Bill Clinton Makes the Strongest Argument AGAINST Hillary's Nomination

In this strangest of political environments, where the exigencies of the moment supersede longer-term considerations, Bill Clinton has made the strongest case AGAINST the nomination of Hillary Clinton.

Remember a few weeks ago when Bill Clinton was telling everyone to "cool it," that Hillary's continuance in the race would have no impact on the November election? Remember the example he used?

Bill Clinton reminded us that he himself was in 3rd place, behind both HW Bush, and Ross Perot, going into the convention and yet he won. [Of course, he neglected to mention that the party with a convention fight has always lost, and that no one was arguing that he, who had won the delegates, ought not be nominated.]

From now until the convention -- and, do not be deluded, Hillary is not going to get out of the race until someone else gets the majority of the votes at the convention -- the Clintons will be arguing that the party needs to pick the strongest candidate, and will refer to polling evidence against McCain when it favors them, and 'logical' arguments when the polling evidence does not favor them, that Hillary is the stronger candidate.

But, Bill told us that going into the 1992 convention he was in third place, that the party unites behind the nominee and, in this political climate, that nominee will win.

The inexorable conclusion is that there is no basis for a determination about who might win the general election.

At least that is what he said a few weeks ago.

That means that the primaries are conducted to determine whom the voters want to be the nominee, period. Not, as the Clintons suggest, to construct an argument for whom should be nominated.

As indicated in "A Primal Scream to Superdelegates: Don't Fiddle While the Progressive Movement Burns, There is No Reason to Delay" (March 14, 2008) and "Superdelegates, How About Some Leadership"? (March 21, 2008), the Clintons have lost the elected delegates, they have lost the number of contests, and almost certainly will lose the popular vote. Moreover, the only measure of victory written into party rules is the delegate count.

The only case left is to the superdelegates, and the Clintons' only argument is 'electability', a position Bill Clinton's logic denies.

As indicated in "The Absurd Arguments of Both (Clinton & Obama) Campaigns" (February 15, 2008), the suggestion that Obama can expand the party because he has won states Democrats usually do not win, or that Hillary wins the states Democrats need to win -- based upon who won which state against the other -- is ridiculous. [It is a measure of how pathetic the MSM is that they discuss this nonsense interminably.]

Hillary herself said at the Philadelphia debate that Barack was electable. Indeed, Ed Rendell, the Hillary campaign chair in Pennsylvania, and Governor of that state, said more emphatically that Barack would carry Pennsylvania in the general election.

Thus, while Barack's numbers against McCain may fall due to the continued internecine warfare that Hillary will continue right through to the convention, Bill Clinton has said that it does not matter, and points to himself as evidence to the contrary.

Who would have thunk it?

Comments

[azcamp]

Hillary has not told the American people what Bill will be doing as "first lady." Since she and Bill disagree on trade issues, he will not be able to lobby against his wife's positions on trade but he will be able to influence those policy decisions just as Hillary claims she influenced his policies while in the White House. He will not have a security clearance yet, he will be pushing to rewrite his foreign policy legacy.

This would be a nightmare scenario when an ex-president has more power than the elected vice president and the Secretary of State. Hillary was the first "first lady" to claim her time in the White House as more valuable than that of the elected vice president.

We can not live with a continuation of the Bush doctrine and we can not grow the Democratic party with Bill Clinton alienating a part of the base. We can not afford to have another co-presidency that shuts out the vice president.

If the Republicans had not been energized by the Clinton scandals, Al Gore would have beat George W. Bush by a large margin. The super delegates should wake up and protect the Party that is now better positioned in the Western States and in states that have thousands of first-time voters of all ages registering as Democrats. In the long run, this is where our growth will be.

[myskylark]

Your arguments are facetious. Of course everyone is publicly saying that Obama can win the general election, but the reality is that he can't. His electability is fading, not because of Hillary Clinton's challenge, but because his candidacy is flawed by his own persona and the problems that are now surfacing about his past associations.

He can't connect with vital parts of the Democratic base - white middle class, white blue collar workers, Catholics and latinos. This has nothing to do with the Clinton's. If Obama loses the nomination, or if he wins the nomination and loses the general election, Obama and his supporters will blame the Clinton's. It won't be true, but they will make the accusation anyway, just as they falsely accused the Clinton's of injecting race into a campaign that was racial the moment Obama began to get 90+% of the African-American vote. It wasn't disillusion with the Clinton's that caused that seismic shift from Hillary Clinton to Obama, it was Obama's win in Iowa that encouraged black voters to believe that Obama was a viable candidate.

Two iconic, historic candidates as opponents in the same race had to end in a bitter split. That's why Obama would have been smarter to have waited until he finished his first term in the UJ.S. Senate to enter a presidential race, with better credentials and more time to distance himself from Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and Ayer/Dohrn.

[PaulAbrams]

"of course" people are saying Obama can win publicly? That's not what they were "of course" saying a few weeks ago.
There is no evidence Obama does not connect with the groups you mention---only that in recent primaries Hillary gets more of their votes.
The Clintons have done an incredible job of getting us all to talk about a "can he win"? argument, but that is really not what elections are about---they are about choosing a nominee based upon who the people want based upon their elected delegates.

[ntmessage]

Of course, there is no 100% proof of much in this election. However, the only material place that contradicted Obamas structural weakness with Reagan Democrats (as opposed to all white men) and with Latinos has been in his home state of Illinois and the neighboring southern part of Wisconsin. Virginia was also constructive for Obama.

However, if Obama wins NC, he then lost 80% of the largest states to Clinton, representing fully 57% of the entire population. Both these sub groups are important since they have voted Republican in the recent past and are leaning Democratic today in a material manner. Evidence demonstrates that most of these voters like Clinton over McCain, but McCain over Obama. Not just now, but always.

The PA and OH votes only reinforced the enormous flaw, 70% to 30% in some cases. Simply proves that Obama has not and apparently never did connect with this important sub group of voters in spite of his universal message. Clinton has. Obama left leaning base has never proved to move to the other side and maybe some would stay home. Progressive and new voters are still a fraction of the numbers essential to overcome Obamas weaknesses with these sub groups.

It is clear however and the polls now demonstrate that Clinton is imminently more electable than Obama against McCain, especially in the Electoral College and these sub groups across the new and existing swing states that will decide the next President.

[vincealy]

Time to close the book on this amoral couple. The Clintons legacy will be akin to the series" Dynasty." History will note that Bill was a very special president one of two that where impeached. Bill and Monica , probable lead to Bush beating Gore. The dead soilders in Iraq paid the price for Bill. Bill was defended as "a child of favor' at that time perhaps the congressperson who made that comment should read the story of "David". End the drama.

[likeicare]

More Clinton psychodrama.

Who wants 4-8 more years of this bullshit?

[Camel54]

"...to construct an argument for whom should be nominated." That "whom" should be "who". When who is being split between an object and a subject, the subject form takes precedence.

Other than that good post. I can't believe the stance that the primaries is a place to make an argument for who should be nominated is even a part of the discussion. It goes to show how easily manipulated the people and the press are. Not only were there rules for states about when their primary would be held and that's just being ignored as the Hillary first swore to stand by the DNC and then changed positions. Now the election rules themselves don't matter. It says a lot about her and what kind of president she would be, but it also says a lot about the party and the nation.

In the end, it's all getting old. A year ago I thought this was an easy win for the Dems. Now, I'm actually considering that McCain will win this thing no matter who the Dems nominate b/c of the damage done. I'm tired of donating. I'm tired of volunteering. I'm tired of hearing all the bullshit being spread as as issues while actual issues go unanswered. I'm tired of Dems already backing down from universal health care. If they can lose the interest of a die hard political junkie like me...

[ntmessage]

There is no doubt that Bill's time has passed, just like Carters. Both seem hell bent on addressing their biggest critics when they are portrayed unfairly at best and blatantly demonized with bald-faced lies at worse. Will Bill be a problem in the White House? Hardly. Who would not want an ex Presidents wisdom at hand. Hillary knows more about what is like to be president than any candidate in history. This would be bad if Clinton actually was a bad President, as some idiots seem to think. Regardless Hillary would be the one running the show and to say otherwise contradicts everything that she is about, besides being silly.

The difference of course based on tangible measurements, Carter was one of the worst presidents in history while Clinton was one of the best. Clinton is pissed off, as he should be since many less sophisticated Obama supporters believe or simple propagate that Clinton was like Bush, just to smear Hillary.

In fact, Carter is most like Bush especially using the pottery barn analogy for their work in the Middle East, while Obama bases his rhetoric and vision on a world that is eerily similar to the one Clinton helped CREATE. People like Bush and Carter worked against this vision because of their policy decisions. Carter is still trying to fix his messes of 30 years ago, while Clinton is just defending the facts of his transformational Presidency from those attempting to re write history.

[postdem]

Here I am one of the less sophisticated, propaganda deluded simpletons who find Obama's message of hope and of cleaning up the cesspool that is Washington a breath of fresh air and part of the human evolution and evolution in politics that we need to survive.
When this simpleton says survive, she means it.
Our democracy is gasping for breath with the curses of lobbyists, big money, the failure of the press sitting on its chest. The country quickly will be on life support due to our rapidly increasing debt, declining dollar, failed schools , health care and infra- structure and our government in its infinte wisdom sends us $600!

And we are to believe that HRC who counts her 12 years as first lady, her time on the board of Wal-Mart, has been involved in upteen scandals of her own making, blew a 20 point lead and the benefits of a 20 year old machine, is in debt and continues to enable a sexual predator who is now "running the show" known as the Hillary campaign., and who we know is lying "because her lips are moving" this is who will bring about the change needed? Who's trying to re-write history?
Clinton's "transformational" presidency was the one in which scandal and division became the m.o. and by the way which led to the loss (after 50 years) of the Democratic Congress and then the presidency. No thanks.
Bush,Clinton, Bush, Clinton won't change anything.

[ntmessage]

The unrelenting attempts to link Clinton to Bush with little materially tangible evidence would be clinical is this was another setting. Most people know when their intelligence is being insulted.

[wndrwrthg]

What would the effect of a hillary presidency have on biillys ability to remain on the speach circuit? Would there be a conflict of intrest, as hiring him could be seen as a conduit to hillary? If he had to give it up, there would be a significant drop in income.

[drmavis]

My theory is Bill consciously or subconsciously doesn't want Hillary to be the president but has to act like he does. It would really cramp his style if you think about it -- he'd have to cut back on the ladies, shady business dealings, etc.

[StephenJK]

**Rolls eyes** Pfft....you're joking right?

Of course you are.

[KarateKid]

We all know Bill Clinton is all about Bill Clinton. Did he care a whit about Hillary when he philandered with Monica Lewinsky? Gennifer Flowers? Paula Jones?

He is more worried about his legacy, and unwittingly damaging it with his bitterness and damaging his wife's campaign in the process. He is not about to take a back seat to his wife, and one can only imagine what life would be like with him running around the White House. That thought, I believe, is something many Democrats are thinking about. How would you like to be Vice President or Secretary of State with him around? Do you for a minute think he's going to be role reversing with Hillary? I think he will be in the Oval Office a lot, not just occasionally.

It is something they have not spoken about very much, which is odd considering they have spoken about everything else. Why are they downplaying this? Why has the media not covered this angle more? It certainly is a unique situation in our history, the possibility of a First Husband who happens to be a former President. No, instead the media is obsessed with what an old preacher is saying.