Do you suppose it's because no matter what he says or does he can't win? And maybe if he can't win, no matter what, he might as well do what he wants to do?

I think one of the biggest surprises (for me) out of this election is how Bill Clinton has managed to destroy his own reputation so thoroughly. If someone a year ago has said that Bill Clinton would be transformed from a trusted Democratic leader into a national laughingstock, I wouldn't have believe them in a million years. Showing once again reality is far stranger than fiction.

You (the collective you) create the charaters, assign roles, paint the scenery and, oh yes, you write the play. Then you shut the door on any re-writes.

I could, with the same characters, write a very different play. (Of course, you would never read it.) I can tell you this, though, in my play, the characters would be human beings, with flaws and talents, good impulses and bad, and they would be acting on a stage they can't control, because other actors and events engineered by others also have roles..

The cardboard one-dimensonal characters we are offered seriously distort individuals, politics and life in general by the simple mechanism of lowering observatons and discourse to the lowest possible intellectual bar.

Why there exists the presumption that people can't, or shouldn't ,handle complexity and , contradiction, good mixed with bad, I've never understood. I only know that it makes us all dumber and more judgmental about what we don't fully understand.

Senator Obama's tactics towards the Clintons go beyond mere politics — this was character assassination. Is anyone really going to say with a straight face that one of the most successful Presidents we have ever had, after he and his wife were treated like this, should then be jumping up and down for joy to campaign for this man?

You will be hard pressed to find in recent American history (like, probably the past 100 years) a former President who has descended to the level of political operative working against a candidate in a primary season as Bill Clinton. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that once a party's presumptive nominee is established, the party bigwigs rally around him. Perhaps Bill Clinton wanted to see Al Gore do the endorsement first. His behavior is NOT the polished, slick political behavior he displayed in the 1990s. The name “Slick Willy” was used in a disparaging way by his enemies in the 90s, but in fact it was a compliment. He had proven himself to be politically nimble — perhaps the best political talent at that point in his generation.

Most but not all pundits say he WAS detrimental to her campaign and some polls suggested as such. There is a difference between not campaigning for Obama and passing up a chance to utter a few words to reporters to at least go through the motion of party unity. If he went out there and campaigned like the Bill Clinton of old he wouldn't have the same image problems. But you can just see it in the Reuters piece: he comes across as still angry and still “bitter” and not thinking of the party. It is truly had to believe this is the person who was once hailed for having so many well-honed political skills. I and others WILL add red-faced because so many news accounts talk about him being-red faced when he's angry — which has been quite frequently in recent months..

Consider that he was painted as being detrimental to Hillary's campaign.
Why is it so outrageous that he would be hesitant about further involvement in the election campaign?
Consider, that if he had said otherwise, the same people pouncing on him now, would be equally ready to pounce on him if he did the opposite: “Oh, no, Bill is going to wreck Obama's campaign!”.

Did I say grade school? Make that kindergarden playground level.

Good one!

My stomach hurts…

This is like high school all over again. Yuck!