Bill committed another gaffe yesterday by saying what he actually thought about the Obama administration:
The Clinton campaign has “clarified” in the usual weaselly politician way that BIll was talking about the Republicans, but buy that BS or not, this isn’t the first time Bill has gone off message and caused headaches for the Clinton campaign. So a few questions for discussion:
Is Bill at this point a positive for the campaign or a negative?
Is Bill losing his skills?
Or is Bill’s judgment just bad when it’s something that personally means a lot to him? He campaigned very well for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but it seems like he loses his cool when defending Hillary.
And why not discuss the statement itself? Have the last eight years been awful? The Clinton campaign pushed back against the idea that he was talking about Obama, but notably did not push back against the idea that the last eight years were awful.
net plus; he gives her a way to tout her party to white working class voters who may have been turned off by Obama but liked Bill (like in states he won that O lost, AR, MO, KY, LA, etc), he’s also a symbol of what people retrospectively look at as a less polarizing time.
. . . blatant racists, there being no other conceivable ground on which Bill and Obama are meaningfully distinguishable, except that Obama is in conventional terms much better-behaved, which means to them less of nothing than nothing at all.
but they still vote, “racist” or not. Some of it racism, but some of it is legitimate feelings that Obama doesn’t think too much of small rural places. There are still conservadems out there.
I don’t think you can separate his legacy from it.
No matter what or how many gaffes he may make, no matter what missteps, his usefulness to the campaign comes down to his likeability. He is quite well liked and his legacy has a lot to do with him being so well liked.
For the next 8 years, I am pretty sure Republicans will take many things Bill or Hillary says out of context and try to turn it into something that it’s not. It doesn’t matter. He’s a net positive. Duh.
Net positive, and I buy that he was talking about Republican obstructionism. This is, or at least was, a safe area for candidates to highlight “I’ll be better” in the Dem primary since President Obama acknowledged some regret over it in the State of the Union address. I think it’s extremely unlikely that Bill Clinton sees President Obama’s legacy as a failure, to the point that it can be rejected out of hand.
Agree – Bill has effusively praised Obama’s years, did a great job stumping for him in '12, and will be a net positive. He’s the greatest natural political talent in decades – of course he’s a net positive, even with all the baggage.
If you compare Bill Clinton as a previous Democratic President (economically excellent) to GW Bush as a previous Republican President (Iraq), I think you’ll see Clinton as a net positive.
Hasn’t it been conceded that Al Gore made a mistake in 2000 in not crediting the Clinton administration for the previous eight years of prosperity and relative peace (compared to the bookending Bush Wars)?
Bill was still popular in 2000, blow jobs notwithstanding, and in the past 16 years the rosy nostalgic glow around his presidency has increased.
Bill is a great campaigner with all the charm Hillary lacks, his presidency brought prosperity to most Americans. Only in right wing land can he be considered a negative. Spoiler alert: when Obama campaigns for her it will be a huge positive also.
Absolutely positive. He’s one of the most persuasive communicators any of us will ever see. Don’t knock it until you’ve seen it - I have, several times - and been awed at just how much he can bring a crowd around.
Toss in that not only is he good at it, but he also communicates that he enjoys talking to people - a weakness for Hillary - and he’s an overarching positive. Don’t let anyone deceive you.
