Bill Clinton Sends Yet Another Signal

Hey Joe,

My first thought was, "what a self-absorbed doofus" but, what if by leaving the convention he is actually helping Obama. Taking the pity party behind closed doors (if that is what he is doing) finally lets the convention be about Obama. This might be very helpful.

Am I the only person who just does not understand this man? Honestly, if you are a former president, shouldn't you do everything that you can to support the nominee for your party?

I'm just askin'...

http://thepajamapundit.com/

Three things. Editors, please note third item in particular.

1. Hillary Clinton's speech was lousy last night, despite all the delusional stuff on this Web site and on lefty talk radio to the contrary. It was lousy. It was wooden like Al Gore, it was too long, it was self-serving, it was pathetic. All of you on here who thought it was great stand corrected. Clinton was obviously the poorer speaker and less attractive candidate compared to Obama, as she as well as he have now demonstrated. Hillary's poor speech puts more pressure on Obama to do well, though Obama may simply be relieved that it's one Clinton down and put behind him, one to go.

2. Bill Clinton could well tell the audience to vote for Hillary if that's what's really in their hearts, or even go vote for McCain. As Dave in Boca would say, "ha, ha, ha"; it serves the Dems right if that happens for giving either Clinton the opportunity to speak. At least after tonight, the Clintons effectively should be old news, possibly permanently.

3. While all the lefties on this site have been robotic, "Kool-Aid drinking" parrots of the Dem party line and lie that Hillary Clinton did well, those of us who know better also noticed that one (1) speaker last night was the exception to the string of duds and failures, and that one speaker achieved what _every_ speaker should have been doing as far as a routine level of rallying the crowd was concerned. The one good speaker last night was Montana governor Schweitzer. This didn't go unnoticed not only by those of us watchers who were awake and normal (we wanted Hillary yanked off the stage by the end of her speech), but by the media.

It is this story that should have been the main story on this site today, along with honest criticism of Hillary Clinton's poor speech last night.

http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/08/schw...

I agree that Schweitzer's was the best speech of the night. But I disagree with DLS that Clinton's speech was poor. She's not a great orator. But she looked more fired up advocating for Obama and against McCain than I've ever seen her.

Pajamapundit,
This is not the first time a former President stiffed the new nominee. Harry Truman famously refused to back John Kennedy in 1960. HST wanted Adlai Stevenson to go at it for a third time and thought Kennedy was too inexperienced to lead. Truman was public about it too.

LOL @ "those of us that know better"

Thanks for the laff, DLS.
HRC's speech last night was just as passionate as hers were on the campaign trail.
There are plenty on youtoobz to compare it with.
And I hate kewl-aid, sorry.

"unlike most professional politicians he is unable to put on a happy face to show he favors party unity over a specific candidate"

***************

Thank God. Let's denigrate him because he's not acting like a "professional politician". Then when he acts like one, denigrate him for that too....

You know, real humans find it difficult to put on a happy face when they're in a funeral procession. The neo-ignorance of the democratic party and its suicidal mission to back a greenhorn in time of war is like the tolling of the bell..

And Bill simply took his ear muffs off and can hear it and is letting us know in the only way he can, being hog-tied by the DNC.

Have fun in your parallel universe kids. Enjoy the Koolaide.

We've learned long ago, the WJC only does for WJC. that is unless a cigar is involved.

What does neo-ignorance mean?

new ignorance.

Dictionary.com:

"new" = of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being

"ignorance" = A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have.

The Obama phenomenon nothing if not "neo-ignorant". Democrats have newly acquired a wilfull blindness to the facts, in this presidential race above any other in memory. The more compelling those facts are against Obama's likihood to win in the Fall, the more wilfully neglectful the Obamabots become. It's like a directly proportional relationship in fact.

They've lost two presidential races in a row... and they have a new-found ignorance?

DLS,
point #3->You are entitled to your own opinion, but unlike a true fact checker and forensic debater, you fail at step 2. After you weigh evidence you rush to judgement based on whatever available smatterings of info you skim over. You disrespect and demonize those "not like us" just like a star-bellied Sneetch ( I encourage you to re-read Dr. Suess- it will change your life) with out regard for further analysis, corroboration or cross-checking. I also encourage to to wean yourself of the pablum that Right Wing blog kool aid drinkers spew as well. This is TMV, not Right Wing News, or the Ann Coulter Fan Club.
Personally, I was more of a Sunny D /vitamin water drinker meself.
I don't think WJC is rally a Democrat anymore. I think he's suffering from Presidential Title Stress Disorder


btw, did you know the word "pundit" comes from India( meaning wise person or artist, and nothing to do with reportage at all!)? Betcha the lunatic fringe will backpeddle off that if they knew.

Yes Chris, this election in particular smacks of the most blatant of willful neglect of facts.

In fact it is the hallmark of this election and will go down in history as such. True, it seems to be a tradition with democrats, but this time around is simply ridiculous: picking a greenhorn over a tenured leader in time of war actually transcends wilfull ignorance and teeters on the edge of suicidal mania.

The Clintons have nothing but sour grapes for the Obama campaign. They want to win at all cost. They don't care if they are destroying the Democratic Party in the process. The only change in strategy is to posture for Hillary's 2012 campaign now that she definitely cannot get the nomination this year.

My feeling is that they both want Obama to lose so in 2012 Hillary can run under an "I told you so, now don't make the same mistake twice" banner.

She's doing just barely enough to remain palatable to the dems, so she doesn't completely alienate the party for her next stab at the presidential nomination.
Meanwhile her husband is free to do everything he possibly can to show their derision for Obama so in four years no one can say they went along with a poor candidate and cost their party four more valuable years. She can say I told you so, but I was willing to play fair... but still I told you so and showed you so and was a good sport.

I do not understand how the Clintons garner so much support when they are so obviously powerhungry AND impatient about it to boot. I do not understand why Hillary's speech is considered "classy" when it has come several months too late. If she had bowed out of the race and conceded to Obama in the first place, there would be no need for her to deliver some rallying cry for the party that SHE HERSELF tried to split apart, haggling over superdelegates, roll call votes and deriding the party's own rules about selecting candidates.

The real travesty is that the American people deserve a chance to choose between apples and apples -- there is no way to get a fair vote if both parties do not properly and wholeheartedly discuss the merits of their candidate and compare them to the other party's guy. Telling me how Obama and Hillary stack up against each other in no way helps the voters decide between Obama and McCain.

All these articles about Hillary's speech being *almost* exactly what was needed are just mind-blowing. No amount of her saying the heart of the race is "No McCain" can change the facts -- that she and her husband believe the race was and should have been "Has to be Hillary".

When will people stop being grateful to the Clintons for "saving" them from problems they themselves caused?!

For instance, here's gallup's latest:

Gallup Tracking 08/23 - 08/25 2684 RV 44 46 McCain +2

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...

Gallup shows Mc Cain ahead by 2 points in Obama's time of glory. Kinda makes me squirm to think about when the bloom comes off the rose next week.

But Obamabots are now chanting "ignore the polls". The GOP is in heaven. It won't be long now..

In fact it is the hallmark of this election and will go down in history as such. True, it seems to be a tradition with democrats, but this time around is simply ridiculous: picking a greenhorn over a tenured leader in time of war actually transcends wilfull ignorance and teeters on the edge of suicidal mania.

Newsflash: Clinton is a greenhorn too!

You really bought into those Clinton ads didn't you? Hillary has absolutely no executive experience. None. Her legislative experience is on par with Obama's. Her electoral experience is worse than Obama's. Her judgment on war (Iraq in particular) is worse than Obama's.

No matter how much you may want to say otherwise (from what motives???), and attack me wrongly (from whta motives???), her speech was poor -- it was too long, it was self-serving, was superficial where it had to matter most. Her true purpose for being there was to tell Clinton voters that McCain (and the GOP) were the wrong choice (and that means elaborating on this, and rallying the crowd against the Evil Republicans), and that Obama and the Dems are the right choice (even admitting that her and his agendas were nearly identical as part of the appeal). The style was frequently wooden like Al Gore's. You who deny it are blinded by your emotions and your political motivations (and who knows what others that don't merit claiming).

She was a disappointment (as was nearly everything last night, something else few of you honestly acknowledge). Hopefully Bill Clinton (and Joe Biden -- should be the ultimate McCain- and GOP-bashing speech) will do better. I'd even like to see Bill Clinton stray from the script, bash the GOP on the economy, and reach a state where he is red-faced, screaming at Bush, McCain, and the Republicans, and has the entire crowd on its feet shouting as loudly.

What better way to approach Obama's big speech? I can't think of any.

"She's doing just barely enough to remain palatable to the dems"

Except that as compensation, so many of them are adding greatly to what little really was done, and attacking those who state the truth, that little really was done.

Chris,

No executive experience eh?

You must be a man right? Because any woman reading that comment knows that the First Lady, especially Hillary as first lady, probably has more experience actually affecting policy than most high-ranking cabinet members.

Do you think she spent her years in the Whitehouse knitting and baking cookies? Remember her GOP-defeated fight for healthcare while as first lady? Do you think Bill ignored her advice on matters affecting this country?

Boy, what you don't know about women is a lot. What you don't know about Hillary could fill an encyclopedia.

"But she looked more fired up advocating for Obama and against McCain than I've ever seen her."

It's nothing compared to how fired up she has been in the past for herself, openly.

Wow, a candidate fighting for themselves to be elected.

Shocker.

It's hard to get fired up over a six-shooter loaded with five bullets and aimed right in the mouth of the democratic hope for a win this Fall.

Unlike the neo-ignorant, Hillary has seen the Sinclair story and knows what the GOP can do with passed polygraph tests, cell-phone records and key witnesses in the media.

Did we forget the recent "long-known-about-previoiusly-dismissed-recently-revisited-again-totally-damaging Edward's scandal?

neo-ignorance. It's not just a term, it's a way of life for many..

I have to agree with ChrisWWW; I saw two "greenhorns" in the Democratic primary. Both represented "change" and both were historic candidates. Even Steven there...

And Silhouette, the GOP is hardly in heaven. McCain's campaign is floundering around on the VP pick because he isn't the "maverick" anymore. Pick Romney, and the Dems could plaster anti-McCain rhetoric in ads coming from Romney mouth. Bobby Jindal doesn't want any part of this. So on a so forth. The Republicans biggest weapon is playing up Dem dis-unity and Obama's "not like us-ness" to keep people from looking hard at McCain.

And since some Dems are so blinded by Obama hatred, they will gleefully give the Republicans 4 more years of policies not their own. Makes great sense, huh? Nope. But hey, this is America. If you rather vote for the person who's entire party stands against you, be my guest. I can here the whining and complaining now:

That McCain this and that McCain that!!

And quit with the Sinclair stuff. WOW! But it's true in your eyes, Sil. LOL! Hey McCain has something real special for you Dems that are going to vote for him:

A big dose of Republican and Conservative goodness!

Do you think she spent her years in the Whitehouse knitting and baking cookies? Remember her GOP-defeated fight for healthcare while as first lady? Do you think Bill ignored her advice on matters affecting this country?

I was an intent consumer of primary campaign coverage, and I do not remember hearing about a single noteworthy accomplishment of hers during her husband's time as President.

And for the record, giving advice to a decision maker and being that decision maker are two entirely different things.

We don't hate Obama. We feel sorry for him and all the democrats who will lose by backing a sure-loser.

Hillary has lived, breathed and eaten DC for 35 years. Obama was in gradeschool when she made here debut in politics. She's had an 8-year tenure in the Whitehouse. Her husband and other half is a president of the United States. And not just any president, but one of the most beloved (by anyone who thinks higher than the tabloid news) president in history. He and she wrested the economy to a surplus, the highest it's ever been in our country. If you think Hillary didn't have a hand in advising that status, then you don't know between wives and husbands who statistically balances the checkbook each month..

And she's a greenhorn? If she's a greenhorn then Obama is still just a fertilized egg in a petri dish.

Obama should go back to the Senate for another ten years and he'd still be Hillary's junior in experience then compared to now. He should do that and let the sheets get cold before he takes another stab at leading democrats to the Oval Office.

Hillary has lived, breathed and eaten DC for 35 years.

And yet can't claim a major accomplishment. Botched a campaign against a Washington newcomer, and screwed up the one major foreign policy decision she ever had to make.

Maybe she'll be wise enough to be president in a few more years after she's absorbed the lessons of the last five.

Clinton was stonewalled. There was no botching.

She made a vote for Iraq based on false information. A lot of Senators did that in fact. They're holding hearings on that, or did you miss that?

You like to include soundbites and hope your slant gets through.

I'm onto "chris". Say hi to McCain for me will you?

Stonewalled by who? The voters? She lost fair and square, even though she had the support of the traditional party leadership.

She made it based on false information, because she didn't bother to read all of the data available to her. Aside from that, it would have been a strategic and moral disaster even if they had weapons. That crossed Obama's mind, it didn't cross Clinton's.

Stonewalled?!?! She lost. Heck many of us KNEW she was going to walk all over Obama. Your "experienced" candidate lost to the greenhorn, plain and simple. Not by much but lost nevertheless. And don't say the media caused it. The 11-state cushion she gave Obama done her in. And she is STILL going to do her best to help him get to the White House. So I guess she's been "drugged" in order to do that.

I'll say it again, if McCain wins and you Hillary supporters voted for him, and he does what a good Republican should do which is BE REPUBLICAN, you will be the first to complain.

Maybe Silhoutte is actually Andrew Sullivan. "Her" insane ravings are making HIllary and her supporters look pretty bad.

If that's your goal dude, you rock! If you really are a supporter, your points aren't persuading anyone. This harping on the Sinclair crap just further undermines your credibility.

Obviously you aren't married. Any married person would know that discussing a spouse's job with them and even giving them advice and support, doesn't give you actual experience in that job.

Actually, Clinton was co-President in the 1990s (arrogating so much power and taking the co-Presidency so far left from the start she triggered the 1994 election results) and was the presumptive nominee until Super Tuesday; everyone had expected her to win the nomination easily and have everyone else drop out after fabulous Super Tuesday numbers. Perhaps she expected this too much -- as supporters of her seem to have, as well, treating the nomination as if they were entitled to it. After Super Tuesday, Obama's campaign was seen to be real -- and better than Clinton's. There is still resentment among her supporters, and likely held by Hillary as well as (obviously) by Bill Clinton, which explains easily enough why she engaged in a mediocre, through-the-motions, speech last night (and why she referred to her own times in the White House while neglecting to say at length how great Obama is and provide many reasons why voters should now vote for him instead).

Resentful Clinton voters who defect to McCain are Nader voters on steroids. (The real problem in 2000 was that Gore's campaign failed, Gore lost -- maybe that's something Hillary and her supporters need to re-learn -- but Nader was resented as a spoiler, anyway.) They stand to be more like Perot voters this year if Obama and the Dems hint at taking the party well to the Left and swing voters vote GOP.

"...and was the presumptive nominee until Super Tuesday; everyone had expected her to win the nomination easily and have everyone else drop out after fabulous Super Tuesday numbers. Perhaps she expected this too much -- as supporters of her seem to have, as well, treating the nomination as if they were entitled to it. After Super Tuesday, Obama's campaign was seen to be real -- and better than Clinton's."

Very true.

All I have to say to Mr. Clinton is: "Who are you and what have you done to Bill Clinton?"