate values. No, the're not perfect, particularly Ted my life-long senator. Rahm seems to be a particularly canny political thinker who understands unless we can win, we can't implement even the vestiges of a progressive(humane) government. I have worked fairly high in state government for Ds and Rs: A hack is someone who does their job minimally, placeing loyalty to the boss(mayor, president, governor, etc.) above service to the public. Hack defines the people who Rove and Gonsalves installed in the Justice Department and frighteningly throughout government, not Emanuel or Kennedy.

If President Clinton chooses to support his wife, vehemently, then more power to him.

ralphnelle,

I got that email too.  Wow.  Kerry doesn't refer to HRC by name, but the implication was crystal clear, and leaving her out of it gave him lattitude to condemn 'Swift Boating' por lo general in the harshest language possible.  I agree that if Kerry--poster boy for Swift Boat victimization--continuous in this line, it could go a long way to shutting down the Clintons' negative attacks.

'continues' not 'continuous'  

uggh

Bukharin  said:

"If President Clinton chooses to support his wife, vehemently, then more power to him."

Amen to that! This whole debate baffles me. While there is clear evidence that Bill is helping HIS wife's winning chances (she has won the two contests in which he was actively engaged in campaigning for her, including pulling a rabbit out the hat in NH),  the clearest evidence that Bill is helping is that the media have now gone on over-drive about Bill's involvement, with their verdict already rendered: Bill is hurting himself, his wife, and the Dem party. However,  when the media's consensus  on  anything  involving Hillary is  Y, you can bet that  the truth is anything but Y. The only  thing that is hurting  Hillary regarding Bill's involvement in her campaign is the media's frenzied rant that he is hurting her,  but that is really their whole purpose, isn't Marty?  Hillary has the biggest gun of them all in her husband, which the media see as an unfair advantage that she must be deprived of. But if Bill is hurting Hillary and he sinks her chances for the nomination, why is that the media's concern? That is why I have no illusions about the media's motive in obsessing over this canard...

I think that the media need to pull back a bit on this because it is truly uncharted territory where the usual roles are reversed and, thus, might require conventional wisdom to be turned on its head: (a) No woman has ever had a realistic chance to win the presidency before, (b) there has never been a female candidate for POTUS with her husband as one of her surrogates (Edwards has Elizabeth and Obama has Michelle, both very vocal, why can't Hillary have Bill?), and, here's the rub, (c) no candidate has ever had  a former POTUS as BOTH a spouse and a surrogate before. Instead of considering these "firsts" and pondering them, the media have already decided that Bill's involvement is wrong, but are they adequately equipped to deal with it rationally? The evidence so far is that of the MSM usual echo chamber not unlike that which led to their disastrous and embarrassing 2008 NH primary predictions. The voters, and not the pundits, will ultimately decide whether or not Bill is hurting Hillary's chances. himself and the Dem party; however, the evidence after NH and NV suggests that the voters do not YET share the chattering classes' negativity on this one.. It remains to been whether after weeks of being told 24/7 that Bill's involvement is wrong and unbecoming of an ex-POTUS, the voters would change their view...IF they do, I just hope they'll do so after Super-Tuesday :-)

The preceding post is recycled and amended from one that I just posted over at the Spine blog, hence the reference to "Marty", but I could have referred to just about anyone in the media's echo chamber...

Sigh.

It's always been hard being a Bill supporter.  I will say he's often very very gracious, above and beyond what he needs to be. Not that it makes up for his weaknesses, it doesn't - but it is something I like about him.  

Did these Clinton ass-chewings have anything to do with the recent TNR Editorial saying as much (Clinton was squandering his legacy)?

If so, pat yourselves on the back editorial team for having the sharp eye.

I thought there was a key sentence in the article under the "foul-mouthed ballet dancer" link that makes Rahm Emanuel's choice to weigh in make perfect sense, about two-thirds to three-fourths of the way down:

"His ethic is that there is no detail too small to sweat when it comes to Clinton's image."

To me, it sounds like he's still looking out for Clinton's image after all these years.