August 25, 2012

Why is Bill Clinton appearing at the Democratic Convention and George Bush not appearing at the GOP Convention?

Just a question.

156 comments:

Saint Croix said...

Obama is actually Prince, and he wants to party like it's 1999.

America's Politico said...

Charles K. offered the best response:

Clinton is there to remind how good times were. The Clinton involvement is described in detail in the new e-book, Obama's Last Stand (Amazon Kindle, via Professor's website). Clinton does not like David Axe-Fraud as he destroyed Hillary. But, Clinton loves David Plouffe who loves data and voting patterns. Thus, the love affair began and now it has reached a limit. Gene Sperling, who is a friend of Clinton (now working for Obama-Biden) convinced him that he has to help Obama.

Ergo: read the article to get details on the Chicago HQ hate machine to destroy Romney and GOP.

Then start crying....as you cannot do anything.

ndspinelli said...

Buuba's there for pussy. W is fine w/ his bride.

traditionalguy said...

Using Bill Clinton is scraping the bottom of the barrel by Obama's campaign desperate to win votes based upon Clinton's economy.

Bush still represents an Iraq war of choice leading to a crash of the housing bubble he used to win support for it.

The real mystery is why Sarah Palin is being hidden away in a closet full of tea pots.

rehajm said...

When you're throwing a party and you're not popular, you invite the cool kids so people will come..

Colonel Angus said...

For all his faults, Bush 43 doesn't require constant adulation to reinforce his ego.

Pk said...

Romney does not need W. Obama needs Bill so much that he has to run the risk of what Bill will say.

AprilApple said...

Obama is attempting to run on Clinton's 1990's economy.
George Bush was so trashed by the leftwing machine, he's smart to stay away from the hate and the garbage throwing.
How's that war in Afghanistan going?


EDH said...

Obama is running on Clinton's record, because he can't run on his own.

Romney-Ryan is the new "change".

The Crack Emcee said...

One IS a liar, and the other ISN'T for hire.

And are you "just asking a question" like that guy who was going on about Mormonism?

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

furious_a said...

One is an attention whore, other is not.

furious_a said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Clinton's war on women qualified under the Democrats' "Just War" theory (he'd keep abortion legal, so Nina Burleigh was happy to fellate him), so he's golden.

America's Politico said...

The Professor:
How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Simple. In the e-book (long article, via Amazon), Obama's Last Stand, it is clear that Clinton is still loved by every-one. Hillary supporters are still in Obama camp.

Clinton gets two things: good times for 1990s and interests among women. Claire, the senate candidate against Todd Akin, said that she does not her daughter to come close to Clinton. But, she had him campaign.

It is all relative. We want Potus Obama to win and win again. We own the WH till Jan. 2017.

There is nothing GOP can do.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Ann Althouse said...
How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme"

It doesn't. However, the GOP/TeaParty/Ultra-right is the war on women. Clinton was a fool and a pig.

I think that keeping to the party line of attempting to control women's health decisions would be something that would bother you more than a BJ.

gadfly said...

Most ex-presidents ride happily into the sunset, but some Democrats cannot get over the fame. Jimma and Bubba are prime examples of the "I am smarter" personalities that Dems tend to elect.

When Barry Narkissos is benched in January, he will scream and yell louder than all other exes for attention and cash.

bagoh20 said...

Someday they will invite all the past Presidents as animated heads in jars. I would put them all in a circle facing each other and let them have at it. We could graph the jar temperatures live.

MayBee said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

I don't know.

It's also very weird because Obama used to run against Clinton's economy.
If I were Obama, I'd watch it. Nobody can stick a knife in your back without you knowing it like Bill Clinton can.

dreams said...

The answer is obvious but I'll play along and the answer is because Clinton is popular with the Dems/independents and Bush isn't popular with the Republicans/independents.

Paul said...

I think Clinton's Oval Office BJs as well as other weird fetishistic behavior, disturbing as they were, pale next to his raping of Juanita Broderick.

War on women? I got yer war on women right here.

John Lynch said...

Give it a few more years. IIRC Bill Clinton was last President in 2000.

MayBee said...

I find it hilarious that the party who just created the IPAP board is going to try to run against making medical decisions.

John Lynch said...

Give it a few more years. IIRC Bill Clinton was last President in 2000.

Matthew Sablan said...

Because Bush doesn't want to be in politics any more.

Matthew Sablan said...

How does Clinton support the war on women? It reminds Democrats what you need to do for forgiveness for sins against women; penance that a Romney/Ryan ticket would never pay.

Matthew Sablan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

A simple counterquestion...Bush II is widely seen as a bumbling failure for Iraq, Afghanistan, and leaving the nations economy and finances in shambles.

Given that, is he being treated any differently by his Party than Nixon or Jimmy Carter were after they left Office??

Clinton, like Reagan, is generally seen as a successful President.

Why he is going to risk his legacy for the law lecturer in over his head, who played the race card against Bill and his wife, is anyones guess.

Bill Clinton is a double-edged sword.
He may help Obama, but once he is on the loose, he will be making his own message and way and to hell with what Axelrod and the other progressive Jewish "narrative crafters" in the White House and NYTImes want him to say.
And that may well come at the expense of displaying the guy Clinton thought only fit to fetch coffee as smaller and less Presidential than Clinton ever was.

Cedarford said...

The real mystery is why Sarah Palin is being hidden away in a closet full of tea pots.
==========
Because Palin let herself become an embarassment whose ignorance, or perceived ignorance on many things is an open question until she rehabilitates herself.

Hopefully, Mitt Romney will recognize her future value to the Republican Party if she is properly rehabilitated and wins the public's respect again.

Curious George said...

Whoever has the cigar concession just got a boner.

Cedarford said...

A simple counterquestion...Bush II is widely seen as a bumbling failure for Iraq, Afghanistan, and leaving the nations economy and finances in shambles.

Given that, is he being treated any differently by his Party than Nixon or Jimmy Carter were after they left Office??

Clinton, like Reagan, is generally seen as a successful President.

Why he is going to risk his legacy for the law lecturer in over his head, who played the race card against Bill and his wife, is anyones guess.

Bill Clinton is a double-edged sword.
He may help Obama, but once he is on the loose, he will be making his own message and way and to hell with what Axelrod and the other progressive Jewish "narrative crafters" in the White House and NYTImes want him to say.
And that may well come at the expense of displaying the guy Clinton thought only fit to fetch coffee as smaller and less Presidential than Clinton ever was.

dreams said...


"War on women? I got yer war on women right here."

As in love on women not "war on women" like "make love not war", yeah.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember, Mary Jo Kopechne may have felt it was worth it. It being left to die by Kennedy. Oddly enough, the HuffPo link is now dead (at least, coming from there.) That's the real reason Bill Clinton is allowed to speak. Those women he harmed? I'm sure their sacrifice was worth the noble cause of politics.

gadfly said...

So Lindsey Meadows believes that protecting innocents unable to speak or defend their lives is somehow a "war on women."

We all make our own beds and we are left to sleep in them. If fate or carelessness ends in pregnancy, the death penalty should never be imposed on the unborn. If the baby is unwanted, adopting couples will intervene.

If the fetus is nonviable or damaged or if birth threatens the life of the mother, then and only then should abortion become an approved medical procedure.

Sandra Fluke (phonetically fluck) wanted government freebies and no responsibilities. Neither the government nor the taxpayer should have any say or participation in Ms Fluke's life choices.

Paddy O said...

"Nobody can stick a knife in your back without you knowing it like Bill Clinton can."

Which raises the question, if Obama loses who are the Democrat frontrunners for 2016?

Hillary seems like she'd be high on that list.

Would she be as high on the list in 2020 if Obama wins?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Bush has been so successfully vilified by the media and Democrats that he is still a pariah to independents. So, it in not to the Republicans advantage to have him appear.

Clinton, on the other hand, was and is very well liked by the media and it shows.

David said...

The press.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann Althouse,

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Why do you follow that nonsense? Don't you get that it's a trap? Being aware of it is one thing, but to actively participate in it? It's the providence of losers.

All I can think is you LIKE getting played,...

shiloh said...

"Romney does not need W."

lol truer words were never spoken as mittens can look like a fool all by himself w/out any help from Bush!

To answer the rhetorical question, Bill Clinton is the most popular politician on the national level, whereas Bush43 is the least popular.

But Althouse already knew that.

Further inane con rationalizing aside, let's move on shall we ...

MayBee said...

Paddy O- Hillary would certainly be high on that list. IMHO, though, Andrew Cuomo will be the next Dem president.

Chip Ahoy said...

I'm still wondering about the purpose of the conventions. It's a big party to get everybody together in one place for once. So you can ...

bomb them?
see that they really are there?
become energized by a group
align something
pick something
do group-think
say 'hey look at us'
lay out your dealios to a broader audience
personify an ideology to make it real

I don't know. I give up. because they want to is the best I can do.

Roger J. said...

By appearing he is playing faithful party guy at one level; but he is also drawing a stark contrast between his presidency and that of Obama's. It a good way to stick it to Obama while taking the "high road." Bubba is nothing but an excellent politian.

(Does anyone know if Ms Clinton will be at the convention?)

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

"purpose of the conventions."

Nowadays it's free advertising. Back in the day, before mass media, it was the attraction of smoke filled rooms! er the attraction power!

er a good way for politicians to boost their fragile ;) egos.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

"To answer the rhetorical question, Bill Clinton is the most popular politician on the national level, whereas Bush43 is the least popular."

Think about the festering disease that the democrat media is to be able to spin so hard as to allow a rapist to be the "most popular politician", and all the "feminists" who still support him.

Really, liberal democrats are just simply the American version of the Bolsheviks, who willingly jettison any principals for the Party.

pm317 said...

Why? Because he offers the strongest contrast between Obama and himself. Payback time, baby! Time for everyday Repubs on the street to capitalize on that if they have brains. Romney is doing alright in that regard -- he pushed Obama to embrace his arch nemesis that racist Bill Clinton.

Beldar said...

There is an upside for Obama. Bill Clinton is at least as good a speaker as Obama himself; his legacy, via Hillary, is quite literally as close to Obama as his senior-most cabinet officer, the SecState (and possible replacement for Biden?); and he is perceived to have credibility for competency, especially on matters fiscal and budgetary, that Obama himself lacks. Finally, Bubba will help mobilize and rally an increasingly uneasy and unsupportive Democratic rank-and-file.

There's no comparable upside for Romney in having Dubya speak. Antipathy toward Obama and enthusiasm for Paul Ryan will solve Romney's motivate-the-base issues in almost any plausible scenario going forward. And Romney wants to run as an alternative to both Bush-43 AND to Obama -- whereas accurately or not, Obama would very much like to be perceived as Clinton's heir right now.

Finally, omitting George W. Bush won't much offend anyone, including him. Dubya was already reconciled by the time he left the White House to the fact that his near-term reputation had been savaged and his political capital largely exhausted, but he is content to await the mid- and long-term historical perspective on his two terms, which he might reasonably hope will be less emotional and more rational.

pm317 said...

Paul is one of those stupid Republicans I speak of in my previous comment. Even when the Dems hand a gift to you, your stupid brain does not recognize that.

Roger J. said...

I have watched conventions since 1952--what I miss most in the current stage managed spectacles is the time alloted to states' delegations to put their "favorite son's" name in. That would spark a floor demonstration by that state's delegates and hilarity would ensue. Not so much hilarity now; mostly tedium.

The highlight this year will be Chris Christie's GOP keynote--I am expecting a barn burner and a marker for his run at the presidency 4 years hence.

pm317 said...

Roger J, Hillary has said she won't be at the convention.

pm317 said...

The real mystery is why Sarah Palin is being hidden away in a closet full of tea pots.

Good line, lol.

shiloh said...

Christie is another RINO like McCain and mittens. Hey, all I ask for is consistency!

Roger J. said...

pm317--thanks for the info. (smart move Hillary)

Paul said...

"Paul is one of those stupid Republicans I speak of in my previous comment. Even when the Dems hand a gift to you, your stupid brain does not recognize that."

Make me laugh. The only gifts the Dems have given me, and you too you jackass, is less liberty, more government, higher taxes, and a dark future.

The fact that your avatar is a serial philanderer and rapist just goes to show what a vile, amoral creature a Democrat is.

Dante said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

I'll tell you how. They trotted out the ex-president of NOW to defend Clinton, saying "Women aren't weak. They can handle a little grope."

"I believe you Anita" bumper stickers on Volvos, but not one "I believe you Juanita" bumper sticker.

I asked a liberal friend of mine how this could be, and he told me "You know how. NOW did the mental calculus." I still don't know what he means.

Maybe this is a woman thing. I've heard that women are attracted to bad-boy men prior to getting married to a man who will stick with them. You know, the biker type who wants to "take a woman," perhaps leaving them behind with his seed in them, and then becoming disinterested. "You aren't good enough for me," perhaps leaves the woman feeling like she got something better than what she's worth.

Perhaps NOW realizes Clinton is of that ilk, and going after him would damage their likeability.

That's the best I can come up for the calculus.

pm317 said...

@cedarford Why he is going to risk his legacy for the law lecturer in over his head, who played the race card against Bill and his wife, is anyones guess.

Because it serves his purpose to show on the national stage what a bumbling idiot the Dems chose in 2008. It is a "I told you so" moment, it is payback time!

Cedarford said...

Paul - Think about the festering disease that the democrat media is to be able to spin so hard as to allow a rapist to be the "most popular politician", and all the "feminists" who still support him.

Bless your heart, Paul. It takes a "special" sort of right-wing extremist to fail to recognize that most the public sees Bill Clinton as a successful President who created 21 million jobs during his Administration, is no rapist,,,and that same public would vote for the guy again if the Constitution allowed it.

Or Reagan, if they could resurrect Reagan's corpse.


Heck, if they could have resurrected Nixon when the choice was between Obama and a clueless war-thirsty Neocon - Nixon might have won back in 2008.

pm317 said...

"War on women" theme.. You take that seriously? Really?

wef said...

To answer the question, one should set aside the usual perspective that looks at the philosophical and ideological fight. Think, instead, of Faction. Clinton cares about his Party - he's always spinning, teaching, convincing - and, of course, bullshiting. The Bush family, on the other hand, are cynics. They use their Party as an instrument, but promoting it is secondary. G.W. Bush, especially, was disinterested in putting much effort in teaching what was supposedly the philosophical underpinnings of his Party. As long as his followers ponied up the cash and time, he let the ideological muscles of the republican party atrophy.

The Tea Party is in big part a reaction to the repube cynicism - so obvious for the six years that Team Red had control of the House, Senate and Presidency - a cynicism that not only took the party faithful for granted, but gave us bailouts and Obama. Bush is disliked by a notable portion of the party and he doesn't see much need at the moment to help that party, because it would not do much to promote the noble House of Bush.

And note that the Bush clan has schmoozed mightily with Clinton, in effect covering for him and legitimizing him.

Lindsey Meadows said...

gadfly said...
" Neither the government nor the taxpayer should have any say or participation in Ms Fluke's life choices".

Precisely. Get the hell away from my body.

Roger J. said...

Clinton's comments will be interesting--I suspect he will remind the audience of how successful economically was his administration, and say little about Mr Obama's stewardship. The contrast will be left as an exercise for the audience. IMO, this is all about payback for the South Carolina primary in which Clinton was called a racist, and Ms Clinton was flipped off during a debate. At this point in the game Obama needs Clinton for more than Clinton needs Obama.

Unknown said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

It's the reductio ad absurdum of what's going to turn out to be Wellstone Funeral 2 (Electric Boogaloo).

Get your popcorn ready.

Paul said...

Bless your heart C4 you extremist Jew hater, it takes a special sort of wooden headed dunce to miss my point of a biased media as democrat propaganda organ that is able to take a rapist who puts cigars in the vagina of an intern, perjures himself about it, and turns him into a party hero.

I ask anyone here to imagine the rapid trajectory towards ignominy, if not incarceration, of ANY Republican, let alone POTUS, who was caught doing the same.

ricpic said...

The Dems want to have it all: celebrate rape and woo women. That's where Bill Clinton comes in.

kcom said...

One is an attention whore, other is not.

One has crawled out of the swamp (slime), the other has not.

Brad said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Completely irrelevant .... doesn't matter to them what a Democrat does.

dreams said...


"Neither the government nor the taxpayer should have any say or participation in Ms Fluke's life choices."

Of course the taxpayers by being forced to pay for Fluke's birth control, they are being forced to participate in her life choices.

rehajm said...

He may help Obama, but once he is on the loose, he will be making his own message and way and to hell with what Axelrod and the other progressive Jewish "narrative crafters" in the White House and NYTImes want him to say.

I suspect he will remind the audience of how successful economically was his administration, and say little about Mr Obama's stewardship.

There's a reason you don't invite Taylor Swift to your wedding.

Joe said...

Bush knows that he'd be a lightning rod and chooses not to be a distraction.

In addition, like his father, Bush served and is now retired.

furious_a said...

Whoever has the cigar concession just got a boner.

I'll take that one, there, still in the plastic, please.

furious_a said...

Precisely. Get the hell away from my body.

Get the hell away from my wallet, Ms. Fluke.

furious_a said...

Bubba will help mobilize and rally an increasingly uneasy and unsupportive Democratic rank-and-file.

For those old enough to have voted for him at the time. Does Clinton do anything to draw young/first-time voters whose impressions of Mr. Clinton are limited to blow-job jokes?

Roger J. said...

W/respect to Mr Clinton's appearance, and in addition to PM317 and my take, I would add one other consideration: This kind of appearance also helps burnish Mr Clinton's "legacy," something he was quite concerned about in his Presidency. This appearance is all about Clinton, and nothing about Obama from Clinton's perspective. Mr Obama may have chosen poorly.

Palladian said...

Precisely. Get the hell away from my body.

Well, give me some money for birth control and pay for my abortions and health care first, but after that, get the hell away!

edutcher said...

Choom is that desperate he's willing to risk a zipper malfunction or, better still, a Megan Marshack.

Ann Althouse said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Simple, nobody has made war on women the way Willie has.

To answer the rhetorical question, Bill Clinton is the most popular politician on the national level, whereas Bush43 is the least popular.

No one asked it, but the only reason Willie is welcome anywhere is because the Bushes rehabilitated his image; people have forgotten how glad they were to see him go.

He is also the Kiss of Death for other politicians. Not even Zero has such a lethal track record.

er a good way for politicians to boost their fragile ;) egos.

That's precisely why Willie is there.

Christie is another RINO like McCain and mittens. Hey, all I ask for is consistency!

In the same way Willie is a small c communist like Choom.

wef said...

To answer the question, one should set aside the usual perspective that looks at the philosophical and ideological fight. Think, instead, of Faction. Clinton cares about his Party - he's always spinning, teaching, convincing

No, Willie is a sociopath just like Barry. He needs the audience like a drug. If he cared about his party he wouldn't have tried to wreck Zero's candidacy earlier this year.

bbkingfish said...

Because GOP candidates would rather stage photo ops with Todd Akin...he's way more in demand than Bush is.

elkh1 said...

One is looking forward, one is looking back.

One has hope for the future, one is nostalgic for the past.

One is showcasing one's future political stars; one, well, only Bill and Jimmy have no prior engagements.

Cedarford said...

One ex-President I would like to show up at a Convention is HW Bush.
He is getting on in years, he may not be around next time...and the Republicans (outside the rabid dog Religious Right) would really like to pay tribute to a good and decent Republican elder. (Same with Bob Dole).

For all the talk about Clinton and Dubya, I notice neither side is talking about the need to invite Jimmy Carter to the Dem Convention.

I guess the fact he is a failed President unworthy of any honoring by delegates is a given.

Revenant said...

Because Bill Clinton is well-liked by voters and George Bush is not.

This is not a difficult question.

Revenant said...

Precisely. Get the hell away from my body.

As soon as you stop asking me to pay for your health care. :)

shiloh said...

Jimmy Carter to address the Democratic National Convention


Pretty sure Carter has attended every Dem convention since he was governor. Feel free to prove me wrong, except C4 who doesn't know how to use the google!

Roger J. said...

IIRC Carter is to address the convention by remote hook-up.

Cedarford said...

Nothing in the media about Jimmah, shiloh.
Guess you have to go to Democrat HQ on Google to note that Jimmah might be whisked in for a 2 AM speaking slot, then snuck out of town before the public notices him.

===========
BTW, Paul....I am as sick of extremist right wingers calling Clinton a rapist as I am of the other side making equally specious unsubstantiated serious criminality claims about Dubya being a war deserter.

Clinton is a brilliant, but tawdry horndog...not a rapist.
And no, Hillary did not murder Vince Foster and McCain is not a baby killer and Kerry is a scumbag but NOT a "proven traitor".

shiloh said...

Bottom line, Dems have no problem w/Carter, whereas Reps are ((( still ashamed ))) of the Bushes!

Go figure!

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse,

"How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole 'war on women' theme?"

Cognitive dissonance has never been a problem for the Left--heck for of them it's their normal mode.

Kirk Parker said...

"... by remote hook-up"

I wonder if Bill Clinton know about this method?

Roger J. said...

interesting to me at this point in the game that Obama's presidency makes both Clinton and Carter's brilliant by comparison.

BaltoHvar said...

Presient Bush does not need to show up and calmly annouce that due to Rep. Ryan's sudden illness, his Wife Laura will be replacing the Republican VP Nominee.

edutcher said...

Bottom line, Dems have no problem w/Carter, whereas Reps are ((( still ashamed ))) of the Bushes!

The Demos have no problem with Bucketmouth because they're the only ones that think he was a great President.

The Bushes have declined to speak because they have class and let the party move on.

Bucketmouth and Willie will spend the rest of their lives trying to rehabilitate themselves.

Cedarford said...

Clinton is a brilliant, but tawdry horndog...not a rapist.

Juanita Broaddrick begs to differ.

And he was hardly that brilliant. He takes credit for Dick Morris' work.

Paul said...

C4, you calling anyone extreme is beyond parody so you can go fuck yourself.

How do you KNOW Clinton is not a rapist? Juanita Broderick claims he raped her and has a very credible story.

Frankly I'm far more inclined to believe her rather than our Perjurer in Chief or some whack job like you.

Jay said...

Ann Althouse said...
How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme"


You're referring to the same party which allowed Ted Kennedy to attend every convention of his adult lifetime.

Roger J. said...

C4--your concern for the excessive rhetoric applied to public figures rings a bit hollow with your constant use of "progressive jews" throughout your posts.

marklewin said...

How does the Clinton appearance work with the whole "war on women" theme?

Ann makes a great point. His personae is much more consistent with his Republican counterparts (see Arnold S. and Herman C).

shiloh said...

"purpose of the conventions."

Re: Reps, forgot the most important aspect ie a chance for pent-up, conservative/evangelical pols/officials and even some RINOs ;) to indulge in Tampa's finest er strippers/hookers. And trust me, not even hurricane Isaac will rain on that parade lol.

shiloh said...

Indeed as Reps want to stimulate Tampa's economy!

Roger J. said...

Wow Shilo--just wait till Bubba gets to Charlotte--North Carolinians will be locking up their women folk. And if Rep Gauthier goes, young men will not be safe. And the secret service detail will be there as well. Rape pillage and plunder indeed.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

Did someone say "Strippers"?

Bubba is so there!

shiloh said...

Roger J.

After you've been impeached by the Rep finest, you pretty much can walk on water! :D

Remember the snl skit after his impeachment when Darrell Hammond stood on the presidential stage w/his sarcastic grin, pausing for a moment sayin' ...

((( I'm Bulletproof )))

Indeed as Clinton will haunt cons long after he is dead and buried. :-P

Roger J. said...

Shiloh--apologies for misspelling the name of your ship. No offense intended

Baron Zemo said...

My Dear Lady it is obvious that President Bush has other things to do and does not need the validation that is lifeblood of Bubba Clinton.

Time will place their respective places in American History.

Bush will be like Truman.

Clinton will be James Buchanan.

Roger J. said...

Shiloh--dont have a TV and never watched SNL--the reference is a bit obscure for me. But thanks for sharing. Perhaps its on u-tube.

Roger J. said...

Baron Zemo--I suspect you are right in your assessment of Truman-Bush; I would submit that Clinton will be more like Warren G Harding who had the good fortune to (1) preside over an era of economic expansion, and (2) was quite the philanderer. He had the good fortune to die young. I suspect in historical terms Mr Clinton's legacy will be a stained blue dress.

shiloh said...

Roger J.

Tried to find the vid a couple years ago, but NBC refuses to share because of copyright laws.

After Clinton er Darrell said I'm bulletproof, he adds:

"Next time, y'all better bring Kryptonite"

Roger J. said...

Shiloh--appreciate your effort--I enjoy political satire very much, and I am told SNL does a pretty good job at it. Let me rummage around google and see if I can come up with it.

dreams said...


"And he was hardly that brilliant. He takes credit for Dick Morris' work."

Plus, Clinton benefited from Reaganomics which led to the longest economic boom in history. Clinton was largely a caretaker of our still booming Reagan economy. The Republican control Congress that forced him to control his spending and forced him to sign the welfare reform act after he had already veto it twice, he only signed it after Dick Morris advised him to do so or suffer the political consequences. And lets not forget the benefits of the peace dividend that resulted from the fall of the Berlin wall, a wall that came down because of my hero Ronald Reagan's stated goal of consigning the Soviet Union to the ash heap of history. Yes, Ronald Reagan said he wanted to consign the Soviet Union to the ash heap of history and he did consign the Soviet Union to the ash heap of history. "Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", Words that had ramifications for the Clinton presidency as they did for our country.

Robert Cook said...

Without trying to scan through all the comments, I'll propose one possibility:

The Dems invited Clinton, and the Republicans didn't invite Bush?

edutcher said...

Re: Reps, forgot the most important aspect ie a chance for pent-up, conservative/evangelical pols/officials and even some RINOs ;) to indulge in Tampa's finest er strippers/hookers. And trust me, not even hurricane Isaac will rain on that parade lol.

Sounds more like Willie and Halo Joe in Charlotte.

And the little animal is so sure of this because it happens at every Republican convention, doesn't it?

The only lol is that he thinks himself so witty.

edutcher said...

And, just to ruin the little animal's weekend, Mason-Dixon shows the Romster up by 7 in MO.

So Akin only hurts himself.

Sorun said...

"Get the hell away from my body."

Strangely, this is most often said by women whose body no one is after.

Roger J. said...

Mr Cook--you might want to go back and read thru the comments

AndyN said...

There are no easy answers to any of the problems the country is facing right now. The situation is unlikely to improve much over the next 4 years regardless of who's elected this year. Obama winning reelection and continuing his economic policies will make it almost impossible for a democrat to win in 2016. If Romney wins and completely changes economic policy, things are still likely to be bad enough 4 years from now that he'll have a hard time getting reelected.

Clinton could have accepted the invitation intending to remind voters that Mrs. Clinton was his co-president when times were good, hint that things would be better now if she'd been elected in 2008 and plant the seed for her candidacy to oust Romney in 2016. Obama is smart enough to know that inviting Clinton is like trying to draw a sword with no hilt, but since he seems to really believe he's always the smartest guy in the room he probably also believes that he can spin whatever Clinton says to his advantage.

AndyN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Paul - "How do you KNOW Clinton is not a rapist? Juanita Broderick claims he raped her and has a very credible story."

================
Must have missed the police investigation, rape trial, and conviction, you right wing nincompoop!

Broaddrick was just a money-grubbing whore who claimed intially - nothing. Twelve years later Crystal Gayle...sorry, Juanita....
Said while she was fucking multiple men while cheating on her then-husband...
She hooked up with Billy Bob and unlike the dozen others..Clinton was against her innocence!!

Then she testified under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit that nothing happened she didn't eventually welcome at the time. Then a year later, once right-wingers came sniffing, she trotted out the Bill The Violator of My Virtue stuff again.
But of course refused to testify under oath to the Spec Posecutor and to the House Impeachment investigators.

Just another slut like Crystal Gayle Mangum.

Jake Diamond said...

I doubt Republicans want to remind the country of the Bush 43 fiasco. We'll be paying for it for a LONG time.

B said...

Why is Bill Clinton appearing at the Democratic Convention and George Bush not appearing at the GOP Convention?

Class.

B said...

Precisely. Get the hell away from my body.

No problem. It has the serious downside of having your head attached to it.

Paul said...

C4 you no doubt find BJ Clinton a role model lacking only in sufficient Jew hatred, getting pussy that you can only dream about as you're obviously a thoroughly repulsive specimen, so I can see why you missed this:

"Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.


Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred."

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

I doubt Republicans want to remind the country of the Bush 43 fiasco. We'll be paying for it for a LONG time.

No, that's the current Administration.

dreams said...


"I doubt Republicans want to remind the country of the Bush 43 fiasco. We'll be paying for it for a LONG time."

The average unemployment rate under Bush's 8 years in office was about 5.3% which is about the same as it was under Clinton's 8 years in office. You can google it.

Jake Diamond said...

Hey! edutcher doesn't know that Bush 43 gifted us massive deficits, a faltering economy and two wars. No wonder he's supporting Romney's plan to bring us more Bushonomics.

Jake Diamond said...

The average unemployment rate under Bush's 8 years in office was about 5.3% which is about the same as it was under Clinton's 8 years in office. You can google it.

It takes a real dolt to make a comment like this. During the Clinton years, the unemployment rate steadily DECREASED. During the Bush years, the unemployment INCREASED dramatically. Check the numbers:

January 1993 unemployment rate = 7.3%

January 2001 unemployment rate = 4.0%

January 2009 unemployment rate = 7.8%

So during the Clinton years, the unemployment rate dropped by 3.3% and during the Bush years the unemployment rate rose 3.8%.

This is an argument you can't win because the facts are against you.

edutcher said...

No, Willie gave us the faltering economy - subprime mortgages was his brilliant idea and they knew DotCom and Enron were coming and swept it under the rug - and the massive deficits are something the Demos have been giving us for 80 years.

And that ONE war could have been nipped in the bud if Willie had taken Sudan's offer of bin Laden and been more interested in fighting terrorists than fucking interns.

So, it all comes back to Willie, doesn't it?

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

The average unemployment rate under Bush's 8 years in office was about 5.3% which is about the same as it was under Clinton's 8 years in office. You can google it.

It takes a real dolt to make a comment like this


It takes an even bigger dolt to cherry-pick figures when the original contention was regarding average unemployment.

God, I hate the weekend. All the second-string trolls and sockpuppets are on duty.

dreams said...


"This is an argument you can't win because the facts are against you"

When the Dems took control of both houses of Congress in Jan 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6% and you can google that too.

Jake Diamond said...

No, Willie gave us the faltering economy

Trying selling that bit of reality-denial to the electorate.

wef said...

Not that you give a rat's ass, but back at 12:57, on my comments you engaged in selective editing there, edutcher.

Someone might doubt your intellectual honesty.

Just saying.

Jake Diamond said...

When the Dems took control of both houses of Congress in Jan 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6% and you can google that too.

How quickly the nutjobs change their argument when facts sink their favorite dumb claims.

edutcher said...

Only because your point was nonsense. I didn't have to quote all of it to rebut it.

Jake Diamond said...

No, Willie gave us the faltering economy

Trying selling that bit of reality-denial to the electorate.


Willie didn't give us subprime mortgages?

He and Bobby Rubin didn't know DotCom and Enron were coming?

That reality denial.

That the electorate believes it only reinforces what Mencken said.

dreams said...


"Trying selling that bit of reality-denial to the electorate"

Are you familiar with the Community reinvestment Act?

"The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank."

Under Clinton and the Dems this act was accelerated and more than anything else caused the housing bubble which was the main cause of the financial meltdown in 2008.

George Bush wanted to reform Fanny Mae but was prevented from doing so because of the Dems in Congress.

Hagar said...

The .com bust began in the spring of 2000, before W. had even got his campaign rolling.

It seems that you all have forgotten that, but I remember it well, since that is when His Young Lordship decided he wanted to go to college after all and fairly well drained my IRA's paying for his tuition and board while the DOW was almost as low as 2008-10.

Jake Diamond said...

It takes an even bigger dolt to cherry-pick figures when the original contention was regarding average unemployment.

You don't know what "cherry-picking" is, do you? I posted the starting and ending unemployment rates for the Clinton and Bush 43 administration. That's not "cherry-picking," dumbshit. There are NO OTHER RELEVANT data points for measuring the change in unemployment rate during each administration, therefore there is no cherry-picking involved. Please try not to say such stupid things in the future.

As any run-of-the-mill idiot could tell you, using average unemployment rate conceals rather than reveals the historical record regarding unemployment.

Consider a simple example: During a 5 year period, the net worth of a client account managed by financial advisor Smith increases from $100,000 to $300,000. During the same 5 year period, a different client account managed by financial advisor Jones decreases in net worth from $300,000 to $100,000. The average net worth of both accounts is $200,000 during the time frame. According to edutcher, the performance of the accounts is the identical; according to anyone with a brain, the account managed by Smith greatly outperformed the account managed by Jones.

The reason the GOP is hiding Bush 43 is because Americans remember the disaster known as Bushonomics.

Jake Diamond said...

So, it all comes back to Willie, doesn't it?

It does for you!

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

It takes an even bigger dolt to cherry-pick figures when the original contention was regarding average unemployment.

You don't know what "cherry-picking" is, do you? I posted the starting and ending unemployment rates for the Clinton and Bush 43 administration. That's not "cherry-picking," dumbshit. There are NO OTHER RELEVANT data points for measuring the change in unemployment rate during each administration, therefore there is no cherry-picking involved. Please try not to say such stupid things in the future.

As any run-of-the-mill idiot could tell you, using average unemployment rate conceals rather than reveals the historical record regarding unemployment.


Irrelevant. He made his point on the average and Diamond cherry-picked a couple of data points to justify himself. But, then, as Diamond tells us, he's not any run-of-the-mill idiot, he's a special kind who can't rebut a point without getting nasty (what's that old Chinese proverb again about raising one's voice?).

And a couple of data points go far to obfuscate the ups and downs of 8 years, now don't they?

So, it all comes back to Willie, doesn't it?

It does for you!


No, that's where the facts lead.

wef said...

edutcher, the point is that you cut the full sentence to make it seem that I favored clinton.

And in your clinton-hate and by your casuistries your intellectual dishonesty is revealed.

The conclusion is that you are a repube apologist.

dreams said...


"You don't know what "cherry-picking" is, do you? I posted the starting and ending unemployment rates for the Clinton and Bush 43 administration. That's not "cherry-picking," dumbshit."

Those numbers are stated without the perspective of the September 11 attacks and the housing bubble caused financial meltdown. Recessions are of the normal business cycle. Perspective is very helpful, you should try to attain a little of it.

edutcher said...

wef said...

edutcher, the point is that you cut the full sentence to make it seem that I favored clinton.

And in your clinton-hate and by your casuistries your intellectual dishonesty is revealed.

The conclusion is that you are a repube apologist.


No, the point is that you said Willie loved the party - and why Willie was speaking was the point of the post.

The only thing Willie loves is himself, all the "events" he attends are part of his need to be the center of attention. This is why he showed up at Ground Zero days after 9/11, hugging every woman he encountered.

I also disagree with your point about the Bushes - they are old-fashioned, decent WASPs who think everyone still plays by the rules, but that was beside the point.

And, frankly, I don't really care about your conclusion - and the word is Republican, so I take it you're just trying to advance Willie's rehabilitation a little more mixed in with a shot at the Bush family.

Sorun said...

How quickly the nutjobs change their argument when facts sink their favorite dumb claims.

Says the guy who claims to know the facts and then cites Talking Points Memo articles as proof. LOL!

hombre said...

"I think that keeping to the party line of attempting to control women's health decisions would be something that would bother you more than a BJ." (11:00 AM)

Up jumps the "genitals for brains" vote, having sucked up the real party line.

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

The reason the GOP is hiding Bush 43 is because Americans remember the disaster known as Bushonomics.


Which would be 2 orders of magnitude better than Obamanomics.

Nathan Alexander said...

Jake Diamond, like all liberal-progressives, can never point to anything "conservative" Bush actually did to ruin the economy.

They can never point to anything "liberal" that Clinton did that caused the good economy in the 2nd half of his administration.

All they can do is say "on his watch".

Cause and effect are complete mysteries to liberal progressives. Which is why most Democrats are still going to vote for the miserable failure Obama for President this year. They don't understand antecedent and consequence.

Bush inherited a recession and a bubble. Then he dealt with the 9/11 attacks. He cut taxes, and the economy rebounded, and we had a great recovery and great economy from 2003 to 2006.

Then the Democrats took over Congress, and the agenda that Obama voted for ruined consumer confidence and accelerated the housing bubble pop. It's all there for anyone with half a brain to read the laws that were passed, and track the actual results. Unexpected results to the liberals.

Nathan Alexander said...

Re: W vs Bill

Even running against the mediocre and uninspiring Bob Dole (who depleted his campaign funding before the general election started), The so-called "most popular Democrat President since JFK" couldn't even get 50% of the vote.

But other than Bill and Obama, the Democrats really have no rising stars at all. So it is pretty much Bill Clinton, Fauxahontas (who is falling behind Brown fast), and Obama. That's it.

But the Republicans have lots of rising stars:
Rubio, West, Christie, Jindal, McDonnell (VA Gov), Cruz, Haley, Kasich, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, and even Jeb Bush.

Depending on how they do, any one of these could be the frontrunner for President in 2020, the same as how Obama just about became President due to his 2004 Convention speech.

So there's not much room for Bush. He's the past. You only drag out past politicians when you don't have much of a future.

But popularity?

Many people on the left still hate Bush with a passion. Putting W on the stage might overcome their lack of enthusiasm for voting.

Many independents are still tired of Bush.

And, of course, the media and people like Jake Diamond can't say one truthful thing about W. So why put him on the stage and give them a chance to repeat their lies again?

Only one former President has been featured in multiple "Miss Me Yet?" billboards.

There are many of us who still admire Bush as one of the best Presidents who did more good for the US long-term interests than any President in the last 100 years besides Reagan.

There are another large cohort that will demonstrate a preference cascade, probably when W eventually passes away. They will remember his class, his leadership, his determination, his humility, his effectiveness as President (perpetually denied by liberals and the media), and perhaps most poignant: how he was willing to throw away every last shred of his political capital trying to reform SS, for which he was vilified by the media and the left...leaving us in the horrible debt/entitlement situation we face today.

Nathan Alexander said...

And the reason Palin isn't invited is because there is no point in overshadowing Romney, Ryan, and the rising GOP stars for someone who will most likely will probably never run again for any office at all.

If she does run, it will only be after another 10 years of separation from the 2008 election, when more people have been convinced of her political acumen and influence via endorsements and incisive facebook postings (single-handedly revealed the IPAB Death Panel part of Obamacare the Democrats tried to hide from everyone).

Nathan Alexander said...

I know that many will laugh or try to ridicule me for these opinions.

Go ahead.

You won't ever admit it when I turn out to be right, because it will take 20 years for public opinion to shift on W to the respect he deserves.

One thing liberals never do is admit they were wrong.

That's how they could vilify Reagan every moment of his life, pretend to respect him after seeing the outpouring of support from 2/3 the nation at his funeral, and then distort his record to bash current conservatives as much as they can.

Progressives and the media: Liars with shame.

Penny said...

Well stated defense of George W., Nathan Alexander. I believe as you do, that history will judge him with the respect he deserves.

Penny said...

Two additions to your list of rising stars. One from each party even.

I like Pat Toomey, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. He's been a beacon of conservative principles in both the public and private sectors, but has had too little visibility on the national scene. Just last week he appeared on Sunday's "This Week", and frankly, knocked it out of the park with incisive commentary, particularly about how our debt is going to choke our future if we don't act while we have the chance to do so.

The Democratic rising star is Corey Booker, Mayor of Newark, NJ. This man "walks the talk", and in a Democratic politician, that just doesn't happen all that much. He is totally hands on with his feet in the streets of one of the worst cities in this country. When his term is done, it will be interesting to see if he challenges his buddy, Chris Christie, for the Governor's job, runs for a Senate seat or perhaps takes a position under Obama should he win reelection in November.

If you are not an ideologue, both men deserve more eyeballing. And if you are an ideologue? Well, one for Republicans, and one for the Democrats.

Penny said...

Now...back to Bill Clinton.

He'll be Chief Engineer of the train that needs to whisk Obama from left to center, just in time for the election.

By the time the Clinton train pulls into the station, Obama will be transformed from a special interest, leftist ideologue to a pragmatist looking out for 99% of us.

Penny said...

Any bets on whether Althouse takes a ride on this train?

stan said...

Obama is focusing on his war on women and Bubba is a one man war on women.

dreams said...


"The Democratic rising star is Corey Booker, Mayor of Newark, NJ. This man "walks the talk", and in a Democratic politician, that just doesn't happen all that much."

Bulls**t, Cory Booker's name has already become a derisive term, as in he/she got Cory Bookered, meaning having to walk back or back down after an initial attempt at speaking truth to power. Not only that but should he decide to run against Christie for governor he'll get his butt kicked like its never been kicked before. I don't think he will run against Christie because he has already shown himself to be spineless but then maybe he will because I also don't think he is very bright.

DEEBEE said...

Democrats make rules for Republicans to follow and the funny thing is that Repubsusually do.

kentuckyliz said...

Clinton is one of the most successful modern Republican presidents.

Heck, Clinton advanced the Internet and Barry wants the kill switch. That should get the youngun's foaming at the mouth.

shiloh said...

"I know that many will laugh or try to ridicule me for these opinions."

Indeed, as NA and his lapdog sycophant Penny are somewhat amusing w/their inane rationalizations/apologies ...

Bless their little hearts!

>

Again, bottom line, cheney/bush is ashamed to attend the convention and all cons are ashamed for him, except for internet apologists like laughable NA and his pretzel logic.

btw, don't be too upset when Dems easily/accurately link Akin to Paul Ryan as they are kindred spirits re: rape and agree on everything, co-sponsoring a bill lol.

Rising stars ~ bwahaha. So much so, none of them ran against Obama, the so-called worst pres in history ~ bwahaha.

bwahaha

take care, blessings

Barry said...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/because-bill-clinton-is-popular-and-george-w-bush-is-not/