The 2010 Election: Bill Clinton is the New “One”

-

bill-clinton-.jpg
President Obama’s team — heck, even Hillary Clinton’s presidential team — saw former President Bill Clinton as a problem, as unpredictable, as off his game and a potential major liability.
But as Terry McAuliffe pointed out the other night at a fundraiser for the Tomorrow’s Youth Organization which had Clinton, Cherie Blair, and Quincy Jones as headliners, Bill Clinton is the most popular politician in the United States today — and may be the most popular politician in the entire world.
Clinton pulled off a stunning comeback after being clobbered badly by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in 1994. And Barack Obama may want to sign up for Clinton lessons from the man himself to see what he did to become a winner after losing so dramatically.


Interestingly, Bill Clinton tried to fire Rahm Emanuel from his staff about three times, according to one of his close aides at the time — but Rahm refused to go, hiding out for weeks away from the President in the Old Executive Office Building. Perhaps President Obama should have talked to the former President about Rahm before giving him control to all the keys in Obama Land.
But what happened last night was not Rahm’s fault — these were consequences of decisions made by President Obama. He had major victories during his last two years — particularly in health care, but neither his own base nor his opponents celebrated. That’s a problem for the White House.
Good thing for Obama this is a presidential system. If Obama were a prime minister, he’d be out just like Clinton would have been after 1994.
But like Clinton, Obama gets another chance — and Obama would be very smart to begin calling on some of the people he has been distant from and who could give him the smart counsel he has until now stayed away from.
Bill Clinton would top my list. George Soros would be next. Anyone notice that Soros didn’t put any muscle behind Obama’s efforts this time around? I did.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

34 comments on “The 2010 Election: Bill Clinton is the New “One”

  1. questions says:

    OMG, they’ve gotten Pape, too!
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-package-bombs-20101104,0,4870380.story
    He thinks less joke and more serious intent as a backup plan if the detonator didn’t work. Sounds as good as anything. I personally like “joke” better, but hey, I defer to the expert here.
    The article also notes that there’s an out of date online guide to Jewish institutions in Chicago — possible source for the addresses….
    *****
    “”They always have a backup plan,” said Pape, co-author of the recently published “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop it.” “Groups like al-Qaida are always asking themselves: ‘What if this doesn’t go according to plan? How can we still cause terror, one way or another?'”
    The Yemeni group believed to be behind the plot made a trial run in September with a shipment of books and compact discs to Chicago, officials said. That would have given the terrorists a working estimate of when to set off the bombs.
    If the timing device failed or the aircraft arrived earlier than estimated, the terrorists would still have a chance to wreak havoc.
    “If the bomb got to Chicago, it would cause panic,” Pape said, adding that the terrorists would know that the packages would arrive on the Jewish Sabbath, which runs from Friday evening through Saturday.
    The name on one package was Reynald Krak, a 12th century crusader. The other was directed to Diego Deza, who headed the Spanish Inquisition of the late Middle Ages.
    The use of those names also made sense to terrorism experts, as both Jews and crusaders play prominent roles in Osama bin Laden’s narrative of jihad.
    “Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to invoke the crusader image,” Pape said.
    Reynald Krak

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    OMG!!!!! Hang on to your horses people, we are REALLY in deep shit now!!!
    The Al Kady goons are now recruiting….(oohhh, mother help us)……ZOMBIES!!!!!
    How the hell do ya kill an Al Kady zombie????
    Damn, ya think bullets laced with dog blood will do it?
    I mean, its gotta be doesn’t it? The media says its so!
    Questions, quick, tell us what to do!!!! The AQ zombies are coming!!!!!
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/12/24/imam-linked-ft-hood-rampage-believed-al-qaeda-killed-airstrike/
    Dec. 2009
    Imam Linked to Ft. Hood Rampage Believed to Be Among 30 Al Qaeda Killed in Airstrike
    The radical Muslim imam linked to the rampage at Fort Hood reportedly is believed to have been killed in a Yemen airstrike that may have also taken out the region’s top Al Qaeda leader and 30 other militants.
    The raid in Yemen’s east targeted an Al Qaeda leadership meeting held to organize terror attacks. U.S. officials believe radical cleric Anwar Awlaki was “probably” one of dozens of militants killed in the strike, a source confirmed to FOX News.
    “Awlaki is suspected to be dead [in the air raid],” Reuters quoted an unnamed Yemeni official as saying.
    continues…..

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    U.S. Covert War Provokes Terrorism in Yemen
    by Sheldon Richman, November 2, 2010
    The U.S. government and mainstream media continue to play dumb about threats to Americans from the Muslim world. After two Chicago-bound packages of explosive materials originating in Yemen were found in England and Dubai, White House homeland security and counterterrorism advisor John Brennan said,

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Officials deny Yemen bomb defused 17 minutes before it was set to go offFrench interior minister claimed one of two computer printer devices found on cargo planes had been close to exploding
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 November 2010 14.27
    One of two mail bombs sent from Yemen was defused 17 minutes before it was set to explode, the French interior minister has said.
    A claim by the French interior minister that one of two mail bombs sent from Yemen last week was defused 17 minutes before it had been set to explode was today disputed by officials familiar with the investigation.
    Brice Hortefeux provided no other details in an interview on France’s state-run France-2 television, and did not say where he had got the information about the timing.
    Officials investigating the bomb found at East Midlands airport poured cold water on his remarks. One said: “There is nothing to support that.”
    continues…….
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/04/yemen-bomb-defused-17-minutes
    Ohhhhh nooooo, Mr. Bill!!!!

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Just because I think you are a jackass doesn’t mean I “hate” you. But if you’re more comfortable with being “hated” than simply being considered as being obtuse, naive, and buffoonishly over-intellectualized, whatever.
    “For all of these reasons, it’s pretty tempting to blow up planes above cities……”
    Yes, if you are aware these planes might “blow up over cities”, which, according to the latest media/official incarnation of this sinister plot, the boogie men were NOT in the position to know for sure. In fact, had one of these planes actually gone down, there is no way to guarantee that we would even know if it was an act of terrorism, particularly if it had gone down over water.
    I find it interesting that you push each media account to the front, as if it is gospel. Even when the prior accounts you cited as gospel turn out to be somewhat short of the “truth” as it is now being presented. The way one of the “bombs” got out of Yemen was originally on board a UPS aircraft. When it was pointed out by many on the blogosphere, AND the Yemenese government, that no UPS flights fit the time frame, the story changed. Now, it was passenger aircraft that initially flew the “bombs” out of Yemen. Likewise, the “targeting” has changed in the official accounts. The addressees have changed. At one point, a Rabbi in Chicago was actually contacted and informed his synagogue was one of the targets. Now, even that has changed, it WASN’T any actual synagogues that were targeted. Yadayadayada…..the story keeps changing.
    I note you have no comment on the ATOL article. Choosing instead to stick with the tried and true media mouthpieces that can be depended on to deliver the propaganda d’jour as scripted by the known liars steering the ship of state. Yes, the gospel according to DHS, the CIA, the FBI, and our honest and upstanding Commander in Chief, who has now spent two years demonstrating his steller character and complete and utter integrity.
    Let the drones fly, theres a monster loose in Yemen. BOOOO!!!!
    BTW, how are those predictions about the results of the “talks” between Israel and the Palestinians working out for you? That business about a “loyalty oath” sure turned the tide, didn’t it? Heck of a bartering chip that turned out to be. Abbas jumped on it like a fly on shit, eh questions??

    Reply

  6. questions says:

    Here’s your answer — first it’s above my pay grade since I am absolutely not an expert on splinter a-Q groups, the extent to which they are related, or anything else.
    How was is to bin Laden’s benefit to bring down some tall buildings…..
    It seems from my understanding of what motivates terrorism activities that they have a few goals: driving out invading troops, altering political calculations of governments, recruiting more people willing and able to set off bombs, doing all of this with some amount of cost effectiveness, staying popular enough that their own gov’ts or supporters don’t turn off completely.
    So I assume that this particular group decided that cargo bombs might be a good way to go. More recent explosion attempts (underwear and car) didn’t work. Who knows how many quiet failures there have been…. The suicide thing might actually be a passing fad given the number of failures, the extra security in the world and so on. Big plane explosions are very very dramatic, very primally terrifying, and they get a lot of press attention.
    For all of these reasons, it’s pretty tempting to blow up planes above cities. It also seems to cause some damage.
    So, if you a)can’t round up suicidal maniacs, b)can’t get those maniacs wired and emplaned, then c)cargo makes sense.
    Without the intel, these bombs would have gone off and the worldwide cargo system would have been disrupted at a time when we really don’t want worldwide cargo shipping disrupted. I have some UPS pkgs on the way, and I’d hate not to receive them. The holidays are coming up, people would like their Amazon purchases. I’m sure there’s some new book or 10 I’ll be wanting soon.
    Given that the goal of ME terrorism is basically to drive out the US, to disrupt the world economy to get that goal achieved, the cargo plot makes a lot of sense to me.
    I would hope that we are putting huge resources in to making people want to rat on the bomb makers. I would dearly love to see an end to this version of political activism. It’s bad for all living things.
    I have no idea if I’ve actually answered your question, but I’m sure you’ll let me know in some very blunt way. Though I have to admit, your rhetoric is easier to deal with w/o the endless epithets. Thanks for hating me w/o the hate!

    Reply

  7. davidt says:

    Steve,
    I apologize. I stepped over the line.
    I do think that you have a tendency to personalize
    your views so that people you like personally are
    treated one way, whatever their ideology, and
    people you don’t like, whatever their ideology,
    you treat another way (and I mean in your public
    writing, as I have no idea what you’re like in
    person).
    Your likes: Joe Biden, Leo Hindery, Wesley Clark,
    Chuck Hagel, Grover Norquist, David Frum, Hillary
    Clinton (that come to mind).
    Your dislikes: Barack Obama, “neoconservatives,”
    Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Rahm Emanuel (that
    come to mind).
    Your post here, at least based on the news, is
    odd. The election was hardly a thumbs up for
    Obama. Yet, how this election is a ringing
    endorsement of Clinton’s political skills I don’t
    know. Even with the losses, how many more seats
    did he lose than Clinton in 1994? And if you
    compare, say the economy, the two wars he
    inherited, the fiscal situation, and even a more
    united Republican front, in comparison to Clinton,
    Obama looks like a political maestro (not to
    mention that Clinton partly paid a price for his
    health care initiative which he was unable to even
    get to the floor of Congress whereas Obama’s
    legislation became the law of the land).
    I know, its not 1994, but how is it that Clinton
    comes out of this election smelling like roses?
    You have an interesting interpretation of the
    California vote and the Clinton influence. You
    may be right but I am unaware of your evidence.
    The nanny issue probably killed Whitman’s chances,
    emboldening what ended up being the 22% of the
    electorate Hispanic, which when you consider its a
    midterm, is amazing. Fiorina probably felt some
    backlash from this issue plus her hp tenure was
    less than impressive (not to mention she was
    throughly unappealing, and I’m far from Boxer’s
    biggest fan). Clinton may have helped slightly on
    the margins but not with anything to write home to
    Little Rock or Harlem with.
    It was honestly hard to read your writings during
    the 2008 campaign and posts since then without
    seeing the subtext of your great dislike for our
    current president. You’ve put in some positive
    posts but there’s so much in here that speaks to
    your sentiments that its hard for me to conclude
    otherwise.
    And you might counter, well he’s just not tough
    enough or not pushing the progressive side hard
    enough. You can argue this but how can you do
    that while giving Clinton a thumbs up (his post 94
    famous “triangulation” was hardly a move left) and
    Rubin/Summers were his economic guys, expressing
    intrigue with Norquist and citing him on tolerance
    (when he may be so when it comes to tribal /
    religious issues but when it comes to economic
    ones he’s strikingly intolerant). Say terrible
    things about the business chieftains if you wish,
    but the man who provided Tom Daschle with his limo
    but neglected to remind him to put this service on
    his taxes gets a pass on corporate bashing (and we
    haven’t heard from him in a while). And as
    another poster mentions, our Secretary of State
    mostly gets a pass on whatever she does.
    I think Hillary seems to have done a good job,
    think Bill has certain political strengths that
    Obama doesn’t have, like some of the things
    Hindery says, think Wesley Clark is a very smart
    guy and like some of his stances, and admire
    (while revolted by) Norquist’s ability to make
    sure the Republican party’s third rail is any
    suggestion of raising taxes to pay for our
    neediest, our public teachers, our elderly, or for
    anyone else whatsoever. I find Biden inimitable
    but am frightened to have him a heartbeat away
    from the presidency given his unpredictability.
    I would just like you to make a greater effort to
    apply your purported principles evenly based less
    on personal relationships and who you like than on
    ideas and acts.
    However, even if you dislike Obama and have a soft
    spot for the Clintons (if only Obama had held
    hearing when he was a Senator and had chatted with
    you at one of those dinners, things might read
    differently :)), I should not have called you a
    sycophant relative to the Clintons and I again
    apologize.
    Fondly and a bit less nastily, davidt.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, its kinda funny how questions has avoided the question “How does AQAP benefit from bringing down a cargo plane?”. I’ve certainly asked it enough times here.
    But, uh, gee, considering motive must be the “hallmark” of a “conspiracy theorist”, eh?

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Amazing. The story morphs as each aspect of it becomes recognizably ridiculous.
    But hey, to questions every change is gospel, the entire plot exactly as depicted. I mean gee, they’d never lie to us, would they?
    ATOL has an interesting piece up. Seems they offer an argument that has a completely different bombmaker as the likely perp. They name an Egytian, and offer a convincing argument. So whats the truth? Who ya gonna believe, the NYT, or Asia Times Online?
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LK03Df02.html
    “Parcel bombs point to al-Qaeda switch”
    “The foiled plan to blow up two air cargo planes bears the imprint of Egyptian Saiful Adil, recently freed from Iran and reintegrated into al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area. Adil does not favor big-ticket operations, preferring world-wide low-intensity attacks that will not provoke the massive retaliation of the kind that led to the ouster of the Taliban after September 11…….continues”
    Now lets see, how could that be? I mean golly, haven’t these unnamed “sources”, “investigators, and “officials” that questions keeps citing got this crime completely figured out? They should by now, eh? After all, they’ve rewritten this “plot” enough times by now, haven’t they?
    Woulda been interesting to see questions cite the official story of the Liberty incident as it unfolded, by rote, wouldn’t it have been? One news outlet after another, questions woulda plastered their “accounts” here, exclaiming “See, no “conspiracy” here, just the facts man”.
    I wonder if he took time out of his busy campus existence to hype all his friends and acquaintances of the terrible danger posed by Saddam’s WMDs, citing Judith Miller’s musings as presented by the NYTs? Such blind faith in our “Fourth Estate” is certainly impressive, isn’t it? I wonder, does he grade his students by thier willingness to get in line?

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    From the Chicago Tribune:
    Bomb set to go off 17 minutes after they managed to defuse it. They didn’t know where it would be when it went boom, apparently.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-mail-bombs,0,7082587.story
    “When investigators pulled the Chicago-bound packages off cargo planes in England and the United Arab Emirates Friday, they found the bombs wired to cell phones and hidden in the toner cartridges of computer printers. The communication cards had been removed and the phones could not receive calls, officials said, making it likely the terrorists intended the alarm or timer functions to detonate the bombs, U.S. officials have said.
    “They also that each bomb was attached to a syringe containing lead azide, a chemical initiator that would have detonated PETN explosives packed into each printer cartridge. Both PETN and a syringe were used in the failed bombing last Christmas of a Detroit-bound airliner.”
    ….
    “The packages were addressed to two Chicago-area synagogues. Because the addresses were out of date and the names on the packages included references to the Crusades

    Reply

  11. questions says:

    Still no response from POA regarding:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/world/03terror.html?_r=1
    Curious……
    Whatever….

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, J. Marshall is becoming effin’ pathetic.
    Note how his syrupy bit of adoration for Obama’s “accomplishments” completely ignores Obama’s refusal to restore the rule of law, his continuation of Bush policies such as domestic spying, rendition, state sponsored assasination of American citizens, and a whole plethora of other stances and policies that are little more than right wing wet dreams.
    Never mind Obama’s hawklike escalation of WAR on three seperate fields of battle, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. And if you think this posturing cowardly sack of shit is going to get us out of Iraq in 2011, than you are living in a dream world.

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    And Jonathan Bernstein:
    http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-now-spin.html
    He should be bookmarked and visited daily.

    Reply

  14. questions says:

    Just because it’s well done, and with one of my favorite singers (whose voice is versatile, interesting, and amazing, whose lyrics are great, especially “Back of a Truck” and “Consequence of Sounds”), and because it nails Meg Whitman oh so beautifully, here’s a link from TPM:
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/03/on_november_3rd_no_ones_gonna_about_meg_whitman/

    Reply

  15. John Waring says:

    Josh,
    Please tell us how Obama so completely lost control of the narrative these past two years.
    Losing 60 seats is the mother of all drubbings. Feels more like a sledgehammer than a pendulum.

    Reply

  16. Cee says:

    It’s time for Obama to develop a clearer understanding of who his friends are and to apologize for his poor behavior over the past two years.
    Meaning:
    BEND OVER to a cabal who don’t place the interests of the US FIRST!

    Reply

  17. Cee says:

    It’s time for Obama to develop a clearer understanding of who his friends are and to apologize for his poor behavior over the past two years.
    Meaning:
    BEND OVER to a cabal who don’t place the interests of the US FIRST!

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    Bill Clinton was as skilled a politician as Obama is a unskilled. But his day is done. Occasionally in politics, you have to get people to believe you, this became harder and harder for Clinton as time went on.
    I notice that Hillary Clinton is staying as far away as possible from the debacle. Literally – she’s in Papua New Guinea today.

    Reply

  19. DonS says:

    “Bill Clinton may be popular as a speaker and a political celebrity, but I don’t think he knows a damned thing about being a Democrat, because he almost isn’t one. He is as Blue Dog as they come, and in case you didn’t notice the Blue Dogs got trounced. Not because they live in red states, but because their Democratic support in those states collapsed, because they were so busy running away from being Democrats.’ Pretty trenchant observation, Liz, IMO.
    And I agree with Siteseer2 that this, and the last few elections, is [mostly] about disgust with politics as usual, not any grand verdict on policy direction. The policy piece is owned by the corporate masters. And when it comes to slinging the mud in ‘anti-DC’ derby the republicans and teabaggers clearly had all the momentum this time, and usually, because they are further down the road of selling out the nation as having any social responsibility towards the citizenry.
    Which bring me to Wigwag’s “If the Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are to have any hope of success in 2012 they’re going to need to heal the rift between Jewish donors and Obama and the financial industry and Obama; if they don’t, Democrats will continue to lose . . .
    It’s time for Obama to develop a clearer understanding of who his friends are and to apologize for his poor behavior over the past two years.”. This is about as cynical a point of view imaginable that wants to seal the deal for once and for all that the Zionists own, or should own, 1) the democractic party and, by extension 2) all policy decisions flowing from kingmaker status. And the price? Merely abandon any attempt at a foregin policy not subservient to zionist suasion. (as if we aren’t already about 95% there).

    Reply

  20. Dan Kervick says:

    This all seems kind of off the wall to me – some kind of made-up beltway buzz about ephemeral “sizzle” quotients or whatever. Granted, I’m not that plugged in to the political junkie world. But I can’t remember any conversations I have had with Democrats about Bill Clinton recently. Clinton is an old dog, and I really don’t that that many people pay a lot of attention to him. I don’t see that he’s putting any interesting new ideas or perspectives on the table. Plus, it didn’t seem to me that any of the interventions he made late in the campaign were all that effective.
    Frankly, it looks to me that this election has pushed the Bill Clinton era even further into the past. Those guys just aren’t relevant anymore. The only reasons progressives had to play nice with blue dogs and Clinton-style third-wayers was that it was necessary to achieve electoral victory. But if we are going to lose anyway, then what’s the point.

    Reply

  21. Dan Kervick says:

    This all seems kind of off the wall to me – some kind of made-up beltway buzz about ephemeral “sizzle” quotients or whatever. Granted, I’m not that plugged in to the political junkie world. But I can’t remember any conversations I have had with Democrats about Bill Clinton recently. Clinton is an old dog, and I really don’t that that many people pay a lot of attention to him. I don’t see that he’s putting any interesting new ideas or perspectives on the table. Plus, it didn’t seem to me that any of the interventions he made late in the campaign were all that effective.
    Frankly, it looks to me that this election has pushed the Bill Clinton era even further into the past. Those guys just aren’t relevant anymore. The only reasons progressives had to play nice with blue dogs and Clinton-style third-wayers was that it was necessary to achieve electoral victory. But if we are going to lose anyway, then what’s the point.

    Reply

  22. Josh M. says:

    No worries, Steve —
    The pendulum swung back because folks haven’t yet
    felt the tangible effects of Obama’s efforts;
    however, by the time 2012 rolls around, Obama will
    have an extraordinary set of legislative
    accomplishments to point to. And, unlike President
    Bush, he can’t be seen as being weak on — well —
    anything.
    The stimulus bill DID save us from a (D)epression.
    The healthcare bill is truly a phenomenal piece of
    legislation that will have real tangible impacts
    on working-class and middle class American
    households.
    Financial regulatory reform, at the very least,
    will help curb predatory lending practices and
    encourage folks to make smarter decisions about
    their own finances.
    DADT is being directly managed by the Obama team,
    albeit more slowly than injustice ever deserves to
    be handled; still, it’s moving.
    The Race to the Top initiative will mean tangible
    and real financial and technical assistant
    accruing to many of the schools that need them.
    Yea, i admit, it “the economy, stupid.” But when
    the results are shining in front of people’s eyes,
    it will be really difficult to craft a message
    that can take down Obama.
    Besides, this election season just produced
    gridlock. By the time 2012 rolls around,
    Republicans will have even fewer accomplishments
    to point to, and though there are some camera-
    handsome Republicans that will continue to compete
    for Obama’s job, they won’t have a strong set of
    accomplishments to which they can be point.
    What’s the bigger threat to the Obama team in
    2012? Frankly, I think it’s Huckabee or Jindal,
    but neither of them are truly capable of handling
    moderates and independents once their obscene
    record on social issues goes truly public.
    As far as the merit of Rahm goes, I hope I can
    meet him someday, because when 2012 rolls around,
    he will still have been the enabler of some of the
    most critically important reforms that this
    country has received in the past century.
    As an aside: Please do tell Mr. Soros to continue
    being another cook in the kitchen. There really
    can’t ever be too much of him.

    Reply

  23. WigWag says:

    “Interestingly, Bill Clinton tried to fire Rahm Emanuel from his staff about three times, according to one of his close aides at the time –but Rahm refused to go, hiding out for weeks away from the President in the Old Executive Office Building. Perhaps President Obama should have talked to the former President about Rahm before giving him control to all the keys in Obama Land.” (Steve Clemons)
    It’s a cute story, but it sounds apocryphal to me. Somehow I have a feeling that if Bill Clinton had really wanted to fire Rahm Emanuel he would have found a way to do it whether Rahm was hiding out in the men’s room or not.
    It’s a shame that more of the Democratic candidates didn’t consult Bill Clinton for his political advice before the election when it might have really helped.
    Had Clinton spoken to Joe Sestak, my guess is that President Clinton would have explained to him that speaking at a fundraising dinner for CAIR, an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and with the terrorist organization, Hamas, is not a way to win votes from Jews living in the Philadelphia suburbs or Christian Zionists living in rural Pennsylvania. Given how close the Pennsylvania Senate race was, this one mistake by Sestak is surely responsible for his slim defeat.
    Had Clinton spoken to Barack Obama, my guess is that he would have explained to him that when 60 percent of Americans think that building a Mosque near the World Trade Center site is a bad idea, it’s an even worse idea to tell these Americans that you think they’re bigots. The likelihood that telling the still grieving kin of firefighters lost in the disaster, that they are racists for not wanting a mosque constructed near the spot where their loved ones were immolated, is not likely to win you too many votes; anywhere.
    If Obama takes Steve’s advice and invites Bill Clinton in for a discussion about how he can improve his ever decreasing chances for reelection, I think Bill might tell him this,
    Stop genuflecting to every two bit foreign potentate that you come in contact with and start genuflecting to those groups in the United States who have always supported Democrats and might again, if you only stopped treating them like enemies and their concerns like garbage.

    Reply

  24. DakotabornKansan says:

    Is it too late for Obama to change direction? Is he willing to learn? Or will he continue moving toward disaster?

    Reply

  25. Taylor Marsh says:

    William Jefferson Clinton has always be the “one.”
    Even Pres. Obama had to finally and at long last acknowledge it, which he did today in his press conference, actually citing Bill Clinton before Ronald Reagan. It was a first. It’s what happens when you receive a “shellacking.”
    Democratic self-righteousness kept Bill at arm’s length for some and it took seeing him in action against an inept White House political shop to prove a point some of us have known for almost 2 decades.
    Good for you, Steve, for saying so.

    Reply

  26. WigWag says:

    “Anyone notice that Soros didn’t put any muscle behind Obama’s efforts this time around? I did.” (Steve Clemons)
    I also noticed that Haim Saban didn’t put any muscle behind the Democratic efforts this time around. He’s never liked Obama but he’s always raised millions for Democrats. Until Obama apologizes, Saban and his very generous brethren are going to be allergic to the Democrats.
    I also noticed that none of Soros’ colleagues in the Hedge Fund Industry raised any money for the Democrats this time around. When the Clintons ran the Democratic show, far more hedge fund money went to Democrats than to Republicans.
    If the Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are to have any hope of success in 2012 they’re going to need to heal the rift between Jewish donors and Obama and the financial industry and Obama; if they don’t, Democrats will continue to lose.
    It’s time for Obama to develop a clearer understanding of who his friends are and to apologize for his poor behavior over the past two years.
    If his apology is articulated loudly and clearly enough he might actually heal these devastating political rifts; if not, he’s toast and so are the Democrats.

    Reply

  27. margaret says:

    Clinton and Robert Kennedy, Jr. should stay out of Florida politics.
    Kendrick Meek was not served, nor the Democratic party by their
    meddling and support of Charlie Crist. Meek was betrayed by the
    Democratic leadership and the Democrats in Florida deserved to
    lose because there was so little support for their candidates, i.e.,
    getting people out to vote. Now we are saddled with a certifable
    “crook” in the form of Scott, as governor.

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    What does this election mean?.. what does this election mean?
    After a morning of reading all the ‘experts’ take on why the GOP sweep in the house what it ‘means’, I found the best summary in a blog comment by a lowly non expert who said: …..
    ” The GOP sucks and the Democracts blow”.
    That’s it. All else is just the usual noise.

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Steve, failing to comment on Hillary’s machinations as Secretary of State, while claiming a primary interest in Foreign Policy, can easily be considered sycophantic.
    Hillary’s bugling in regards to the “danger” Iran poses to the United States, her insincere posturing about “Neda” while ignoring American’s similiar fates at the hands of the Israelis, her declaration that the Goldstone Report is “seriously flawed”, her lauditory public comments about Israeli “concessions” that were actually non-existent and an arrogant slap to Obama’s face.
    You have left Hillary Clinton almost completely out of your essays and commentaries, as if the Secretary Of State is irrelevent to Foreign policy. I think I know why, and I sympathise. But for whatever reason your silence can be attributed to, it is in fact, silence. And silence cannot be construed as criticism, or activism. It can only be construed as tacit complicity.

    Reply

  30. Siteseer2 says:

    No doubt they’ll be a lot of hand-wringing, and tea leaf reading by both sides…Simple truth: there is no wave–only voter cynicism. The politics of Washington is so despised by Main Street— there is a strong anti-incumbency trend. This was the undoing of the Repubs last go-round, and now the Dems. Often, Folks are voting the lesser of two evils…a hold your nose and vote. Sure makes it prime time for a “centrist” group to capture the “middle”. Wonder if there are any grown-ups in politics anymore? Maybe the vasts sums of money (ie, advertising) and ABSOLUTE need for party backing to get elected have forever changed the landscape. Feingold’s drubbing points up the problem of trying being a “centrist” in this landscape. What a mess, really. No end in sight….

    Reply

  31. Steve Clemons says:

    DavidT — back that up a bit. Anyone familiar with my writing will know that I’m know sycophant for the Clintons. My points stand — firm. Bill Clinton got clobbered in 1994 and pulled a come back. During this election, he showed he could make a big difference in California and did.
    You are uninformed my friend if you think Greg Craig is a Clinton favorite. He joined up on Obama team big time. Greg’s body of work and his commitment to many of the things I care about make his work for Goldman Sachs trivial and unimportant in my eyes.
    I like you and your posts — but going after me when you clearly have not followed my own challenges of the Clinton crowd, including Bill and Hillary and others in the past, makes your post more of a personal jab than I like on here.
    I’ll let it stand — but don’t mischaracterize me again.
    Thanks, steve clemons

    Reply

  32. davidt says:

    We all know you have connections to the Clintons but
    sycophancy doesn’t serve you well. The Democrats lost the
    House for the first time in 40+ years under which president?
    You’ve regularly excoriated Larry Summers as well as Robert
    Rubin who ran the treasury department under which
    president? But then, let’s not quibble with an inconvenient
    fact or two. Cronyism is in style in many places so why be
    different here :). Curious how we heard nothing about your
    other past Clinton favorites as they looked less appealing —
    Craig and his defense of Goldman-Sachs or Wes Clark and
    his shilling for the corn producers of Iowa and the rest of the
    country to produce fuel that isn’t cost effective.

    Reply

  33. Liz says:

    I want Bill Clinton to permanently stay away from Florida and Florida politics. He made a hash of it here in the Senate race. The Florida Democratic party allowed a Medicare fraud artist to be elected governor in an election with predicted high retiree turn out. That race should have been a cake walk- but they stink.
    Bill Clinton may be popular as a speaker and a political celebrity, but I don’t think he knows a damned thing about being a Democrat, because he almost isn’t one. He is as Blue Dog as they come, and in case you didn’t notice the Blue Dogs got trounced. Not because they live in red states, but because their Democratic support in those states collapsed, because they were so busy running away from being Democrats.

    Reply

  34. Cato the Censor says:

    “Barack Obama may want to sign up for Clinton lessons…”
    Today’s debacle (and that’s exactly what it is) proves that Barack Obama is incapable of learning anything about practical politics. I’d advise you to give it up, but, after all, this is your life.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *