It's become Bill's campaign, will it become his presidency?

I don't know, I have been hot and cold on Bill lately. He was great when he took on that little weasel on Faux, but lately he really isn't impressing.

What really gets me is that Bill isn't just "overshadowing" Hillary, he has taken over. Cafferty said that Bill was talking incessantly about "my Administration" on the stump today, not about his wife. It's the old Ram being challenged by the young buck apparently, after all Bill was the "change candidate". His behavior has become rather unseemly, and not fitting to his status as a former President. I mean, can you imagine the clips of Clinton calling Obama a "fairy tale" in a Republican commercial?  

Bill has to have the spot light, that's all there is to it. And my question is, if he has already taken over the campaign, what happens to the presidency? I think this guy has a pathological need for attention given how he is currently acting. As a therapist, I have to wonder if that's is what is behind his philandering "problem". I don't think he can stay out of the limelight, he would be bound to muscle in. Is it really ok to let a guy serve a third term, as long as he comes in the back door?

I don't know, this is really getting a little weird here. I hope America takes a good look at this.

•  Tips or flames?

  I try to stay away from these things, but I really think Bill has crossed a line here, and I am also not sure his ego can be reeled in.

  by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM PDT

  •  Help Us Understand

    What did he do?

    by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:13:59 PM PDT

    •  I think it's hard to deny

      that he's really stepped into the spotlight lately.  Honestly--where's Hillary?  Is she still running?

      by oscarsmom on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM PDT

      •  I'm Not Sure

        I'm guessing that other campaign spouses are doing just as much as he is.  I suspect that the reason this is making news is that 1) people love Bill Clinton and will watch anything he does and 2) the Obama campaign is faxing Politico every five seconds with yet another Bill Clinton "outrage."

        by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM PDT

        •  Everyone's talking about Michelle Obama...

          ...but I guess that's okay?

          I'm confused now.

          by DawnG on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM PDT

        •  Don't blame the Obama campaign for that

          the media is really creating this narrative all on it's own . . . though I can't blame them for wanting to capitalize on bad press.

          by oscarsmom on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:23:18 PM PDT

          •  I'd Like to Think So

            But so many Politico stories start out with, "The Barack Obama campaign is claiming" or so-and-so from the Barack Obama camp has called Politico to complain about Bill Clinton ...

            I mean, really.  They should get Ben Smith an chair at Obama campaign headquarters.

            And a lot of things that he has posted have turned out not to be true.

            by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:26:31 PM PDT

        •  Of course they are,

          but as effective as Michelle and Elizabeth can be, they don't carry the weight of the fucking presidency with them. Is this an appropriate use of that clout? I don't think so.

          by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:37:56 PM PDT

          •  I Think It's Fine

            I think it is okay for both Mr. Clinton and Chelsea to be out on the campaign trail for the Senator.  If the GOP had a former president whose reputation wasn't utterly toxic, maybe he'd be out stomping for a candidate as well.

            What does "fucking presidency" mean here?

            by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM PDT

    •  Apparently,

      he just talked endlessly about himself and his "Administration" at an event today, according to Jack Cafferty. He didn't fill in any details, only that the campaign has become "all about Bill". He didn't show any video, so I guess I am taking his word for it. If this is true, it would indicate that Bill has gotten way to invested in this thing.

      by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM PDT

•  "As a therapist"?

  Oh, please.

  by Indexer on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:13:27 PM PDT

  •  Smells like aroma therapy to me.

    Did you hear Bill's remarks in full context, before the Bill-bashers, news models and Faux journalists lifted the "fairy tale" quote and hyped it for the obvious purpose of fomenting dissention?

    What crap.

    by TerribleTom on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:20:05 PM PDT

    •  I don't need to see the full quote.

      This is bullshit on the face of it. Some pathetic little twit with too much time on their hands and not enough brain cells to open a door.

      by Indexer on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:37:33 PM PDT

    •  Now, I have been watching

      the events unfold, that's all. And I hate to be really snippy here, but I graduated from the Smith College School for Social Work, which didn't really have any courses on Aroma Therapy.

      I actually have very good clinical insight, or so I have been told.

      by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM PDT

•  I Think He's Doing a Pretty Good Job

  I'm a bit confused about what exactly he is doing wrong here and how it warrants the meltdown that is currently in action on Daily Kos over his involvement in the campaign.  What exactly was his crime?  Calling Obama's anti-war stance a bit of a "fairy tale?"  Is it not so?  I can't tell the difference between his Iraq policy and Sen. Clinton's.

  by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM PDT

  •  His crime: Premeditated murder

    Jan. 24, 1992

    by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM PDT

    •  Jeez

      That's ... uh ... uh-huh!

      by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM PDT

    •  Please explain why you should not be TRed

      for baselessly accusing our most recent Democratic president of premeditated murder.

      (For the justifiably confused: Ricky Ray Rector)

      by phenry on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM PDT

      •  Are you suggesting it wasn't pre-meditated?

        by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:34:43 PM PDT

        •  You don't seem to understand what murder is.

          At most, even for someone who disagrees with Rector's execution, Clinton is "guilty" of failing to take action to prevent it. (Talk, as gets proven anew around here every day, is cheap.)

          I'll give you one more chance, if you choose to take it.

          by phenry on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM PDT

          •  Chance for what?

            Commutation to a life sentence?

            by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM PDT

  •  A former president

    isn't just a spouse. Having been the president carries a lot of clout with it, that's why they tend to stay out of things...frankly, it's not presidential. And as I said, what will the impact be if the Repugs use clips of a former President blasting the nominee of the party?

    However, my point was if he can't maintain the proper boundaries now, what happens is "she" wins? How is he going to be able to stay out of it then?

    by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM PDT

    •  Yes, and it's unseemly for senators...

      ...to impede the president's sovereign prerogative to wage war.  I love where this decorum stuff gets us.

      by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

  •  To me who lives

    in PA and thought I plain didn't care who won since I will probably have no say, has become so disgusted with the Clinton campaign, it is troubling.

    It was not the fairy tale quote because that was taken out of context, although he did misrepresent Obamas stance on the war, but he did  STRONGLY and loudly support the law suit which was a complete bit of BS designed to not let people vote...he then stated long and loud that he and Chelsea saw voter supression used by Obama.  There is zero outside evidence he saw any such thing and with as much media as is always around him, I have to conclude he made it up.  This sickens me.  The final straws for me was when Clinton campaign resorted to using push-polls and last but not least when we got a sickening e-mail on using falsehoods and misreprsentation to scare Jews into voting for Clinton because Obama was "bad" for Jews. This was not from the republicans!

    These are tactics one side uses against another, NOT those on the same side!  I might not be so completely disgusted if they were not using these games to divide the party. Edwards has not resorted to this either.  

    So for me, who hasn't cared until recently, this "crazy phony outrage" is real.  And as an old fat middle aged, middle class, suburban living, white woman, I should be a strong Hillary supporter.

    If a life long democrat, who has NEVER voted republican in a presidental election has so much outrage with her campaign and would have a serious problem voting for her, how is she playing out in the "real world"?  Do they love the "fightin'" spirit or is she causing too much divide within?  In my tiny world it is a party divided, and in a year we should absolutely LOVE each and every candidate.

    by housesella on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM PDT

    •  Is There Something

      That the candidate could do to win your goodwill back?

      by bink on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM PDT

      •  As of this second not much

        but as I said, I have never voted anything other than democratic in the presidential races, so I assume if Clinton wins I will probably turn off the TV, off the computer and hope there is not a viable third party candidate, since I feel that at least a third party (actually most any third party) would be a good step in our democracy.
        I would want to vote third party.

        I really am sure I would get over my disgust enough to hold my nose and vote for her if they would quit working so hard on republican type attacks on our own.  I think I rather want to demand some ethics in my candidate

        by housesella on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM PDT

    •  I had heard that email

      Was NOT from Repubs but the clinton's I just couldn't believe it!

      Did they REALLY do and say those things the Clinton's?

      Tell me it ain't so! They sent those emails whipping up frenzy against Obama being against the Jewish Community?

      by Wary on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM PDT

•  Please make it stop n/t

  by stevej on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM PDT

  •  Only SuperTuesday can do that!

    by Fabian on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:15:19 PM PDT

•  I thought it was bad

  when the candidates became the issues.
  But when the candidate's spouse becomes the big issue for some people, you've totally lost me.

  I thought we were having a presidential primary, not hosting a Jerry Springer show.

  POLITICAL SPOUSES GONE WILD!

  by Fabian on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Is he really just a spouse?

    I mean seriously? You can't possibly be that biased to categorize Bill Clinton as a typical campaign spouse. The guy is the former President of the United States.

    Please. At least be honest.

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM PDT

    •  He is a spouse

      for the purposes of this campaign.  As far as I am concerned he is Bill Clinton, ex-POTUS, retired.  Hillary is the Senator, not Bill.

      by Fabian on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM PDT

      •  Amazing.

        I dont know how you are able to look at the TV and think "Hey, isn't that Hillary Clinton's husband? What a great campaigner!"

        The other 99.9% of us think "President Bill Clinton is out campaigning for his wife."

        by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM PDT

        •  Oh, that TV thing?

          You still watch it?  What's Britney doing these days?

          by Fabian on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:44:18 PM PDT

          •  Yes, Im one of the 200,000,000

            people in this country who watch TV. Occasionally i look into the infinitesimally smaller quantity in the blogosphere.

            Britney is in bad shape by the way.

            by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM PDT

            •  you send her a "Get Well" card?

              No, I do not need to see what the visually fixated obsess over.  One of the reasons why I don't like television news is that you can say one thing, show an image that undercuts or contradicts your message and people will remember the image.  We are like Pavlov dogs.

              by Fabian on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM PDT

              •  I'm smart enough to discern.

                I don't tune out when i don't see what I want to see.

                by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM PDT

•  It's a question a lot are asking

  Even the unflappably temperate Josh Marshall.

  by Demi Moaned on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM PDT

  •  That link was too unspecific

    What did the video say?

    by oscarsmom on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM PDT

    •  The video was a montage

      ... of talking heads from the Sunday morning rounds. The overall thrust of the comments was:
      Hillary has either given control of her campaign over to Bill, or Bill just can't be controlled. In either case, it raises serious questions about what we are to expect from a Clinton Presidency.

      The telling point was JM saying:

      I must confess that when the Sunday yakkers say X I pretty much always think it must really be Y. But here I think I have to continue saying X in spite of the fact that the yakkers are saying it too.

      by Demi Moaned on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:26:59 PM PDT

•  This looks just like another take

  on "Hillary won't be able to stand on her own" -- and I'm an Edwards supporter.

  Please, enough of this -- let's judge our candidates on their own merits and demerits, not those of their spouses.

  by Cali Scribe on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM PDT

  •  The point is,

    it's hard to do that while Bill is making it all about him.  Also the media (Clintons not to blame for that, except they should know to expect it).

    Bill should take a long vacation.

    by oscarsmom on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM PDT

  •  Hm

    I think there's a space in the middle for feeling a bit creeped out by Bill's, um... fervor, without sloshing over into Hillary bashing.

    I mean, it seems to me he's behaving in an unseemly fashion for an ex-President, to have morphed into a heavy-handed campaign operative for his wife. He shouldn't make it so easy to accuse him of drooling over the prospect of another 8 years in the WH.

    by bumblebums on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM PDT

    •  Exactly,

      thank you very much. You express it far better than I did.

      by PLS on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:49:54 PM PDT

•  The south of France is nice this time of year

  time for a long vacation.

  by ben masel on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:18:33 PM PDT

  •  For Bill or the diarist?

    by bumblebums on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM PDT

•  Substantive diary <nt>

  by amitxjoshi on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    Diarist needs to flesh it out. There's plenty on online commentary on this topic.

    by leckavrea on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM PDT

•  It has always been "Their" Presidency...

  The first two terms wasn't Bill plus a regular First Lady. No, it was 2-for-1.

  If the Clintons get a 3rd term, it will, once again be a 2-for-1 situation, and of course Bill will play a big role in the Administration.

  Hasn't all of this been obvious from Day One?

  by TrueBlueCT on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM PDT

  •  Your argument is identical to Limbaugh's.

    Just thought you should know.

    by phenry on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM PDT

    •  So what?

      It's a legitimate point regardless of whether a wingnut is making it.

      If Hillary is so "experienced", it's because she played such a critical role in Bill's administration, and we're supposed to expect that will be the case in reverse in her administration.

      If she is supposed to be evaluated on her own, then I guess we're supposed to look at her as a public servant with fewer years of elected office than Obama, but whose candidacy is based on her superior experience?

      She can't have her cake and eat it too.

      by swalker007 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM PDT

•  Bill's long shadow

  I think Alter describes it well in his article in Newsweek Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down
  Apparently Bill has already been asked to cool it by two leading Democrats.

  Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.

  The article also quotes an Obama adviser on the apparent out-of-control Bill and what that portends if Hillary is elected.

  Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

  by leckavrea on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for that quote!

    I agree!

    I tell you, I am so rethinking this whole thing about campaigning for Hilary for Pres. I mean I just can't do it under the circumstances. That's not to say I would campaign against her, I just can't campaign when I don't believe in the candidate, even for the party.

    I will, of course, campaign for other Democratic candidates at other levels, but since Hilary can't control bill and has allowed this divisive attack strategy within the Democratic Party to go forward, I just can't 'support' her.

    In no way am I calling for others to take my 'advice' I am speaking only for myself here and it is a very personal position of mine, that I admit.

    by Wary on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM PDT

•  Bill Clinton is not just another political spouse

  I think this is a legitimate question to ask.  Bill Clinton is not just another "political spouse": his presidency is a major basis for Hillary's claim of superior experience, and moreover a template for another co-presidency that could potentially circumvent the 22nd amendment.  While Hillary has other experience to rely on and the 22nd amendment may not be the most glorious bit of the Constitution, that doesn't mean the question can be easily dismissed.

  Earlier this month, I wrote a diary about analogous situations elsewhere in the world:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  The main point is that there have been no analogous situations: the vast majority of women who have succeeded their husbands to national office did so after their husbands were dead (i.e., unlikely to cause ructions on the campaign trail...).  The only exception, Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, won her first political election 14 years before becoming first lady, and therefore had a more independent political profile.

  by Expat Texan on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:31:31 PM PDT

•  'Cafferty said that Bill said...'

  Do you have an actual quote? Or just double-hearsay?

  by dennisl on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:37:56 PM PDT

•  Fair question.

  I happen to think Bill is a big asset on the campaign trail, but the size of his role in the campaign makes one wonder what his influence will be in the White House. The tradeoff seems worth it to me, because of the edge he will give in the GE. If Gore had used Bill, he would have won. It will be interesting if he's in the White House again.. that's for sure.

  by BoringDem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM PDT

  •  Clinton campaigning would have hurt Gore

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

          CNN, From staff and wire reports
          October 24, 2000

    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.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM PDT

    •  That's not a complete set of data.

      I don't believe it, because Bill had a proven track record. He's VERY convincing.

      by BoringDem on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM PDT

      •  Show me your data

        I know he had high job approvals, but he also had miserable unfavorables "as a person". A good politician has to have over 50% favorables as well as over 50% job approvals (esp. he/she's going to campaign for anyone else).

        by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM PDT

•  Sadly, no.

  Only one person can be president, and neither an advisor or a spouse can keep him on the straight and narrow.  Ask Colin Powell.  Or Hillary herself.

  The co-presidency that HRC 08 is implicitly asserting is bullshit.

  by Inland on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM PDT

•  You are missing the point

  This is a carefully designed strategy. The Clintons are so much better at this than you can even imagine. Do you seriously think that Bill's jabs at Obama are some kind of pathology? Don't make me laugh. The Clintons plan everything very carefully. They are a team that's been doing this now for over 30 years. Bill is doing what needs doing. He has made Obama respond to him. Now Obama has used up air time to attack an extremely beloved figure in the AA community in SC. That's the point of this exercise. Meanwhile, HC can go off to other States that need tending. Old tricks for young players. There probably hasn't been as effective a political team like this ever in American history. It's just fascinating to watch.

  by Anne Elk on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM PDT

•  I have soured on Bill and HRC

  Completely

  I will do NOTHING to promote her candidacy should she win the prmaries.

  Does she and he have to engage the low road to triumph?

  by wuod kwatch on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM PDT

•  What do you expect Bill to do

  once he is again sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

  Wait. DON'T answer that!

  by Paul Goodman on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM PDT

•  Will it become his presidency?

  I hope so.  I'd be fine with that.

  by stephdray on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:00:22 PM PDT

•  I don't see Bill around Upstate NY as senator

  ...do you?

  by dcrolg on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:56:07 PM PDT