Someone please put a muzzle on the Big Dog

[ExPatLeftist]

I love Bill Clinton. But what the hell is he trying to accomplish with this statement just yesterday:

DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-clinton-in-denver-again-undercuts-obama-2008-08-26.html

I just do not get it...

[goldcanyonaz]

1. This has already been posted and discussed, and posted again and discussed and posted again and...

[ExPatLeftist]

2. I looked through the recent posts and saw nothing.

and I had not discussed it yet. I live in a far away time zone, so I miss the "rush hour" around here.

And so what if it has already been posted and discussed? This is a huge board, there are bound to be dupe threads. Doesn't bother me - and I have never understood the need of some to make posts like yours.

So what???

[goldcanyonaz]

3. So, you wish to carry on with the division.

[ExPatLeftist]

4. No, I posted something because it shocked me.

Was watching the news and saw this. I posted it here because this is where I post my political opinions online. If you disagree about what I post, when or why, then that is your issue. If you consider my posts divisive, that is also your problem, I post what I feel, not following others' political agendas about what should and should not be posted and when. Post your opinions about mine, by all means, But do not put words in my mouth or try to play Internet cop and tell me what I should post.

Have a good day.

[4themind]

5. Well he's going to be a prime time speaker tonight

so "muzziling" him may not be a very realistic suggestion at this point,not outright anyway. But let's see what he has to offer, Hillary delivered better than I expected and the Big Dog has the talent to do it as well.

[ExPatLeftist]

7. I agree that he can pull it off, but

I really think it is a shame that whatever great speech he gives tonight will be on the day following this crap. I just don't get it - he's really letting me down lately, and I always have admired and respected him.

[ExPatLeftist]

8. Dupe post n/t

[fasttense]

6. Oh for God's sake get real.

How does anything he said slam anyone? It is so out of context and so vague, it means absolutely Nothing.

The Funny things is though, I saw this exact same comment yesterday morning and the date on the article is: 08/26/08 01:47 PM . I'm on ET and I read it about 11pm.

Yet, this is in the article: "The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium."

Well, she spoke from the convention podium last night at about 10:30 p.m. (ET). How could this have appeared yesterday morning when Hilary hadn't spoken yet? It wasn't hours before she took the podium, it was half a day or more.

Bunch of BS, to stir the pot and defeat the only hope America has to get out of the mess bush has left.

[ExPatLeftist]

9. Regardless of the fact that this will be spun to make full effect...

it will be spun, and Bill of all people should know that and not make statements like this. It looks bad. And with recent history, any perceived division within the Democratic party are a huge burden to us. This does not help, and I wish that Bill was helping us out here - I just don't see it.

I hope he can make up for it tonight.

[CreekDog]

10. Can we give this a rest?

it would be awful if this was intentional, and i'm far from sure it is based on the evidence.

how about we wait until his speech tonight and see how that goes. if he does what Hillary did, then i think this stuff needs a rest for a while and should be treated as the media flogging that it is.

i need to repeat that most people i know voted for Hillary, most family members too. every one of them i've talked to are voting and/or donating to Obama. they are angry over Hillary's loss, but what distinguishes them from the PUMAS is that they blame the media --they never thought Obama was the problem. at most they think he didn't get the rough treatment Hillary did. it's because they blame the media and not Obama, that they don't hold a grudge against Obama and can vote for him.

can we let this meme go for 12 hours?

[ExPatLeftist]

11. This "meme" is new to me

as I just heard it when I woke up 2 hours ago and do not get TV piped-in US media. I woke up, heard this and wanted to discuss it with my fellow DUers.

It would really suck if I could not take part in a political discussion of my own choosing because it does not suit your time schedule.

Edit: Yes, it would really suck if he meant it (which I did not say I believe he did). If he did not mean it, it still sucks because we know it will make hay for the GOP. He should be more careful, and should know better.

[CreekDog]

13. yes he should

ex-Presidents are fairly egotistical. Bill would not be the first to feel underappreciated by the so-called younger upstart.

Truman wasn't for Kennedy
Carter wasn't enamored of Bill Clinton
Eisenhower didn't like Nixon (oops, wait, he had a point there!)

and so on and so on.

you don't run for president or become president not thinking you are better than anybody else who has done or wants the job. if you don't think that, you don't make it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. All right, suppose you're a voter

Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything (without Congress's help).
Candidate Y agrees with you on half the issues, but will certainly increase war, ignore poverty, deny choice, put the country in greater debt, help the rich get richer, deny health care to people who can't afford it.

For whom would you vote?

Wait, what were those choices again?