Bill Clinton could soon be an unusually important (private) Adviser

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I have always felt that Bill Clinton is a freakishly good political fighter. (How else does such a flawed person win all those elections?)

Clinton could never be a transformative figure because his skills lie in reaction. He's a politician, not a movement leader.

Obama acts in a remarkably clear, organized, smart way but doesn't react very quickly or surely.

Clinton seems to create crisis and confusion because in that environment he is sure his skills are better. (Like the stock movie blind person turning out the lights to gain the advantage over an intruder.)

Whether pugs take nominal control of either house of congress or not it is sure that they will effectively control the agenda. They will be the ones acting.

Bill Clinton's finest hour was gaining the upper hand in public opinion in the early show-downs with Newt Gingrich. It was also when he was engaged in shenanigans in the oval office with Ms. Lewinsky. Not a disciplined man... but obviously brilliant at reacting to adversity.

Obama is going to have to demonize and humiliate the Republicans at every turn. Any opening... even if it's petty or unfair or poisons the well for all that bipartisanship of the future.

He is going to have to be willing that people think poorly of him as long as they think even more poorly of the other side. (If Obama has a tragic flaw it is vanity.)

Can we regain the initiative form the pugs?

Perhaps.

How?

Nobody knows yet. We cannot draw up a diagram. We will be reacting to what they do.

And however it turns out it will not be pretty along the way.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

3. Where did you get that crazy idea?

Abortion in the health care bill is exactly the same as it is in every other federal health care program, Medicaid, Medicare, IHS, military, all of it. I have not heard all these women's groups freak out for the last 30 years over these other programs.

200,000 homes have been weatherized. Who do you think did those jobs?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/26/vice-president-biden-announces-200000-homes-weatherized-under-recovery-a

And I am fed up with pointing out that there has been more progress for the gay community under this president than all the others COMBINED.

[dsc]

6. that is just plain false

None of the other plans ban you from spending your own money to purchase abortions while the health care bill does. In addition, states may, and many do, under Medicaid pay for abortions over and above what the feds so. Under HCR, they can't. You can claim the opposite until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but it doesn't make it true.

[sandnsea]

7. Oh it does not

And Medicaid IS "the feds" and only THREE states pay for abortion beyond Hyde.

No plan of any sort can ban you from spending your own mony to pay for an abortion. I cannot even imagine why anybody would say something so completely stupid.

And what's really ironical - you don't even support abortion rights.

[dsc]

8. I never said I did

but the simple fact is that I have humungous problems with the feds using their funds to prevent funding of otherwise legal medical services. Medicaid isn't the feds, it is a jointly operated and funded program. The number of states choosing to use their funds for abortion is irrelevent. It is the fact that option exists which is relevent. There is nothing, after this precedent, to prevent the next Jesse Helms from using his governmental power to prevent any spending of any sort on the next AIDS. Abortion is legal. (whether I like that fact or not). This bill would prevent women from buying any sort of abortion insurance with their own money if they got so much as a dime from the feds for their insurance and might well prevent them from doing so even if they don't (since they would be using exchanges that are run by the feds). It is a dangerous power grab that is a horrible precedent.

[aquart]

2. You mean "could be" or "may be", don't you?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. depends on the meaning of "important"

Headline writing is always uncomfortable short-hand.

What I was thinking was that assuming the pugs gain a bunch of seats--whether they win formal control or not--that whatever Clinton thinks about the day-to-day news should be of great interest.

Those views will be available to the president and the president will be aware of them. So whether Obama wants it or not he will be getting a ton of advice from Bill Clinton. (Probably including back-channel influence through Hillary and other Clinton-era people.)

As to whether the president would seek or value that advice he will be getting is another matter.

I don't know.

So the question is, can someone be an "important adviser" if their advice is ignored?

Probably not.

But the advice could be important even if ignored. Or could it? Depends on the meaning of important.

Yeah... on balance you're right. I'll see if I can edit.

[Maccagirl]

5. You nailed the basic characters of Clinton and Obama

I was also thinking about the difference between Reagan and Clinton.
Reagan was a liar but believed his own lies, thus you can't call him a phony.
Clinton (on policy matters) told the truth, but didn't believe his own facts.