I love Bill Clinton, I really do...

[Drunken Irishman]

The media loves him too. Which is funny, considering the media did everything they could in the 90s to bring him down.

But there is a new narrative forming that Clinton is essentially everything Obama isn't and that Obama needs to ride his coattails in order to win. It's a twist on the whole Obama versus Clinton ordeal we've spent the last four years fighting ... but a bit different. This has been something battling Obama for pretty much his whole presidency. It's a way to cast doubt on his ability to do anything.

It's why, even if unpopular, I felt it was important Obama NOT select Hillary as his running mate in '08. He had to prove, on his own, he was capable of winning that election and had he picked her, I think, with a victory, most would just chalk it up to Hillary carrying certain important groups to guarantee Obama a victory.

Instead, we got the crap that Obama only won because either the Republicans threw the race or because of the economic downturn or Palin's ineptness. All interesting points ... all wrong. The Republicans didn't want to lose in 2008. Too much was at stake for their ideology to lose. The economic downturn helped Obama, but he also was leading in the polls when it went south. I also think people overstate its impact.

The biggest knock against Obama in '08 was that he was too inexperienced. At the time of the economic recession, experience became an asset, especially from the McCain point of view. It wasn't the economic downturn that helped Obama ... it was how he reacted to it. Instead of panicking, like McCain, he got his ducks in a row, took a backseat to the President, and did what any good candidate would do. McCain, trying to seize the upper hand, tried to force his way into the discussion and made it about him ... McCain suspended his campaign to fly back to Washington in hopes of getting a deal done and then said he wouldn't debate Obama until a deal was done. Well a deal wasn't reached prior to the debate and McCain had to go back on his word. He looked weak, while Obama, who didn't insert himself as some savior at the time (ironic, all things considered), came off as ready to lead.

But again, the polls were breaking for Obama anyway. Then there is Sarah Palin. She's irrelevant. McCain could have picked Romney and he was still not going to win the election.

But regardless, my point is that they've tried to delegitimize Obama nearly since day one and they're using Clinton to do it now.

This cartoon made me think of it:



It belittles Obama ... shows him as small and unpopular and that the party just LOVES Bill and would so vote for him again over Obama if he was eligible to run.

But we need to distinguish a past president from a current president. Clinton is a good guy and was a good president, but he was not always that popular figure he is today. People thought he was doing a good job, to be sure, but there were moments, especially in his first term, where was far less popular than Obama ever was. Moreover, this is a guy who, in two elections, failed to win a majority of the overall vote - meaning in back-to-back elections, more people voted against Clinton than for him. That's not a knock, but it's easy to get a bit revisionist on history.

The fact of the matter is, President Clinton is not facing divisive, unpopular issues anymore. He's not the one who has to sign legislation that half the country hates. He's not the president anymore who is getting ripped for not invading Syria and getting ripped for potentially possibly maybe invading Syria. He's not the guy who had to make the call to end the Iraq war and ramp up troops in Afghanistan. Right now, Clinton's popularity is mostly that of nostalgia - as it is with almost every ex-president.

In ten years, I wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush's image has been rehabilitated enough to where he's openly praised and popular once again. It's already happened to his father and to Jimmy Carter to a lesser extent ... though since Carter often speaks out on hot button issues like Israel, he certainly has put himself on the line far more than most ex presidents.

But it's easier to idolize former presidents because we often remember the good and forget the bad. We're doing that with Clinton and I don't have any problem with that ... except some are doing it to attack Obama.

They say Obama is no Clinton. Well, let's be honest ... Clinton is no Clinton. He's a mythical creation and that isn't a knock on Clinton, but reality. Clinton had his faults. They showed in his presidency and we've seen them even after he left the White House. But because Obama's popularity isn't anywhere near Clinton's now, somehow that means he's not good enough or capable.

I don't like that. It's apples and oranges. And I'm guessing, in 10 years, win or lose, Obama's popularity will be every bit as strong as Clinton's right now and he'll be a rock star and the new Clinton as Clinton and Hillary ride off into the sunset. And even then, Obama will be no Obama. But I wonder if they'll use him to cut down a current sitting president?

Maybe I'm off base with this one...but I just get the sense that they want to kick up old primary wars by suggesting Obama needs Clinton and can only win with Clinton.

You know, I was watching Morning Joe the day after Clinton's speech and he had nothing but praise for Clinton and said something interesting and that was how impressed he was that Clinton could put behind all the nasty things the Obama campaign did to him and get on that stage and give a rousing speech.

My I raised my eyebrow to that statement because, gosh, I must've remembered wrongly. Now, campaigns get ugly and it's safe to say both the Obama campaign and Clinton campaign stepped over the line a few times four years ago. It was a nasty campaign ... nastiest ever for a primary fight (or at least what I remember) and there was a lot of hurt feelings and division. But to suggest it was all one-sided and that Obama was the one leveling every nasty attack on Clinton is absolutely positively not true. Clinton made just as many nasty charges toward Obama.

But then I thought, this is what they do. They're trying to create that divide. It's us versus them and I've heard it a lot the past week - there are two Democratic Parties. You've got the old Clinton-wing, which Joe called pro-business, centrist and essentially 'good' and you had the Obama-wing, which was anti-business, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and insanely liberal. He gushed over Clinton's speech because of its centrist theme during a convention that he called the most left-wing he could remember.

Once again, they're creating that division. They expanded on that division by 'asking' why Clinton can articulate Obama's accomplishments far better than Obama himself! Maybe because he's a third party and people generally listen to an independent source on someone else's accomplishments more intensely than they would listen to someone ramble about all the good they've done?

Ultimately, while I feel good about everything that happened, this is the one thing that bugged me. It was the constant hinting that Obama would be nowhere without Clinton ... that he really needed Clinton. That's kind of insulting to the President. Just as it would be insulting to Clinton to suggest he really needed so-and-so during his elections.

I love Clinton. I love Obama. But let's be honest, President Clinton has the luxury of not being the one making the tough decisions anymore. We saw firsthand how his popularity can take a hit when he gets really active in potential divisive issues ... something that happens to every politician. Since Bush has stayed out of the limelight the last four years, and we move further away from his presidency, I would not be surprised if, in 2016 or something, he's far more popular and respected and liked by not just Republicans, but most Americans. Time heals all and it allows for presidents to rehabilitate their image. Clinton's faults were washed away by it and his strengths, everything we loved about him, shone bright in Charlotte. But it doesn't mean I'd trade Obama for Clinton.

So, when I was chanting four more years ... it was for Obama. Not Bill.

[TroyD]

1. I was cheering for both of them : ) n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Hey, I was cheerin' for Clinton too...but I want Obama as prez.

Clinton had his eight years. I'm glad he was president. But we have a new man now and I'm hopin' he, like Clinton, can claim reelection.

[babylonsister]

3. Four years ago Clinton's support for

Obama was lukewarm at best, and only after the primaries. Obama still sealed the deal. Don't listen to those harpies...look at the crowds in FL yesterday. Obama did that all by his onesies. He is loved with or without Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Very interesting post

The back-to-back nights of Clinton and Obama really cemented the impression I have of both, in (mostly) healthy ways. Clinton's speech was an enormous asset to the convention, moreso than to Obama. It was the heart of the argument, brilliantly made, and because of his immense popularity as a speaker Clinton helped deliver a huge audience to the cause, as well as the MSM, which now accords him post-presidency oracle status.

That said, Clinton charms more than he inspires, and he plays a little loose with the truth sometimes. Hearing the guy who repealed Glass-Steagall talk about the dangers of Republican deregulation was ironic, not to mention the overall coziness with Wall Street that he enjoyed. His personal and financial neediness compromised his presidency (and his post-presidency) in unfortunate ways and did not serve all of us well at times. There's always an asterisk with Bill Clinton in ways that there isn't (and won't be), with Barack Obama.

Watching Obama the following, the essential (and, yes, comparative) goodness of the man shone through. When he quoted Lincoln on how the job has brought him to his knees, you not only believed him, you empathized with him because his nature is to suffer in silence. He is not the politician that Bill Clinton is, but he is the steadier man, easier to stick with through thick and thin because he makes fewer demands as he has fewer needs (and will never self-destruct). And steady, as we know with Obama, does not mean boring. He is not only an inspirational figure, but he also has the capacity to inspire with his words and deeds.

What's more, we're only halfway through the story here, and President Obama, because of his personal integrity and relatively clutter-free nature of his presidency, has the ability to break the Republicans and change this country in ways that Bill Clinton didn't. A big part of this opportunity is timing. Clinton proved that a Democrat who raised taxes responsibly could lead us to prosperity, but the nation was still persuadable by Republicans that tax cuts skewed to the wealthy were affordable in no small part because Clinton handed them a surplus. The meltdown of 2008, which was preceded by record-setting deficits, blew trickle-down and deregulation apart as political arguments (not that the Republicans, bless their hearts, have realized it). This cleared the way for the President to play offense, an opportunity which he was initially slow to grasp because he had to learn the hard way about Republican intransigence.

At the end of the day, it's a bit of a political miracle that we have both of these men at this time. It's an incredibly powerful combination, as we saw last week, and there's nothing remotely comparable on the other side. Obama was going to win anyway, IMO, but the full-bodied commitment of Bill Clinton not only helps that cause, it will help him leverage the possibilities of victory in ways that will serve each of them well, not to mention all of us.

[lillypaddle]

5. Bravo

Well said.

[lillypaddle]

6. Very thoughtful OP

Thanks for the perspective.

[Jennicut]

7. It is part nostalgia, part revisionism and a bored media that wants infighting.

Clinton had good economic success but did not have to deal with what Obama has had. He was hated by the media in the first half of his presidency and labeled inexperienced and over reaching. Trooper gate, Waco, travel gate were all pushed by the media. The MSM hated health care reform. His poll #'s in '94 were pretty bad. But he was a survivor and only he could say what needed to be said about the Repubs because he dealt with the mess Bush and Reagan left him. And now the media loves to pit the Clintons vs the Obamas because for them it is interesting. But Hillary and Bill have been pretty classy these past few years and even won me over again. It is just the way Dems usually are, we come together for the good of the party.
The MSM will try to pit Dems against each other but it won't happen.

[cr8tvlde]

8. Am I the only one here

who thinks it could also, just by chance, be some pre-campaigning for Hillary 2016...and just in case? Obama certainly gave her a very high honor after that nasty fight.