I'm glad President Obama gave President Clinton a chance to look good.

[stevedeshazer]

It's just smart politics.

President Obama's team did a good job. Bill Clinton looks good. Hillary Clinton benefits.

What's to lose? This just gives the U.S. more credibility after all the damage Bush and more specifically, Cheney and all the PNACers have caused.

Good day for U.S. foreign relations, no?

Let the unreccers begin.

Republicans can't do foreign policy. Period.

[StevieM]

1. North Korea wanted Clinton. He wasn't interchangeable with another ambassador (eom)

[karynnj]

7. True they wanted either Clinton or John Kerry, who had been involved in the

diplomacy on this this.

So, while it is true that they wouldn't accept any Ambassador, they would have accepted at least one other person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8569429

[StevieM]

10. Something tells me that they wouldn't have been equally happy either way.

And the result wouldn't have been as guaranteed to be successful without the gesture of sending Clinton.

Steve

[karynnj]

13. Given that they ASKED for Kerry after weeks of talking to him, I see no reason for you

to say this. THe fact is that the deal had already been made - Bill Clinton would not have gone otherwise. (Just as he didn't as President) From the link, Kerry was instrumental in getting to the deal.

No matter which one went, the 2 women would have been returned.

(There is a benefit for Obama with Clinton - as it keeps Bill Clinton happy. Obama does not need to keep Kerry happy - as he will continue to do the right thing.)

[Laelth]

14. "he will continue to do the right thing"

That's what I like most about him.

:)

:dem:

-Laelth

[karynnj]

18. Same here

and it is why, even when I do not always agree with him, he is the person I most trust anywhere in government.

[MessiahRp]

46. +1

Same here.

Rp

[StevieM]

30. If you want to believe that, go ahead. The notion that N. Korea was indifferent defies common sense

Of course they wanted the respect of being sent a former president. And I can't imagine Obama would have sent someone as huge as Clinton unless he thought there was a need or a benefit.

Clinton always does the right thing. He has repeatedly done right by Obama and not gotten in the way of his Administration (like Carter did do to his Administration).

Bill doesn't need Obama to keep him happy, like he's a child. He's a superstar on the world stage and a great president in American history.

Steve

[karynnj]

44. Getting either man would have been a big deal - from the article, they were ok with Kerry

There were many times last year when Clinton's behavior was NOT "doing the right thing". He was horrible in the primaries and his connections to various questionable governments does concern me.

He is a superstar in the world and always will be. Time will tell how his Presidency will be evaluated and he benefits by being bracketed by the 2 Bushes. I think it will end up being seen as somewhere slightly above average. Part of the problem is that there were few good Presidents in the last 50 years. Great is Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington etc - Clinton is not that level, Obama may be.

[StevieM]

56. Your choice of words is very telling--it is one of the reasons Obama needed the Clintons help.

He can be very arrogant, and so too can his hard-core supporters. It alienated a lot of voters. Thankfully, the Clintons helped to win them over in spite of this self-inflicted damage to the Obama candidacy.

You say "he was horrible" in the primaries as if it is indisputable fact and then move on to your next point as if the first point is a given. I totally reject that he was "horrible" in the primaries. I felt that the Obamas were horrible.

You say "Clinton is not at that level, Obama may be" as if it is fact--and yet you objected to my calling Clinton a great president. You seem to believe--as is often the case with Obamites--that you own all truth and history. I kind of like being in the party that doesn't go around renaming airports and proclaiming ourselves validated.

I consider Lincoln, FDR and Washington to be exceptional presidents. I would call Truman, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, maybe Andrew Jackson, to be great presidents (I'm souring on Jackson, though). Others would include Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson. Eisenhower gets good marks, and Clinton is often thought of as a Democratic Eisenhower. I personally think he is even better. I have no problem comparing him with Harry Truman.

Obviously, we can't rank Obama at this point, since he just got there. I hope he doesn't go down as great a Lincoln or FDR, because that would mean that we were confronted with the ultimate crisis or catastrophe. Right now his challenges are not at that level. In the mean time, he hasn't even won a second term yet.

Steve

[karynnj]

63. How can you say that means "he confronted a crisis?"

the fact is he came in facing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression and two ongoing wars. In addition, he faces the climate control crisis where we need to act. Clinton did not face these crises.

The fact is that circumstances may demand he be exceptional or a failure.

I gave my opinion. You are free to disagree - as you do.

[StevieM]

67. I said "ultimate crisis" or "catastrophe". We are not in the middle of WW II, the Civil War

or an economic situation as bad as the Great Depression. It's more like Reagan's recession of the early 80s. With some addition problems, admittedly. He has a tough job--but it is not the Great Depression. And I hope--as I'm sure does Obama--that it never approaches that level. We should hope to never have a president as great as Lincoln or FDR again, because that would mean that the country had been confronted with a calamity that far surpasses our current predicament.

Steve

[Bandit]

78. Al Gore and Bill Richardson have been working non-stop for weeks on this

Al Gore asked Clinton to go not Obama. North Korea wanted very much to deal face to face with a person of Clinton's Stature. He was their choice. I doubt Obama had a thing to do with any of it..

[Autumn]

83. And you were absolutely right

North Korea specifically asked for Bill.

[undeterred]

8. Is anyone asking for the chimp?

:shrug: Anyone but Tony Blair?

[Hippo_Tron]

49. They would've taken the Secretary of State, Vice President, or the President

Maybe the National Security Advisor. No way the administration was going to send any of those people.

[StevieM]

52. Agreed. But the issue here is whether Clinton and Kerry are equal on the world state, or whether

North Korea would have been just as happy to receive John Kerry. That's the debate here.

Steve

[Hippo_Tron]

54. I thought this was another "Why didn't he send Hillary?" thread

[StevieM]

55. Nope, it's a different topic. BTW....don't forget our deal, Hippo Tron

I voted for Obama and I'm giving him a chance. But whoever the Dem nominee in 2012 is--you have promised to vote for them. BTW, have you come around to thinking that Romney may grab the GOP nomination after all? Your Lamar Alexander speculation doesn't seem likely.

Steve

[Hippo_Tron]

58. I'd say at this point I don't have a clue who the GOP nominee will be in 2012

My Lamar Alexander speculation was kind of pointing out about how the GOP seems to default on seniority assuming they can't find a candidate. And honestly if someone like Lamar ran I still think that could be the case in 2012, but he probably won't and likely will nobody else in a similar situation.

I think Romney has a chance but it depends on who else runs. Huckabee showed Romney to be too volatile with the base in 2008 and thus the party needed to rally around somebody else and McCain was there to fill that void since they sure as hell weren't going to go with Huckabee himself. If Romney and Palin are the only serious contenders I'd put my money on Romney (at this point). Jindal would be smart to stay out and run for re-election (although it's hard to say what he will do). Pawlenty may be right wing enough for the base but it's hard to say if he can raise the money.

Haley Barbour seems like a good compromise candidate but it's hard to say if he will even run.

And yes I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in 2012. I'm about 99% sure it will be the President running for a second term but in that unlikely event it isn't, I will still vote Democratic.

[karynnj]

65. There is no one who ever made that the debate

The point that I made was that CNN said they would accept Kerry or Clinton.

I did not state they were equivalent on the world stage. Clinton was President and Kerry wasn't. He is nowhere near as well known. The fact though is the CNN article said that it was Kerry's quiet direct diplomacy that had a role here. It was likely for that reason that he was stated by them as being acceptable.


What is clear from your posts that you resent this for some reason.

[H2O Man]

2. Me, too. n/t

[Uzybone]

3. KnR

[BlooInBloo]

4. Exellent judgment on Obama's part. Exactly why I voted for him.

[scarletwoman]

5. Very good point.

I am not at all fond of Bill Clinton, but I still respect the fact that there are things he does well. I have no problem with giving him props for doing a good thing.

sw

[monmouth]

6. You can bet the world was watching to see how Obama played this

and again, it was chess. As the OP says, everyone looked good and Bill came home with an air of "I'm still in the game" and it looked good on him. Yay for everyone...

[karynnj]

11. I agree, though a part of me would have prefered it if Obama had sent Kerry, the other person they

said they would accept.

There is no one who has done more for Obama and the country and gotten less recognition for it than Senator Kerry. I assume that it might be the fact that the Senate is still in session or that Obama preferd to give Clinton the chance to make headlines and get applause - because a happy Bill Clinton is easier to deal with.

[BlooInBloo]

17. I think Clinton was the right choice - killing two birds with one throw, as it were...

Being the bigger man and mending fences, as well as getting the journalists back.


Naturally, *I* would have sent Kerry. I suppose that's why Obama's President, and not me. :P

[karynnj]

20. I agree with you on both counts

There was also the fact that the Senate is in session and there always was the possibility that they could not afford sacrificing a vote.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yep - Clinton was expendable in that sense, in a way in which Kerry was not.

[StevieM]

32. "Being the bigger man?" What nonsense. He sent Clinton because it was best for the country.

And Clinton was plenty big for Obama, delivering a key speech for him at the Convention that I suspect mattered more to swing voters then it did to you. Clinton was the bigger man for even showing up and helping Obama, after the way Barack belittled his magnificent presidency.

Steve

[karynnj]

47. There was "no best for the country" The fact was this is not a major issue resolved

nor would anything have played out differently had Kerry, who they also found acceptable, had gone. Clinton's role here was largely kabuki (as it would have been with Kerry). The fact is that though this is welcome to their friends and families, this is not a major foreign policy achievement. It is no different than similar things done by people from Richardson to Jesse Jackson.

The value of BOTH Clintons's convention speeches was that they said that the party was uniting behind the candidate. This was important, but also what every Democratic nominee deserves. The fact is that every Democrat in 1992 stood behind Bill Clinton, whether they supported him in the primaries or not. He needed that support and he got it. Many used their own political capital to defend Clinton on issues where he had liabilities.

I would think the speeches most likely to have impacted swing voters were Michelle and Barak Obama's. Peopel wanted to be comfortable with them - and their speeches helped on that. In terms of making the case of Obama vs McCain, the speech that created frames that people took up was Kerry's. Before the convention, McCain had used in ads and in things said by surrogates the fact that for years many many Democrats had praised McCain. Kerry dealt with this by speaking of "candidate" McCain vs "Senator" McCain - giving examples. I heard people such as Claire McCasgil using this nearly verbatim by the next weekend.

In addition, it was a variation of Kerry's Kerry/Feingold plan that both Obama and Hillary Clinton herself had as their Iraq plan. By November, Bush himself had moved to give a date by which he thought we should be out of Iraq. Kerry spoke in talk shows of how Bush had moved to OBAMA's plan on this. (Even Hillary was saying in 2008, what Kerry said in 2006, that without the threat of us leaving the Iraqis would not make the hard political decisions they had to make.)

[StevieM]

50. Actually, Obama's forerunner, Jerry Brown, refused to endorse Bill Clinton in 92. And in 2000

Bill Bradley refused to do very much to help Al Gore. Personally, I didn't think Obama deserved any help from the Clintons. He actually belittled the significance of a recent Democratic presidency, one that was held in high standing by the voters. He actually asked the voters to lower their assessment of the last Democratic president--now THAT is the kind of thing that could have hurt the party's chances in November.

When you declare by fiat that the value of the Clintons' speeches was to make a statement about a party united (thereby conveying strength) you have only one basis for that proclamation--you said so. You continue to attribute your own sentiments to others. When you make these assessments your own feelings, by definition, don't matter. All that matters is what people like me felt, because we are the ones who needed to be won over. A show of unity meant nothing to me, nor to any like-minded person I knew. These people needed convincing that Obama was right for the job--and Hillary helped to do that.

Steve

[karynnj]

62. There were of course unique circumstances with Hillary running

From the moment a former first spouse ran, running on the two terms she was part of it was impossible for anyone to run without to some degree running against that Presidency.

Every commentary of the convention spoke of the Clinton speeches as having that value. Do you think they didn't? In addition, much of Hillary's restated many of her themes and defended her campaign. You say you needed proof that Obama was right for the job, but at that point, your choice was Obama or McCain. Are you saying that you didn't know which had closer positions to Hillary??

The fact was that, with or without the Clinton's speeches, Obama was going to get the votes of Democrats. Just as Jerry Brown's people did not vote for Bush 1, I doubt many of Clinton's supporters would have voted for McCain. At most they increased the margin.

[StevieM]

66. I am saddenned that you chose to repeat the false assertion that Hillary ran on Bill's legacy

That narrative was one of the saddest aspects of the 2008 campaign.

Hillary never said that she owned the Clinton/Gore legacy and that other Democrats had no equal claim. None of the other Democrats (Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson) ever indicated they felt that they were put in that position. Obama made it an issue because he rejected the Clinton/Gore legacy. His real goal, of course, was to put Hillary in a position where she defended the Clinton/Gore record, and then he made it out like she was running on their accomplishments.

From the moment she began her political career, Hillary maintained an independent identification from Bill. She worked very hard to cultivate that. There was a debate in 07 where Tim Russert pointed out something Bill Clinton said which contradicted one of her positions and she responded: "Well, Bill Clinton's not here tonight." Everyone laughed. Then the campaign came down to Clinton and Obama and 9 years of history, including very recent history, vanished almost overnight. It suddenly became acceptable to identify Hillary as interchangeable with her husband.

When Hillary talked about being a part of the administration she was referring to things that she did. Just like Bill Richardson did, although obviously to a much greater extent in his case. Then again, Hillary didn't place too much focus on this stuff. Obama kept bringing it up and calling her out on it, so that he could make it appear that she was trying to ride Bill's coattails. But Hillary didn't build up her lead in 07--and yes, she did build it up from where the race started--by talking about Clinton/Gore. Obama tore down her lead by putting her an a position where she had to defend the administration, lest she look disloyal, or defend something she did in it, and then made it out like she was claiming to be 2nd vice-president. It was carefully cultivated, manipulative and successful. His efforts from January to October of 2007 to beat her without this tactic had been a disaster.

And Hillary never had the advantages that Bill Clinton had as a sitting president or that Al Gore had as a vice-president. Everything she had, in terms of her poll numbers at one point, she EARNED. Nobody gave it to her. Obama, on the other hand, entered the race in January 07 as a candidate at the level of Ronald Reagan in 1976. His victory was not a stunning upset and Hillary never had the incredible advantages that people later claimed. Media pundits and internet posters who say it is amazing that she lost are simply delivering the narrative that they feel belittles her, because they don't like her. And they joyously proclaim their revisionist history to be validated by the perverse mantra that history is written by the winners. But the mantra has no substance.

Oh, and I agree with what you said elsewhere in this thread about the importance of Kerry tapping Obama to keynote the Convention. I'm sure Hillary would have loved to have been given that opportunity. But she wasn't because she was never the favorite of the party establishment. So she missed that opportunity to build up her stature. Instead she had to do it on her own, with no help. In short, she earned the standing she held by the time she entered the race and then she went out and built it up further, defying her critics again.

Steve

[karynnj]

69. The fact is that many things Hillary claimed

were things done when Bill was President.

She claimed in NH that the chnage she created was getting kids Health insurance.

That was S-CHIP, it was a bill that was based on a MA program, that in 1996 Kerry and Kennedy translated into a bill, that in 1997 was modified to become a bipartisan bill sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch, co-sponsored by Kerry and Dodd. Now, what was Hillary's role? She convinced Bill Clinton to include funding for it in the budget after the bill itself passed. That is important but not independent of Bill.

She also claimed she played a role in the Peace talks in Northern Ireland - again, this was a function of being First Lady. In fact that was why she was in Bosnia as well.

Hillary is an intelligent woman with accomplishments of her own, but the fact was that it was not just her senate or private life accomplishments she ran on. It was also not wrong to claim things she did as first lady - they are things she did.

Edwards by the way did attack the Clinton administration and both Clintons more than Obama did in 2007.

It is nonsense to say Hillary was not a party favorite - she was cast in that position the minute the 2004 election was even over. In fact, Carville spoke of the Democrats maybe finding a way to draft her in 2004 at a point where Kerry was predicted to mathematically cinch the nomination in the following week or so.

[Cha]

27. Yeah, from an article over in GDP

..it seemed best that Clinton go because Kerry was in office.

It took all of them and they all share my gratitude.

[StevieM]

34. Right. Clinton is a nobody and sending him isn't something special. Keep telling yourself that.

Clinton hasn't made himself something that Obama has to "deal with." He has been loyal and respectful and in return he gets treated like garbage by hateful people who can't stand what an enormous figure he is.

And Kerry's support for Obama was inconsequential. Hillary's campaigning made a much bigger difference in winning voters. Hell, Bill's one speech at the Democratic Convention made a bigger difference.

Steve

[karynnj]

43. Where are you coming from??

I never said Clinton was inconsequential - he is a former President. I did not criticize him at all - I simply said that a part of me wished that he would have sent Kerry - as Kerry was also acceptable to NK as well. It would have been nice had Kerry gotten credit for something for a change.

As to Kerry's support of Obama - he likely would not be President without it. Kerry selected him for the 2004 convention speech - without that speech, he never would have been a threat to Hillary. In addition, Obama's campaign gained many Kerry strategists and fundraisers when Kerry opted not to run. Kerry's endorsement and his work as a surrogate from shortly after NH was a major asset for Obama. At that point, you had the former President of the US lying about Obama's Iraq position, Kerry was the ony surrogate with the gravitas to say that being a former President did not mean that you could abuse the truth. If Obama had not gotten that endorsement and Kerry to counter Bill Clinton, it is possible the Clintons would have won bigger in Nevada and Bill may never have gone as negative. Clinton's negative behavior and their treatment of Kerry were reasons Kennedy supported Obama. If not for all that, Hillary would have won on SuperTuesday, as planned.

As to the convention, Kerry's speech given on the same night was HEAD AND SHOULDERS better than Bill Clinton's. In fact, the NYT, never a Kerry fan, and many many others said that Kerry's speech was more than just the best of that night. The NYT said Kerry's was the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in two decades. Not only that Kerry wrote the speech himself and the Obama team did not vet it.

"But last night, Mr. Kerry earned a healthy dose of political redemption delivering possibly the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention since Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson wowed the crowd in San Francisco more than two decades ago. Mr. Kerry demonstrated a passion and intensity that he rarely showed on the campaign trail in 2004. In doing so, he not only brought the partisan crowd in Denver to a fever pitch, but he became the first Democratic politician in recent memory to so openly and courageously defend the often maligned patriotism of his party."
<snip>

Now, if Mr. Kerry had stopped there this would have been an effective partisan speech — memorable in the moment but likely soon forgotten. But what John Kerry said at the end of his remarks took a very good speech into the pantheon of great speeches.
For more than two generations, one of the dominant narratives in American politics has been the notion of Democratic “weakness” on foreign policy. Democrats, the stereotype goes, do not love their country; they are not patriotic, they are as Jeane Kirkpatrick famously declared at the G.O.P. convention in 1984, blame America-firsters. And for years, Democrats have struggled to fight back; often choosing political artifice over impassioned persuasion. But, last night in Denver, John Kerry fought back:
<snip>

And instead of hiding behind showy displays of patriotic symbolism, Mr. Kerry offered a full-throated defense of the idea that dissent is as pure a form of patriotism as any that exists in a democratic society:
Years ago when we protested a war, people would weigh in against us saying, ‘My country right or wrong.’ Our answer? Absolutely, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right. Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power.

Whether one is a Democrat or Republican, these are the types of words that need to be heard on the campaign trail. In recent years, the patriotism of Democratic candidates has been all too regularly questioned; and the very notion of dissent scoffed at by some as un-American. This is no way to have a debate about national security or, for that matter, elect a president, and John Kerry, who regularly saw his patriotism laid out for scrutiny, knows all too well the damage that such attacks can have on not only one’s political future but the national discourse."
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/kerry-hits-it-home/?hp


The main value of Hillary's campaigning was to negate all the negative things she had said in the primaries when she ran a pretty nasty negative campaign - where she even praised McCain over Obama at a point where he was already the most likely nominee. It was Kerry who was used on more talk shows than anyone else as an Obama surrogate - he did the last MTP before the election and he did an outstanding job.

[StevieM]

48. If you're saying that you won and history is written by the winners then you have made your point

Beyond that....not so much.

I disagree that Bill was lying about Obama's Iraq position. Bill gave details about why he didn't think Obama deserved to be seen a certain way regarding Iraq--and he offered an opinion about those details. It says a lot about the Obama people that they take a difference of opinion in analysis as constituting a lie. Like the Republicans with Ronald Reagan, you think you own all truth and history. Then again, I don't even agree that it was a consequential part of the debate.

Kerry's comments about "abusing the truth" were a smear against a political opponent--a personal attack. And that was the kind of thing that set Bill off. And you're right--Bill was portrayed as going negative. It was more like what happens when the class bully hits a kid in the head, the kid screams out and then the bully acts all innocent when the teacher turns around. But Kerry was largely ignored by primary swing voters--he didn't get Obama any significant number of votes.

Not that it matters. Obviously, I don't care who gets credit for Obama winning the primary--I didn't want him to win. The question is who helped him win the GE. To think that Kerry was as influential with swing voters as the Clintons were is silly.....it defies common sense, logic and polling. I respect that you were moved by Kerry's speech--that says nothing about his comparative influence with swing voters vis-a-vis the Clintons. It doesn't matter how well Kerry spoke or how hard he worked. He just doesn't have the standing with Reagan Democrats and swing-voters that Bill and Hillary have.

I completely reject your negative characterization of Hillary's campaign. Supporting her magnificent candidacy was the proudest experience of my life. You claim that her campaign was unusually negative is not supported by historical standards. The 3 AM phone ad, for example, was no different that Mondale's Red Phone ad against Hart. On the other hand, I thought Obama's campaign against her was vicious and hateful, built on the tactics of Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr and Bush vs. Gore. He called her the status quo. Said she was incapable of bringing change to Washington. He said she would say or do anything to get elected. He called her Bush/Cheney light. Obama only liked a clean campaign when he was winning.

Your claim that Hillary's campaigning was to negate her supposedly negative primary campaign is based on nothing other then the fact that you said so. You are speaking as if your sentiments were the sentiments of the voters you are referring to. They are not. I was one of those voters and Hillary's so-called attacks had nothing to do with my concerns about Obama. She did, however, convince me to vote for him. Barack didn't suffer damage in that primary except for his own mistakes--Jeremiah Wright, the Bitter comments, etc. Hillary ran an uplifting campaign that appealed to the best nature in the American people. In doing so, she won over many new supporters. She was then able to help convince those people to give Obama a chance.

You are attributing your own reactions to the campaign to Clinton voters and others. Criticism of your icon may have upset you, but it was par-for-the-course among the voters who you are speaking for when you claim that they only had hesitation about Obama because of Clinton's so-called attacks. That statement isn't based on polling or focus groups--it's based on what you want the truth to be.

Clinton's campaigning was not about convincing voters that "she had changed her mind and they should too" or anything like that. You never heard that from Clinton voters--only from Obama voters talking about the Clinton people. Hillary's campaigning was aimed at voters who didn't think Obama was their guy, or who weren't sure, and who needed persuading. Hillary helped do that. She never damaged him--only his fragile ego and the egos of his self-righteous, self-important supporters. She did, however, play a vital role in winning him new voters--not that she got any credit for it. But she did it anyway....because that's the kind of team-player Hillary is. She puts others needs, and the country's needs, over her own.

Steve

[karynnj]

59. I completely disagree

In the first place I resent that you refer to Kerry as my "icon", while thinking that you are completely objective about the Clintons. The truth is likely that each of us is likely equally biased.

You ignore that completely that I could have stopped after saying Kerry gave Obama the 2004 speech, the importance of which is undeniable. It is also rather silly that you say that Kerry was largely ignored by primary voters. I was canvassing for Obama in NJ before Supertuesday and Kerry's endorsement and his advocacy did help with many not comfortable with HRC, but worried that Obama was not experienced enough. This is what real people told me. Not Kerry people, not online people - people in my town.

The fact was that given that 80% of the country said we were going in the wrong direction, the winner of the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY was going to win the election. That simple fact means that any help in the general election was likely not as a big a factor in Obama becoming President than someone who helped in the primaries - which obviously the Clintons did not do.

As to the general election, my comments are based on what I heard and saw in my county. Democrats did move behind Obama. The fact is the BIGGEST factor in moving those usually democratic voters behind Obama, who were wavering, was SARAH PALIN, who scared many people here in NJ. (This is especially true within the Jewish community - and I know many holdouts who by High Holy Days were saying they were voting Obama just for fear she could become President.)

Among swing voters, many watched the Sunday talk shows, where Kerry outclassed every Republican surrogate. Kerry was the person that the Obama team put out the most often as a surrogate and Obama himself often used arguments that Kerry used first - this was helpful. For the most part, the people who attended rallies were not swing voters, they were people already for Obama or at least people who always voted for the Democrats. The fact though is that it was neither the Clintons of Kerry, it was OBAMA who won the votes. There is of course, no polling, logic or sense that exists that proves the Clintons did more in the general election.

[StevieM]

68. We can't keep going back and forth this way, so I'll just point out that I was referring to Obama

when I said "your icon."

Did you ever check out Obama's website? On the front page it listed the major appearances--daily--of the following people whenever they went out on the campaign trail: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton.

Steve

[karynnj]

71. Yes I did check Obama's website

They also included Kerry on the days that he was campaining. He however was also campaigning in Massachusetts for re-election and was doing a huge number of fund raising events for Obama and as I said far more media appearances than the Clintons.

you would actually have been more on target had you meant Kerry, who I respect more than Obama. It was not till Kerry opted not to run that I tentatively backed Obama after rejecting Edwards and Clinton and first looking at Biden and Dodd and finding neither impressive enough. Kerry's faith and his endorsement did make me believe in Obama more. Kerry's words on the impact he could have impressed me. I was more impressed when they were echoed by what my daughter was telling me of the reaction to him in Sri Lanka where she was studying. As she was in Sri Lanka, all she knew of Kerry's endorsement was that it happened which I told her.

I am not blindly in support of what anyone does.

[monmouth]

72. Very good point..Egos, fragile things to deal with...LOL...n/t

[high density]

9. about a year ago I was feeling pretty down on him

He's definitely redeeming himself in my eyes.

[steelmania75]

12. Maybe we should send Bill Clinton to Iran to free those three Americans.

[Cha]

28. Yes, they're next on the

list, I would imagine.

[Mass]

15. It was the right person to send as he could go as a private person and have a huge clout.

It pleased the North Koreans without sending an US official.

Something tells me that keeping Clinton happy was the least of his preoccupations or Bill's. Getting the two women out was.

[stevedeshazer]

19. I agree with you up to a point.

Keeping Clinton & Clinton happy and looking good is really important.

[Mass]

21. I hope you're wrpng and it was not a consideration (or a very minor one)

People's life was at stake and I would hope it was not time for an ego show. It would disappoint me a lot both from Obama and Clinton. But may be I am too idealistic.

[SmileyRose]

16. Proof Obama will ask a Republican to get the job done if it's the right thing

And let's face it Bill Clinton may put a "D" next to his name but he's a Goldwater Republican.

[bdamomma]

23. big bill to the rescue, very good strategy.

Kim Jong Ill hosted a banquet for the occasion too.

[Beacool]

24. President Obama gave President Clinton a chance to look good?????

How magnanimous of him. Here's a newsflash: Clinton doesn't need Obama's help to look good. He is a former president who is well liked and respected overseas. Bill is quite busy with his foundation and Global Initiative, aside for being the UN ambassador to Haiti. He definitely has no need to burnish his resume.

:eyes:

On the other hand, it was a great team effort of everyone involved.

:-)

[stevedeshazer]

26. Yes. "President Obama gave President Clinton a chance to look good?????"

What would he (President Clinton) have done under the McCain Administration?

Take 'yes' for an answer! I'm being complimentary. Get real.

[Beacool]

29. Get real yourself!!

That comment is patronizing. Bill Clinton has international stature and is a very busy man. He does not need Obama, or any other president for that matter, to help him polish his resume.

Geez, some of you people must live in your own reality.......

:crazy:

[mkultra]

31. he wasnt going with Obama's say so

so yes, Obama sent him.

[Beacool]

33. No one is arguing that point.

But to state that Obama gave Bill a chance to "look good" is patronizing. It implies that Bill somehow needed to burnish his image and that's just plain BS. Bill is quite popular overseas and has a full plate as it is. He's not sitting in a rocking chair waiting for Obama to send him somewhere.

[StevieM]

35. Yep. Bill Clinton would never have pulled a Jimmy Carter on Obama. (eom)

[Beacool]

39. Yeah, Carter..........

I like the man, but he has been a thorn on the side of every president who came after him. LOL!!!!!!

:7

[mkultra]

40. we can all see your chip again

Obama did give him a chance to look good. Bill may have a good reputation and tons of diplomatic skills but the fact remains that this was just another opportunity for him to shine on the international stage. Another chance to do some good.

Obama trusted him and Bill came through. Its a measure of kinship, statesmanship and teamwork on both parts. Your jumping at shadows again. back off the attack throttle turbo.

[Beacool]

42. Chip? Coming from you, that's too funny.

The tone of the OP was patronizing. End of story.

;-)

[mkultra]

79. you see phantoms

[TokenQueer]

82. You are shouting at the rain here.

You had it right in your post upthread.

:crazy:

[stevedeshazer]

36. Okay.

:)

[Beacool]

37. That's better.

:hi:


:7

[theHandpuppet]

38. Thanks for this post

:thumbsup:

I was about to go off on a few folks here but you pretty much said it all for me and in a more civil tone than I would have managed.

[Beacool]

41. You are most welcome!!!

It always seems to be open season on the Clintons on this board.

:(

[theHandpuppet]

45. Oh yes, I've been turned off by that for a LONG time

There are times the Clinton bashers on this board make me wonder if I've wandered in to FR by mistake.

Edited to add: Heard on the news that it was actually Al Gore who had made the arrangements prior to Clinton's visit. I don't have the details yet.

[flyarm]

53. I have been seeing the Gore story on many other blogs as well

That it was Gore who set this up!

[Beacool]

57. Yeah, when it comes to the Clintons,

the left is the mirror image of the right.

:(

[Skittles]

61. DAMN STRAIGHT

that surely was a petty OP :puke:

[Beacool]

70. Yep, it was.

:eyes:

[wroberts189]

75. He needed it.. that whole Ken Star thing tarnished him bad.

For a lot of people.

Cheating on his wife? BJ in the oval office? "I did not have sexual relations"? This hurt us all and most deeply the progressive cause.

Even Gore at the time of the election ran away. Democrats condemned him left and right ..good chaps they are.

[Beacool]

81. That happened a million years ago.

Most people, other than the left and the right (mirror images when it comes to the Clintons), have gotten over it.

;)

[wroberts189]

86. True.. but some have not and this will help his image imho. nt

[Blue_Tires]

25. maybe Clinton can help work some magic into the single payer debate...

it's an idea...

[wroberts189]

74. That would be great! A very good idea. nt

[flyarm]

51. aaa

:eyes:

[fujiyama]

60. I get the impression Obama isn't petty and ideaological

He just wanted to get the two out of there. And Clinton was willing and able to do it.

I'm glad this worked out well. I'm very impressed by all three. I always hoped Hillary would be given a prominent position position in Obama's cabinet and felt she would be a tremendous asset - and of course we all know Bill is respected around the world - but even I'm amazed how quickly and smoothly it worked.

[Rex]

64. Obama has an all-star team to pick from. Unlike the turds from the Bush Administration.

Many, many turds.

[wroberts189]

73. +23 nt

[bridgit]

76. Pft-BooWhahahahaha ~

:spray:

[DCKit]

77. 180 degrees from BushCo's* idea of "diplomacy"

"Of course I'll sit down to talk with them. What the fuck is wrong with you?"

[Odin2005]

80. Finally, a sane foreign policy again,

[samsingh]

84. President Obama is a gentleman - this is hardly surprising

and so is President Clinton. They both wanted to do what was best for the hostages.

[newtothegame]

85. I agree. God knows the Clintons need some PR help after the way we ripped them to shreds last year.

[Beacool]

87. Ripping them to shreds...............

Yeah, by the media, the right AND the left.

:puke:

But they are doing just fine. Bill is well liked and respected overseas and needs no PR campaign. Ditto for our SOS.

;)