errr… I'm already sick of the whole Clinton vs Obama campaign.

Hell,I feel like it's McCain/Clinton/U.S media VS. Obama.

so yeah, f–k Bill Clinton.

On Friday morning I am attending a "Clinton Global Initiative" in which I will listen to him spew his thoughts about global leadership and shoot the shit with Andre Agassi. I've mentioned the meeting to a few friends and they all wonder, "Which bill will speak"…he's been a grumpy old man these days but can you blame him? IMHO he hasn't done anything that is so detrimental that garners a "burned bridge" but that's just me, there is always a place in my heart for Bill.

Oh please. You obviously are in need of some perspective BoredKidz because you definitely have selective hearing. I had both CNN and FOX news in the background while I was doing work early this morning. Everything on Obama was on how Wright is screwing him and whether it will have any genuine impact. On McCain, there was criticism of his health plan on CNN's side of things. The impression I got from both is that they agree with Obama saying that the gas tax thing that McCain and Clinton proposed is an election tactic. Stop Stanning long enough and you'll realize that the world is not against him.

I have another theory on the Bill thing. When discussing hClinton Foundation stuff, he's charming. All the people at the foundation love him. They have some management problems. In the last week, I've heard two disgruntled employees complain about how they treat them including a woman who got sick in China and her co-workers pretty much left her. She e-mailed her boss to tell them that they need a protocol for handling things because obviously, being deathly ill in a country with no real health system without being able to speak the language and all sucks pretty badly. Everyone retaliated and she asked to be transfered out. Another is another middle management issue. Anyway, my theory on Bill is similar to my new theory on Wright. Conscious or not, they are sabotaging the campaigns of the people they supposedly support. Bill's not stupid and he's certainly familiar with politics so it seems to be intentional on his part. He's well aware that even playing "bad cop" will poorly reflect on Hillary. Having your husband, the former president, do your dirty work is poor strategy and I'm pretty sure they're all very aware of that. As for Wright, he seems to value his image and his 1st Amendment rights more than he values what's supposed to be a sacred relationship. I get the feeling that these foot-in-mouth moments are "payback" in his mind though I don't really think Barack did anything wrong. If anything, he didn't distance himself from Wright enough because now again, this sht is taking attention away from the campaign.

I can sleep a tiny bit better at night because the Dems seem to have this. McCain is continually framed as Bush v III which he really isn't in many respects, something that even the most devout neo-cons don't really want anymore.

What about this Obama quote, mentioning Clinton's admin. in the same breath as Nixon's:

"'I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it,' Obama said during an editorial board meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal."

I think I'd be pretty pissed if I was Clinton, particularly when minoriites were living much better than ever under his admin. Why doesn't anyone get on Obama about that one? Is that really fair??

Rich,

I think the statement by Obama is true. Reagan, for better or worse, did change the direction of this country. As a backlash to the permissive and liberal culture of the late 70's, Reagan marshalled the forces of the disguntled white males and turned the country in a decidedly conservative direction. Two terms of Clinton didn't change that because Clinton triangulated himself into basically conservative positions. It was still a more conservative country even after his terms. He never changed the direction of the country. He simply swam with the current. It's not a slam. It's just the truth.

I think comparing himself to Reagan was harmful enough. It's also a poor comparison overall. The "optimism" that Reagan brought was to heal the country from all the Nixon crap, something Gerald Ford was not given the opportunity to do because Americans were under the false impression that going through a messy trial would have been a good thing. Then of course, Carter's administrations' incompetence and bad luck.

If it's in reference to Vietnam war vs. war in Iraq, the Vietnam war was damn near over at the time of Nixon's impeachment. As for Nixon's handling of Vietnam, though not the best, he did help wind it down with the exception of the mess in Cambodia and abuse of powers. In that way, Nixon and Bush 43 have a lot in common. Clinton wasn't dealing with any war or battle near that scale. The Persian Gulf war didn't sink America's optimism. The shtty economy did if I remember correctly.

Conclusion: that statement is just B.S. though I give him points for utilizing sound bytes. It's very presidential.

Have to disagree. Both Clintons are moderates with Hillary leaning a bit more right on some issues and more left on others than Bill. I don't view their positions as convenient for the atmosphere. Both have been very pro-choice, even when it was especially unpopular.

Without the ability to identify with people on both side, you get, well, this administration and their relationship with the current Congress. Shit does not get done. Based on their congressional records, I don't believe any of the three could be as bad as the current one in that department. Bush successfully changed the trajectory too… until he was faced with a Dem majority and of course people on all sides FINALLY got pissed with the war and he didn't deliver on all that banning gay marriage B.S. from 04.

@ daria–even with being pro-choice, even with the "don't ask/don't tell" policy (as effed up as it was, even my pro-LGBITQ self has to acknowledge that it at least opened the door to talk about those rights in America), and even with HRC participating in the Women's Conference in Beijing during his presidency…for me, Bill Clinton's statements have alienated me from him. And the "it's the woman's time to run and win the White House" statements (stated and implied) from the HRC campaign have alienated me from her.

I had more respect for him before. I was never one of those blk people who "LOVED THEM SOME BILL", but I've admired his accomplisments. His upbringing was very Springerish and I like that he worked to rise above that and become a lawyer(Coulumbia?) and later President. Listening to his speaches he came across as someone who was very articulate and intelligent.

I don't know how we went from Clinton to Bush. Bush is not polished enough to be the president of an ant club and certainly not president. Bush came into the world with a silver spoon and associated among the uppercrust, yet his speaks better ebonics than anyone in Harlem.

Both daria and khia213 have made good points. Bill Clinton's welfare to work program was a very conservative move.

Daria in what ways is McCain any differnt Bush.

Nixon's policies are too liberal for any of our current candidates, considering he:

Reauthorized and strengthened the Voters Rights Act, Expanded Food Stamps to the extent that hunger nearly disappeared in this country,
Created the Environmental Protection Act,
Established diplomatic relations with China and detente with the USSR, Allocated 2/3 of the budget for the 'war on drugs' for drug treatment, Expanded Affirmative Action, Expanded Social Security by cost-indexing benefits, Created Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, which included drug addicts; as well as
Expanding the National Endowment for the Arts.

Nixon had the most progressive social policies of any president before or since. Funny, huh?

@ Chic Noir–"I don’t know how we went from Clinton to Bush. Bush is not polished enough to be the president of an ant club and certainly not president. Bush came into the world with a silver spoon and associated among the uppercrust, yet his speaks better ebonics than anyone in Harlem."

Damn, 'nuff said. LMAO!

I'm still a big fan. He's a bit of a loose cannon and has harmed his wife by running his fucking mouth, but that's politics sometimes. Shit gets said and done that I don't always agree with, but if I have faith in a person's core (even if they are flawed -aren't we all??), then I'm ride or die. Not saying I never change my mind about people, but I'm not as sensitive about Bill's role in the campaign as so many other black people are. I'm one of those people, when in a competition, who will do whatever I need to do to win - so I like that the Clintons fight with gloves off. I also have been around enough politicians to know that they are all fucked up in some way. Hence their chosen profession - so I'm not a pie in the sky type nor do I trust pie in the sky types. There's no pie! Like I've said before….it's politics not knitting.

The reason why I will always have at least some respect for Bill Clinton is because of his explanation for Monica-gate. His exact words were "because I could." That is the most honest response to a sex scandal. Ever. And afterwards, he lied because that is what people do when they're stepping out. I know a lot of people don't like it and are probably thinking, "you cost us $X million and that's the best you can come up with?" Of all politicians, he has enough childhood issues to psychoanalyze away any responsibility but he didn't. And I will forever respect that. Side note: Gerald Ford (one of my fav presidents ever) called him a "sex addict." If by that he meant that he is heterosexual man who knows how to charm the pants off of women, I totally agree.

Whatever. Never liked nor respected him.

Love and respected him then and now.