From purely Dem partisan POV, was there ANY advantage to Bill Clinton's close

[blm]

association with Bush1 and his very public support of Bush2's policy decisions on terror and his Iraq war leadership throughout Bush's first term?

Would you describe it as a clear advantage for the 2002-2004 candidates or as an albatross for the party?

[yurbud]

1. I'm not sure if Clinton ever had coattails...

His DLC approach to things minus his unique charisma adds up to essentially no appeal when sold by some less likeable pol.

[vicman]

2. Bill Clinton

will always be viewed as the very definition of a statesman and leader. And that's not a bad reflection on any Democratic party member. To paraphrase President Clinton's own words, "at least I tried." What will the legacy of both Bushes be?

[blm]

5. Bush1 is now rehabbed as a wise man and his legacy is being brightened by Clinton's

'endearing devotion' to him and who regularly informs the public that Bush1 is a great man who he admires and loves openly.


So, from a purely partisan viewpoint, does that help every other Democrat who was running in 2002 and 2004? And how does it help anyone who would run in the future on a platform that ALL of the BushInc crimes need to be revealed to the public so they can better understand the SCOPE of what this nation is up against in the world and WHY we face such threats from global terrorist networks?

[librechik]

3. that's called statesmanship

sometimes a dirty business. But given the circumstances, I doubt it will be an albatross problem. Everybody"s wearing them.

[blm]

11. imo, statesmanship is when you forego personal political gain for the good of the

country and the world. How did Clinton's supporting Bush1 and Bush2 so PUBLICALLY help the country or the world? Clinton had to know their failings better than anyone else in DC - he had access to documents that no other Dem lawmaker would possibly have had or seen.

He knew plenty - and sided with the Bushes. Post 9-11 was one thing - giving Bush a window of opportunity to not screw up was the ONLY thing any American could do at that point. But supporting Bush as publically as he did clear through the summer of 2006 was NEVER good for this country.

[librechik]

12. true, I wish he hadn't--but Clinton needs some ass covering himself

no doubt--he has to support The Presidency, or his own legacy will suffer. It was appalling, though.

[ecstatic]

13. Yes, I tend to agree with you... His publicity stunts gave the Bushes credibility

and a semi-human quality that they did not deserve. Associate with backstabbing dogs, and you will get fleas!

I still like the Clintons but I'm no longer going soft on war apologists.

[valerief]

4. Well, Clinton didn't get anthraxed. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Neither did Carter

[valerief]

9. But maybe Clinton proved to be more useful than Carter. Maybe

Clinton got an offer he couldn't refuse and Carter didn't.

[blm]

10. You think he got that offer in 1992?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[dionysus]

6. I don't think so,

unless he is spying on them for us.

[BeFree]

7. Albatross

Clinton's not having sex with that bush, so stop saying that!

But he has climbed into his bed, and that can never be of help to our democracy. So, it is an albatross.

It leads too many into thinking that bushco is really not all that bad. Not me, and damn sure not you, but there are others.

[Andromeda]

14. Maybe there is no nefarious reason

for Bill Clinton's friendship with Bush 1. I can't see any personal advantage for their relationship other than just mutual respect.

In other words, they like each other. Period.

I don't see Clinton having public support of Bush 2's policies on terror or his invasion of Iraq. I've never heard him publicy declare that he endorses the way Bush invaded Iraq or supports the way he's handled the war.

It's only an albotross if you want it to be. Bill Clinton isn't running for anything so I doubt he's part of some big conspiracy. Any candidate who didn't make the cut in the last election probably did/didn't because of his/her own merits or lack thereof.

[blm]

16. You may have missed his appearances between 2001 and 2005, especially on

shows like LKL. The DU archives are filled with live-blogged threads of his appearances where many of us were horrified about his support for Bush's decisions.

[janx]

15. It depends on what you're reading and where you get your

information. The problem with partisanship is that it tends to skew your sources of information, especially in the current media climate. So when you refer to Clinton's support of Bush2's policy decisions, etc., I'd like to look at sources of information regarding that.

Ex presidents enjoy and deserve each other's company, and they understandably have a lot to talk about.

Where is this coming from?

[blm]

17. DU archives is filled with threads from Clinton's TV appearances 2001-2005

where he spoke positively about Bush's decisions on terror and Iraq. I am surprised that anyone has forgotten that timeframe.