Friday, September 19, 2008
Backstabbing watch: Bill Clinton praises Sarah Palin
If there is one thing that is more certain than the sun rising in the east, it is that the Clintons need Barack Obama to lose while appearing to work for his victory. That is the only combination of circumstances that presents any reasonable chance for Hillary Clinton. You will forgive us, then, for laughing out loud while we drink deeply from Bill Clinton's loving cup:
Former President Clinton cast an approving eye at Sarah Palin's political skills Thursday, but wouldn't be drawn on whether his wife Hillary could run for the White House in 2012.
Clinton, acclaimed even by his enemies as one of the most consummate U.S. politicians in recent history, said he didn't agree with Republican vice presidential pick Palin on politics, but warned fellow Democrats not to underestimate her.
"She's an instinctively effective candidate and with a compelling story," Clinton said in an interview with CNBC.
"I think it was exciting to some that she was a woman," said Clinton.
"I think she, I get why she's done so well. It's a mistake to underestimate her. She's got good intuitive skills. They're significant," he said.
Clinton said he thought McCain, a Vietnam War hero and veteran lawmaker, was a "great man" and that the Nov. 4 election would be close, but he predicted Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would emerge triumphant.
This gives me an idea for a TigerHawk poll.
I'm looking forward to the comments on this one.
15 Comments:
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Fri Sep 19, 10:48:00 AM:
I've been thinking about Veep choices and their impacts, or lack thereof, on the Presidential race. I don't think Biden helps Obama at all. It made me wonder what would have been the impact if Obama had asked General Petreus to join his ticket and the General (whose political affiliation and aspirations are unknown to me) had agreed. Would not have helped him with liberal Democrats, who might stay home but would not vote for McCain in any case, but how about with Independants and moderate Republicans?
By Elise, at
Fri Sep 19, 11:19:00 AM:
The Clintons are always interesting but I do think this is a tempest in a teapot. I found the entire transcript of Bartiromo's interview with Bill Clinton and the comments about McCain being a "great man" are buried in a bunch of words about how and why Obama will win.
What he says about Palin is in direct response to a question about whether he was surprised by her bounce. I take his words as a warning the Democrats should heed if they want to win. So this one I think is analogous to Biden's remarks about Hillary Clinton being a good VP candidate: in response to a direct question. Now, I'll grant that if Bill Clinton was fonder of Obama he could have put a little more helpful spin on it but I don't think there's anything he can actually be held accountable for here.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26781882/
I'll take Door Number 2 in your poll but I can't blame Bill Clinton for not being enthusiastic about Obama. After the accusations that the Clintons were racist and the back-stabbing by Obama over the RFK/June imbroglio, I think Obama should just be grateful the Clintons aren't actively campaigning for McCain.
By 
, at
Fri Sep 19, 11:52:00 AM:
I'm reminded of the adage, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Obama made a serious mistake dissing the Clintons, a mistake that will, I think, be partly responsible for his loss this coming November.
By , at
Fri Sep 19, 11:56:00 AM:
(ringtones)
"hello, Sarah Palin here."
"hi Sarah, this is Bill."
"Bill? Bill who?"
"Bill Clinton, Your Former President. Just so you know, Sarah, I've got your back, you know, like I did for GWB. In fact, I've been admiring your back for some time now. Say, let's get together and talk politics some time, like around 5PM at my NY office. I'd really like to Fill You In, so to speak. Heh, heh. Hello? Hello?"
By clint, at
Fri Sep 19, 12:03:00 PM:
I still think Obama missed the boat when he didn't ask Mark Warner to be his Veep.
He gets another young, exciting Washington outsider -- which reinforces his Hope and Change message.
He definitely puts Virginia into play -- possibly even making it a safe Democratic pickup.
He gets another good public speaker, instead of, well, Joe Biden.
Big, big mistake.
But Hillary? Not so much. The negatives she would have brought to his campaign were just too large. (She would have been a stronger candidate at the top of the ticket -- but not at the bottom.)
By Anthony, at
Fri Sep 19, 12:13:00 PM:
I voted "Are you nuts?" I think the Veep situation was lose-lose for Obama: he could never trust Hillary once in office and Bill would forever be undermining his administration from within (when not chasing the interns).
On the other hand, his petty clumsiness in dealing with Hillary and her supporters up to and including the convention guaranteed that keeping her off the ticket would hurt, too.
By knighterrant, at
Fri Sep 19, 12:13:00 PM:
Maybe Bill Clinton just wants to have sex with Palin.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Sep 19, 12:33:00 PM:
Obama easily could have kept Hillary very busy out of the country performing "critical negotiations" in insignificant backwaters when the Senate wasn't sitting. Similarly, he could have kept Bill very busy out of country as a "special envoy" to all the misc and sundry war torn areas of the world..
It was a big mistake not to enthusiastically take her as VP. Now he's got to work hard to somehow make up the not insignificant PUMA votes that will be sitting this one out or voting for McCain.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 19, 02:56:00 PM:
Bill, as the VP's husband, would be a civilian who does not answer to the President. He's a private citizen. He can't be 'sent' anywhere.
Additionally, Bill has degrees of magnitude more political capital and contacts than Obama. A good chunk of an Obama administration would likely be composed of Clinton era Democrats. As the most experienced Democratic president alive, he would be the go-to guy for crises. Foreign leaders and representatives might even call him up personally. It would be a shadow presidency, worse if it set Hillary up for the office in the future. That would totally undermine the 22nd amendment and approach a sort of pseudo-monarchism.
Some of you are surely snickering. But think. Either a Bush or Clinton would have been in oneo f the top-two Executive spots since 1980. Bush Sr. from 1980-88 as VP, from 88-92 as POTUS; Clinton Male as POTUS from 92-2000, Bush Jr. from 2000-2008; Clinton Female from 2008-potentially 2020. (two terms of VP, and two of POTUS)
For those of you who are not mathematically inclined, that's 40 years. FOUR decades of family politics in the Executive? Failed states that resort to warlordism and monarchies do that... not living republics.
By , at
Fri Sep 19, 07:07:00 PM:
The only thing worse than Teddy Kennedy driving the car, is Bill and Hillary in the back seat...
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Sep 19, 08:10:00 PM:
Obama was damned if he did, damned if he didn't in this situation:
Pick Hillary, and you have to watch your back within your own administration throughout your entire presidency, and you have no real control over Bill, as previously mentioned.
Don't pick Hillary, and you pi$$ off all her supporters because she wasn't that far behind in the end, and it was obvious to everyone that the media was in the tank for Obama (funny how the Clintonites finally noticed the bias when it was actually directed at THEIR candidate...).
It was a no-win situation, either way.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Sep 19, 09:25:00 PM:
If Obama wins, I predict Reid losing his Senate Majority Leader position to a certain Clinton. A loss would be Senate Majority Leader Obama. Wonder who they'll get to replace Pelosi?
By , at
Fri Sep 19, 11:58:00 PM:
I saw the interview and didn't think Clinton was undermining Obama by noting positive things about the Republican candidates. If he had trashed them, it would have been another "mock outrage" story. He said he understood why she is appealing to some people -- he then said he supports Obama. It seems like a "politic" response.
Obama's VP pick said more about his interest in governing than his sole interest in winning at any cost. (I.e., he might have done better with Hillary, but then had to deal with the problem inside his administration.) It's not clear you can say the same about McCain's pick, which seems -- by contrast -- gimmicky and short-sighted.
By Pax Federatica, at
Sat Sep 20, 12:26:00 AM:
I voted "yes" on the poll, but only because being saddled with Bill was a risk Obama had to take to have the best possible shot at winning this thing.
In any event though, the Clintons must feel doubly cheated by how the campaign has unfolded. As I brought up here once before, Sarah Palin stole not only Obama's thunder, but Hillary's as well. Hillary wanted to make history with her 2008 campaign, but even if she gets the nod from the Dems in 2012 (no small assumption even if McCain wins this year, given the huge backlash she's likely to face from her own party), she may well end up having to share history's spotlight with her general-election opponent.
By , at
Sat Sep 20, 08:10:00 AM:
I'm with those who saw the VP choice as a "lose-lose" for Obama. The one thing worse than having the Clintons opposing you would be having them inside your organization.
Actually, it was somewhat better than "lose-lose." Sure, he pisses off the PUMAs, but most of them will come around by Election Day, and there was really no chance the Clintons would have actively gone against Obama. Some passive-aggressive disruption at the most, but to stand athwart the DNC would have been political suicide for Hillary.
