General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you view Bill Clinton speaking at the Dem convention an act of desperation
on Obama's behalf?
A reporter from, I believe, the NYT said that on Tweety today.
That was the last impression I had upon hearing about Clinton's upcoming speech.
If anything, it shows a stark contrast of BOTH Cheney's and Bush's glaring absence from the GOP convention.
Or am I not being realistic?
Yeah Its Spin
(236 posts)CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)that is a worry, isn't it!
And no...I don't think this is desperation, I think it's brilliant...
SlimJimmy
(3,171 posts)the Democratic party.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)They formulate their storylines at Park Avenue cocktail parties.
Don't pay any attention to their drivel.
elleng
(130,126 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)After all they wouldn't want to be un-invited to said rarefied company.
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)...also the Fifth Avenue cocktail party crowd and the Central Park West cocktail party crowd. They trow a lot of these parties to raise money for Obama and the Democrats.
The day people stop automatically associating "rich" with "Republican" is the day they'll have a better ability to interpret whats going on politically.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)and trying to infer, if not downright accusing Obama of 'desperation'.
And I don't associate the rich with Republicans unless that's what they are. I'm glad you get to rub elbows with the rich Democrats.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)This is a meme being put out by Joe Scab, acting like he and Clinton
were "enemies" until now, which is a joke..He quotes stuff that was
said when Bill's WIFE was running against him four years ago
and so far no one has pointed out that rather obvious fact.
I'd say it's the Repukes who are "desperate"..After all, look
at their candidate, bombing out all over the world stage, which
must be especially hard to take when that same world, by and large,
absolutely LOVED Obama.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Just a team effort and a smart one.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,694 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I see it as a confident move. A FU to Republicans who tried so desperately to ruin Clinton.
Jessy169
(602 posts)It is a common falsehood that the right-wingers love to keep pushing in their little echo chamber. Most of the time that bullshit just bounces off the walls and does nothing but get the crazies all hooting and hollering in excitement. It never occurred to me that having Clinton speak is an act of desparation. Electoral map predictions show Obama ahead by about 100, and that has stayed pretty consistent. To me, Clinton is inspiring, super intelligent, a very wise and principled individual. He has a pretty good popularity rating. I think he's going to bring the house down -- nothing to do with desparation, but everything to do with inspiration and motivation. That's my take.
SoDesuKa
(3,173 posts)I blundered into a right wing chat room on Yahoo, and quickly learned how nasty they can be. They don't want to discuss policy; they just want to ventilate. I got out of there in a hurry!
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)The guy who refused to veto DADT, DOMA, and NAFTA? Because he said they would get passed over his veto anyway? This is the type of principles of which you speak?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)you might want to Google it.
Or just click this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)It's just bullshit. The Repukes again are jealous they can't have Bush/Cheney at their convention because they are failures. It's like everything else they say about Obama. If the subject doesn't look good to or for them, they think it's a weakness on Obama's part.
It's ALL they have.
JohnnyLib2
(11,206 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)dimbear
(6,271 posts)another party we needn't mention.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Funny reading this thread though
KT2000
(20,544 posts)it would be weird if he did not participate and to do anything less than the nomination would be insulting.
He knows how to get a crowd going and he should be put to work there.
That reporter must be trying to create drama. They have to do something to distract from the idiot Romney.
Raster
(20,996 posts)What did you expect the reporter to do? Actually and factually report the news? Silly KT. Those days are gone.
Raster
(20,996 posts)....of the United States would give the introduction/nomination speech. This reinforces continuity of the Democratic brand and ideals.
As for Dick* and Dubya*, I wouldn't show my face in public either if I were guilty of: (1) torturing innocents; (2) invading a sovereign nation for false and self-serving purposes; and (3) a veritable plethora of war crimes.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)They don't say anything when they dredge up the corpse of Cheney to drag around for their most extreme of believers...
DFW
(54,047 posts)I was there in Denver four years ago. Bill Clinton's speech was one of the highlights of the whole
convention. His speeches are ALWAYS a highlight. His charisma is unique, and his ability to mesmerize
a room or a crowd in undiminished.
Nixon trying to enlist Eisenhower to make a campaign video from Eisenhower's deathbed in 1968--now
THAT was an act of desperation. Clinton loves being the center of attention and knows how to work a
crowd. He'd pay to be there if he had to. They didn't have to ask him twice.
CatWoman
(79,283 posts)you're right -- that's beyond desperate
DFW
(54,047 posts)So much so that the Nixon campaign ended up not running it. Apparently after seeing the tape, their top campaign strategists thought it looked too disgusting, so they stopped it, although a few stills from the taping got out. The outraged reaction to that was enough to nix the idea to use it for the "sympathy" vote.
xmas74
(29,658 posts)He's a fantastic speaker and he held the crowd's attention the entire time. This was in a conservative town and he received multiple standing ovations.
They'd be crazy not to have him speak at the convention. He's good, he knows it, and he feeds off the energy of the crowd.
Johonny
(20,675 posts)applegrove
(118,006 posts)like that go to waste. I hope Obama sends him on his own cross country tour for Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021049415
marlakay
(11,370 posts)moving on and helping Obama for the good of the party. He cares about this country and doesn't want republicans to win it back. He knows the reason Obama couldn't get anything done was congress blocking him.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)People love Clinton for whatever reason. When you have a star, let him shine.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,216 posts)Personally, I'm thrilled he was chosen to make the nomination.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Bush and Cheney are radioactive.
Clinton is a positive icon to most.
spanone
(135,627 posts)nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)trying to make a great strategic move by Obama and Clinton sound bad. And, yes, I think Bill is doing this for Hillary to get the party backing for her run in 2016.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)yourout
(7,520 posts)Then when Mittens nomination came up he would step to the podium and say....
"I accept"...."write the checks to Romney for President. That is all"
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)...being used to help drum up excitement among the base to get them into the voting booths instead of taking a pass in November.
I'm not sure what you perceive Obama might be desperate about that Clinton would solve, if that makes any sense.
(?)
PB
elleng
(130,126 posts)Among other things, he can EXPLAIN the differences between the candidates, parties, and programs, in a way that can be understood by EVERYONE, and used thru the rest of the campaign.
He can also state CLEARLY that a major reason we are where we are, economically, is due to the intransigence of the repugs, hence plugging for a Dem Congress.
speedoo
(11,229 posts)I believe the NYT article is on line, so I will see what was said in the article.
on edit, I just re-read the article, which was written by Jeff Zeleny, Tweety's guest. He says nothing like that in the article, so I can't imagine why he would do so on TV.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A respected Democratic senior statesman?
The Republicans don't dare trot out their former presidents.
Hamlette
(15,388 posts)It's a great idea. Gore should have done it.
(Hi friend! Nice to see you again. Been gone for a bit. How are you?)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)GW who. Oh yeah that guy that ran in 2000, it seems like so long ago.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)can't even show their evil faces at the Rethug convention they're so toxic and Barack will be nominated by America's bad-boy sweetheart Bill Clinton....
I see it as win-win-win (and I'll bet you do too!). They just want to make it seem like a close race!
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Well said.
CatWoman
(79,283 posts)with everything he says
Rowdy
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)And I've loved Bill C for nearly thirty years now-what can I say? The man's one of the greats in my book!
Except right back atcha!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Unlike the Republicans we can embrace and welcome our former Presidents.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The guy is one of the premier politicians of our time. Of COURSE it's a good idea to have him speak.
"desperation"? Why? Because Romney's running such a great campaign, so far?
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)The number of jobs created under Clinton as compared to the Shrub.
What is desparate is he PUKES attempt to deflect why Shrub can't speak.
For you Trolls..... FUCK OFF, your boys suck, always have and always will.
Raine
(30,540 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)How is this year any different? Plus, his wife is actually part of the current Administration. Desperation? President Obama is leading in the polls in most critical states and Romney cant get his foot out of his mouth.
malaise
(267,786 posts)It shows up the ReTHUGs big time and it won't hurt with the working class white male vote.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)he's a big part of the reason the Democratic Party is where it is today...no ability to stand up for economic justice and no voice in the media.
Do you think that the repukes are just waiting to roll the ads with him recently undercutting the economic fairness message we're actually trying to get out there now?
RobinA
(9,874 posts)Get a popular ex-President who's one of the best speakers of his generation and an overall brilliant politician, and have him speak at the convention? Desperation? I'm thinking no.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)gathering of Democrats in four years.
How the fuck is it "desperation" to ask Clinton to speak? I mean, come on...
reflection
(6,286 posts)He's the last Democratic president and presided over a surplus. Perfect speaker for the event.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)just kidding.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He wants to make sure everybody continues to think Hillary is running in 2016 and since she has already said she won't continue as SoS in the second Obama administration he has to at least plant the seed in our minds.
I'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't want to run. She'll be 70 or so and she's been a very busy woman for the last 20 years. But I don't think Bill has accepted this.
Obama pretty much has no choice but to invite Clinton if he doesn't want to look vindictive over the things Clinton said and did in the 2008 primary campaign.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)When you have Elvis on the tour bus, you let the man play.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It would be unusual if he didn't.
H2O Man
(73,308 posts)I think it is an essential move, to compare the clean glass of water to the Romney filth-contaminated glass of sludge.
Joanie Baloney
(1,357 posts)And I was taken aback when he said it was an act of desperation, too.
Here is the link to the video: http://video.ca.msn.com/?mkt=en-ca&vid=268fe7c6-8b5e-4b78-9d84-21b28a7a93df&from=sharepermalink&src=v5:share:sharepermalink:
The quote in question starts about at the 1:43 mark. Keep watching though, because the analyst from the NY Post, Dan Balz pretty much tore that apart.
Note: Clinton has spoken at every Dem convention since 1988 - why would this year be any different??
The Big Dog must speak!
-JB
Enrique
(27,461 posts)they should have ended the segment there. Tweety and Zeleny should have resigned from their jobs and gone into hiding.
lol at Tweety saying to Zeleny, "you broke this story..." Breaking news that Clinton is doing something that he ALWAYS DOES?
rurallib
(62,342 posts)lying son of a bitch
I would never believe a word he writes or speaks.
CatWoman
(79,283 posts)Joanie Baloney
(1,357 posts)speedoo
(11,229 posts)He said it reflects that Obama is "in trouble" not that it was an act of desperation. I thought his comments, except for the "in trouble" comment, were a rehash of the article, and I thought Balz was much more on target.. But there is no need to exaggerate what Zeleny said.
Joanie Baloney
(1,357 posts)Zeleny didn't use the term "act of desperation". But I don't agree with his analysis that asking Clinton to speak at the convention reflects that Obama is in trouble.
speedoo
(11,229 posts)Obama is not in trouble.
But I also think it's unfortunate that the OP has misinformed everyone about what Zeleny said, leading everyone to over react to what was actually said.
Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)Not to mention the fact, his wife is SOS. It seems to me that it's a very good choice.
Mass
(27,315 posts)a different negative thing, so I would take pundits (on our side or on the other side) with more than the proverbial grain of salt.
I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but he has spoken in the last three conventions (so has Jimmy Carter). I cannot imagine for what reason he would not have been given a speaking spot.
brush
(53,467 posts)Seems to me that tweet shows the desperation of an obvious right-leaning reporter. Sounds like common sense to me if have a star ex-pres you use him. The repugs don't. They want W Bush and Cheney as far away from their convention as possible so Rmoney doesn't get tarnished with their taint. It's as simple as that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and the other is a well liked two term incumbent this is the natural thing to do. To see an act of desperation, review the GOP's every move since McCain picked Palin.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Ed's replacement, Dr Dyson, had EJ Dionne as a guest on the show last night and EJ said that he interviewed then Senator Obama and he said that President Obama genuinely likes President Bill Clinton.
EJ said that Obama had to even scale back a little just how much he liked Clinton in 2007 during the presidential campaign because he was running against Hillary to be the candidate.
And that President Obama not only liked President Clinton, but that he approved of many of the policies that Clinton had put into place when all of the members of the Republican party had their knives out for Clinton.
Most of the GOP opposition that was against President Clinton back then was not even discussed on tv. And it was only lightly touched on in most of the national newspapers, and very little at that, in the printed press of the day.
But, it was a "dog eat dog" fight every single day with the Republicans in Congress when President Clinton was President, especially after Newt became the Speaker of the House in 1995.
EJ went on to say that many of the economic advisors that worked under President Clinton are advisors in President Obama's administration.
As are many of his foreign policy advisors, former advisors to President Clinton.
President Obama thought that they had done a good job for President Clinton when they were working for him, so he asked them to work for him during his term in office.
President Obama was smart for cherry picking some of the smartest and hardest working people from President Clinton's administration to work for him while he was in the White House.
If not for the total stalemate that the Republicans have used for the last 3 years, President Obama's accomplishments would be more numerous and more beneficial for our country.
Since the Republicans decided to throw up road blocks for simply anything and everything that President Obama proposed, and then set a record for the number of filibusters they imposed on the Senate body, President Obama has only been able to enact a limited number of changes in the way the country has been able to deal with the problems that President Bush left for our country to solve when he skedaddled out from the White House in 2009.
So, no, I don't think this is an act of desperation at all.
I think that the Democrats in Congress have had enough of all of the road blocks, and filibuster crap they are willing to take from the Republicans.
They may not all sit down in a circle on the floor and sing kumbayah at the convention, but they know who the real problem is in Congress nowadays . . . and they aren't a few Blue Dawgs or just a few DINOS.
The Republicans in Congress have marched arm-in-arm in lockstep with each other for the last 2 years to prevent President Obama from having any kind of success, and yet, President Obama has succeeded in spite of all of their efforts.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)so how can you come to that conclusion?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)to be arguing.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)Hoover did
Truman did
Ike did
Nixon didn't but that was because of the way he left office
Ford did
Carter did (even after the landslide defeat of 1980)
Reagan did
Bush I did
Clinton has
The only reason that Bush II isn't is because he knows he is enormously unpopular.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)And we have a lot of it. Unlike the Rethugs.
Julie
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)And Bill is a great speaker. I think it'll be fantastic.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)unlike the Rethugs, who would rather forget about W.
lpbk2713
(42,696 posts)Mittens is the one who is fugging up at every turn and he is the one
that has to beg for even minimal support from his own party.
33Greeper
(188 posts)CatWoman
(79,283 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)to this OP? That should have been your first clue.
Then, you should have read the OP again just in case you misunderstood it, which you did. Catwoman clearly disagrees with the NYT reporter and said so and thinks it is obvious that having Bill Clinton speak is NOT an act of desperation.
That should have been your second clue.
Your third clue was Catwoman's reaction to your post.
My post is your fourth clue. You might wish to edit or delete your post after all these clues.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)If the last Democratic President (prior to the present) to sit in office wants to speak at the Democratic Convention I hardly think of it as an act of desperation.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)themaguffin
(3,805 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Clinton is still very popular. A recent poll found 66% of Americans have a favorable view of him. He was the last President to leave office with a balanced budget that was in surplus and a growing economy. This contrasts starkly to the previous Administration. Further, Clinton is big with the so-called Reagan Democrats (mostly blue collar workers) where Obama is struggling. They have been especially hard hit. Clinton and Obama communicating the same economic vision for the country may give the President a boost with this constituency.
And Bill is a great speaker and will add energy and pride to the convention. I'm all for this. I think this is a very good thing.
As several posters have also noted, neither Cheney nor Bush will be at the puke convention because, despite their public statements to the contrary, the repukes are embarrassed by them.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Be marginally stupid NOT to.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)who doesn't like hearing about how good things were when he was president, and how he is now part of the 1% but still thinks the rich should pay more in taxes, I'll bet if were only up to Obama, he wouldn't speak. IMHO, Obama just doesn't want to have to deal with "Why is Obama freezing out Clinton at the convention" and "Split in the Democratic Party" stories that would come as a result.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)At the convention?
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)And if he weren't speaking, they'd say that was a Bad Thing, too.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Clinton is a unifying figure with a lot of credibility. Of course he's speaking.
I think people in the media who question it are just hoping to create controversy.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)he's a rockstar with most Dems. And I think it's a beautiful contrast to their hiding bush and cheney in a closet.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I think having both former Democratic Presidents standing side by side with President Obama would be a very nice touch.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but he's a good speaker, fires up the crowd, and brings back memories of a far better economy. He's an asset, put him to work. And it isn't as though Bill Clinton ever needed an excuse to get in front of a camera.
At least we can bring the last Democratic president out into the public and not have him pelted with rocks and garbage, like the Little Chimp would be. Hell, the Repukes don't even acknowledge his existence.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Clinton was a great president overall. He did a few things I didn't agree with, but he turned this country around after the Republicans pillaged and plundered it.
I still think the old cartoon I saw showing the Democrats cleaning a big pile of steaming elephant manure up was the most accurate description of our political system in America. The Republicans come in and pillage and plunder and destroy our economy and the Democrats come in and clean up their damn messes afterward. It happens over and over again.
I see no reason why President Clinton shouldn't be at the convention.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Well, let's see:
He was, and remains, extremely popular with Democrats;
He presence highlights the absence of Bush and Cheney;
He advances the one of the core narratives of President Obama's campaign ... The wealthy should pay a higher marginal rate in taxes; in fact, they should pay what they were paying under Clinton, and the economy did quite well.
Nope, not an act of desperation ... A really shrewd move.
But on another note ...
Unless the "reporter" was stating what someone else has said (e.g., the gop indicates that ...), this spells out exactly what is wrong with journalism today.
Reporters should report ... If a reporter wishes to "Opine", they should get a job as a pundit.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)suck it
Amerigo Vespucci
(30,885 posts)...the Republicans CAN'T have Bush at THEIR convention. He said "I ain't a-goin', Stretch," LONG before the issue came up. The intent of that, I am sure, was to "back out gracefully" and slip out the back door. That can;t happen now because Big Dog is speaking. The human mind tends to think in terms of balance. Clinton was the last Democratic President and he's going to attend. Bush was the last Republican President and he's not. He will be conspicuous by his absence.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)What a joke.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Glass-Stegall, NAFTA as leading precursors and the vanguard of the world economic crisis. In comparison to the criminal BUSH/CHENEY coup Clinton's complicity is exponentially lessened.
JI7
(89,172 posts)this is going to be the first convention without Teddy in decades. but he had always been the one brought on to get the crowds excited. everyone knew who he was.
in the future Barack Obama will be to the party that Ted Kennedy had been when it comes to these events.
but right now Bill Clinton is probably one of the closest to being that.
and it doesn't hurt that Clinton years were great when it comes to the economy. the economy is the only area where Obama could lose support.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)NO way would I want to follow him as a speaker. I think he is certain to mention the boom economy he presided over and that's going to be a tough act to follow.
The morning after, the press will be talking about Bubba's speech and President Obama's will get short shrift.