Big Dawg Clinton: Use 'em or Lose 'em?

After Saturday's whuppin' in South Carolina, will the Hillary campaign finally snap the muzzle down on Bill? Or has Big Dawg strayed completely out of control?

No question that as much as Slick Willie boosted Hill's campaign in New Hampshire and Nevada, he went a mound of dung too far in South Carolina. His shameful rampage against Obama, the latest episode coming in his implication that the Hillary's chief rival, started ticking off not only the political and media elites, but it also set off a ground-level backlash that directly contributed to Saturday's lopsided results.

The more Bill barked, the greater the number of voters who started reaching for the pepper spray.

I claim no special insight into the Hillary campaign. I can only pass along the sweaty beads of info that trickle out. Just as many people inside the campaign tell me that coordination between Bill and Hill couldn't be tighter and more closely calibrated as tell me the complete opposite: that Bill's in veritable political heat, that his verbal rutting is beyond anyone's control.

Clinton, or better said, the Clintons were expected to lose South Carolina but not by the crushing 2 to 1 margin that resulted. It was expected that Hillary would win more votes among white men than Obama. But not just by the meager single points in the final tally.

The definitive chapter in the Democratic primary now opens and will most likely culminate during the 22 state showdown on February 5. Until Saturday's crushing defeat in South Carolina, Clinton -with superior organization and institutional firewalls--was heavily favored in Super Tuesday mega-states of California, New York and New Jersey. Some of that confidence went up in smoke in the aftermath of Saturday's Palmetto State Massacre.

Hillary's handlers must now calculate quite precisely just how much more Bill Clinton should be deployed in these crucial next two weeks. Or how much he should be muzzled. Or if they even have a say in the matter.

Bill Clinton was, surely, a president who enjoyed great popularity. But also great scorn.

Use 'em, or lose 'em?

Comments

[Manx]

I'm beginning to think that, subconsciously, Bill doesn't really want Hillary to win.

I say this as someone who has always been a defender of Bill Clinton, up to now.

[Delaware22]

In my opinion, Bill stays. Obama would love for Bill to disappear. Even with his faults, Bill Clinton is more intelligent than all the candidates, Dem and GOP, put together. This is just getting good!

[klondiker]

You are an angry man, Marc Cooper.

[YcCoSQ]

the media will always lead with Bill Clinton.

We will have the latest iconic incarnation of Bill Clinton by the US editors tomorrow. If the Obama campaign is wise they will portray Bill Clinton as a member of the Obama campaign. The media will always lead with Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton can't but help the other campaigns because he has turned himself and his wife into comic figures.

[findingthetruth]

The Clintons are far from playing dirty politics. Their next ploy will be pitting Blacks against Latinos in order to gain support in California. Even their NOW supporters are aware of this----but will continue to condone THIS because of their 90's love for the Clintons. Now, that's sad.

[LeonBNJ]

The recent actions and talk of Bill Clinton is offensive not only to Obama but it is also insulting to his wife. It makes Hillary Clinton look weak, that she can't fight her own fight as a woman. Like many Democrats, I have no desire to have Hillary for many reasons others have stated here and a fear she along with Bill will be huge targets by any Republican canidate. I want a Demo to win. I don't think Hillary is the one to do it.

[pizzmoe]

This is why Democrats fail. People are tearing Bill apart, as if they have forgotten the last 7 years of the Bush administration. Bill was far from perfect as his record shows, but overall, who was the better President in every way imaginable?

[Meah]

Senator Clinton, what are you thinking? You were doing just fine without him. Now you have let him loose, and it is like he is running, not you. He needs to go read a shelf of books in his Library until after November. If people want to vote for you, that does not mean they want to vote for the both of you. You have made a HUGE mistake. Old Bill was talking about himself out the kazoo yesterday. What a mess! You husband will be your downfall, again!

[zelduh]

Here's the problem.

Hillary would not be in the running were it not for her former president husband (whom we all loved) and the connections that his presidency garnered. She has to keep him nearby because she includes HIS eight years of the presidency on HER resume. If we separate the Clinton twins, people might notice that she really is "hanging on his coattails.­"

Barack has eleven years of legislative experience; she has only seven. The experience upon which she will draw (to "hit the ground running on day One") is fighting the vast right wing conspiracy and meeting dignitaries; not enacting change. I am not finding fault with her: I am simply stating facts.

[noodlesoup]

RE: "On the other, the only Democratic candidate who, until recently, supported torture (and by that name)"

Anti-war progressives will have to choose between voting Green Party or not voting. Anti-war moderates will have to make a decision between:

* McCain who is anti-torture, will keep us in Iraq longer, is a good-buddy with Lieberman and other Neo-cons and may bomb Iran.

* Clinton who waffles on torture (Bill authorized it), claims she will slowly remove troops from Iraq, is a good-buddy with Lieberman, adores APAIC money, and has criticized WBush for not having a more hostile policy toward Iran.

My perspective: a 50-buck bet that the troops are still in Iraq after Hillary's first term and it's a toss-up whether McCain or Hillary are more likely to bomb Iran (for the crime of legally processing fuel to 3% as permitted by NPT treaty). McCain has some cred with the military and might get torture banned once again. Not voting for him, just saying.

Dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/203027/281
Consortiumnews.com/2007/092707.html

[dgscol]

use the pardons or lose them.

[longislandlol]

A generation of kids has yet to admit that "oral sex" is really sex-- and dangerous sex--at that-- do we have to do the same splainin now- lo these many years later to the next generation of sexual deviants..

[jbgnyc]

Get a grip, everyone. What is it with this vitriol against Bill & Hillary? We are ALL on the same team if we're progressives and liberal and eager to undo the past 8 years of real evil. Those of you so gleefully dumping on1 Hillary give fuel to those who truly will stop at nothing to win (They are called REPUBLICANS, in case you forgot). Enough with the nasty stuff. So the Clintons fight hard. Frankly, that's why I supported him right from the start. I've had enough of right on the issues, whimpy on the counter-attack. Get Real. Obama, Hillary, John. All win for me.

[kingcityguru]

Ask yourself: What would the Clintons NOT say or do to get elected?

I can't think of a thing.
Any option is better than that disfunctional dynasty and its desire for power and self-interest beyond anything else.

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

As a conservative Democrat proud of the party's record on civil and human rights, I think a president contest boiling down to John McCain versus Hillary Clinton would put a lot of us in a quandary.

On one hand, a war hero/budget hawk who is the only Republican candidate to resolutely oppose the practice of torture.

On the other, the only Democratic candidate who, until recently, supported torture (and by that name), is an budgetary earmark queen, and whose campaign has sunk to injecting race into the primaries.

(See the Politico.com story "Hillary backs off support for torture" www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.htmll])

That cannot be a winning hand for the Democrats.