Bill Clinton: Voting For Obama Is 'Rolling The Dice'

Theatlantic.com:

In a hard-changing interview with Charlie Rose tonight, Bill Clinton said Americans who are prepared to choose someone with less experience, are prepared to "roll the dice" about the future of America. "It's less predictable, isn't it? When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he's running?"

"What do you want to do -- whether you think it matters that, I mean, in theory, no experience matters," Clinton said. "In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentators and let them run. They'd have only one year less experience in national politics..."

Read the whole story: Theatlantic.com

Comments

[ceasenake]

In the news that HuffPo will not tell you about:

In Bali the much heralded international agreement that Al Gore accused the USA of blocking - is actually being blocked by India and China.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124446

And a monster cold wave and huge storm is marching across the USA.

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2165962/

[larry278]

Voting for POTUS is like shooting dice. The last two elections were like playing with loaded dice. We got snake eyes in 00 & box cars in 04. We'll get lucky seven with Sen Obama. We'll not be able to make the point regardless of what we roll if we elect her Hillaryship in 08; in other words, we'll be like Slick Willie & will miss the point.

[Teyshar]

Okay, I stopped reading at the point of the fabrication story...

Clinton said he had a talk with Hillary on New Year's Day...Obama did not even say he was running until Feb. 10. Yet Clinton states he warned Hillary about Edwards and Obama. Maybe he did, but not on New Year's Day.

[JimR]

Did Bill Clinton mention that he had zero years experience in national politics when he was first elected president?

[LaFeminazi]

Hey Huffington.

How about a hit piece

On the Batshit Crazy repugs?

[sej100]

My feeling is that Obama hasnt even gotten his seat in the Senate warm, has not spearheaded any genuine legislation of import and has skipped votes especially when controversial. He claims Hilliay is unclear and watches politics. I think he does the same thing by failing to cast votes and stand up for something. I want him to prove himself before attempting to be president. If he did I would stand behind him. As it is,I would lean toward Hilliary, Edwards or Biden

[SupremeIdiot]

Why do all of you talk about experience? Have any of you looked at the experience of past Presidents like Lincoln, FDR, Washington?

One of the most experienced Presidents ever was Nixon.

Talk about what they stand for, what they believe in and how they perform under duress. Give the experience bullshit a break, please.

[mawrm]

For comments like Bill Clinton's to have any weight, one would have to believe that they are being made from an independent, unbiased vantage point. The fact is, _this BILL CLINTON, and OF COURSE, he's going to make claims that Obama's inexperienced because HE WANTS HIS WIFE TO WIN!! If Edwards or someone else were in Obama's position, he'd the exact same thing!! He's just playing politics.
What is becoming absolutely unbearable is this unprecedented use of surrogates by the Hillary Clinton campaign, worse than ANY Dem or Repub candidate, to either make unverified claims about her or to disparage other candidates. If she is so presidential, why can't SHE make these claims on the campaign trail? I will tell you why she doesn't - it's all about being a political snake and plausible deniability - she can always say "It wasn't ME who said that or personally attacked Obama, it was my husband" or someone else. This is cowardice and just plain dishonest and the American people are SICK and tired of this kind of Bull!! Does the Clinton campaign think people can't see through this?!? No, we're not that STUPID and that's why this video is one of the most viewed videos on YouTube right now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXPnMflGkvI

[ThomasDoubting]

Let's roll the dice! Maybe the people will win. We know if Hillary is the candidate, that we the people, will lose. It means that we will have two Republican candidates, one of them posing as a Democrat. As a closet Republican she will lose the general election and we will be stuck with another president like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. This is the wrong direction, let's make things better, not the same, or worse. We need to stop the wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. We need to stop the war on drugs, too. We need a government, that will provide a health care system that will keep it's people healthy, an educational system that meets our needs, and jobs for anyone who can work, and wants to work. We need the right to organize. With three hundred million people in this country, why do we have to import everything that we buy? There is plenty for everyone, why are people hungry? I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich! "Medicare for All"

[hjo4]

Look what "experince" has gotten us already, the likes of Bill Clinton and George W Bush many think we'd be better off rolling the dice than having more of what we have now in office.

[synonys]

Bill is right, Obama's lack of experience is totally going to kill him if he gets the nomination. It's not lack of experience running against republicans either, it's lack of experience in government. You flash back a few years and he was in a state legislature. If you examine his record in the state legislature you see he likes to skip out on contraversial votes. Just this year, he skipped out on a vote he characterizes as important to the Iran situation. Then you look at the fact he hasn't introduced much legislation in congress.

In a battle between 'polarizing' and 'inexperience' polarizing wins.

[HearsaWho]

Democrats, we're in big trouble, and the name of our trouble is the Celebrity Candidates, Clinton and Obama.

Many voters despise Hillary and would never vote for her. Many remember with distaste her disastrous failed attempt at health care reform in 1993. Polls like the one Daily Kos held show that the Democratic activist base dislikes and distrusts her. The right attacks her as a "left of center liberal", while the reality is that she is taking big money from the insurance, pharmaceutical, health-care, tobacco and arms industries, and her positions reflect this. She has not committed to getting out of Iraq or to not attacking Iran

On the other hand, Bill Clinton is right about Obama. The right wing and the press will tear him to shreds. He has not been "vetted" by hard-fought and dirty campaigns. He has shown much more enthusiasm for campaigning than for providing the country with leadership in the Senate, where he has missed many critical votes. People who are sickened and fed up with the Democrats' disgraceful performance in Congress will see him as being part of the problem.

Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and, yes, Kucinich would all be much wiser choices, able to withstand attacks and hit back, able to give good concrete answers to questions that concern the voters, and able to stand on their records of leadership. Unfortunately, the media long ago decided to cast this drama as a race between the two "front runners". Obama and Clinton. Activists are moaning about the press but are letting this happen, or even buying into it. We need to understand that we have an absolute need to find ways of reaching 100 million voters without going through the major media. The alternative is to continue to allow the owners of the great media corporations to choose our presidents for us.

Right now, we need a surge for another candidate, but we who see the debacle coming have no way to come to an agreement about whom.

Failing this, we may well be looking at another awful Republican presidency.

[midtown]

Hillary talks about being "vetted," "tested." She's only been vetted and tested with scandal. Obama was an elected official for seven years before she ever was.

[EyeWantOneNation]

ATTENTION HUFFPO POSTERS;

You all know it is Huffpo's policy to post comments on main threads, such as this, directly. However, on blogger posts, such as that Rep. Robert Wexler; "comments are pending upon approval."

I posted a comment (2 actually) on Rep. Wexler's blog this A.M., and it has been decided to "Not Post" my comment; which was polite; no cursing, etc., but brought some questions to the forefront. I am posting here, after posting my concerns directly to Rep. Wexler, so I could engage in some intelligent feedback from fellow posters:

In the 24 hours since Rep. Wexler's blog appeared, asking for support of his "call for hearings" on impeachment of Cheney, something wasn't sitting right.

There is already a bill, Kucinich's H.Res.333 that was brought to the floor for impeachment. The Reps., in an effort to avoid discussion on the floor, approved the bill; it has since been stalled in subcommittee and yet to reach House Judiciary committee.

Wexler is NOT calling for an amendment to H.Res.333; which has 3 articles concerning Cheney lying about the facts to engage us in the invasion of Iraq.
Wexler is calling for impeachment hearings, in regards to not only "his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war", but adds: "the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."

He CAN'T call for hearings at the Judiciary level, without FIRST introducing a bill and having it voted on and approved; OR submitting an amendment to the current bill and getting that passed!!
Of the two members of Congress standing with Wexler, only Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) co-sponsored Kucinich's bill!!
And it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for Wexler to be asking for 50,000 "votes of confidence". THAT is the support he will take to the House for a NEW bill....HIS BILL!!! Which WILL have to be voted on!!

[MNmommy]

So is this misleading piece of garbage going to grace the headline all weekend?