Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement?

With Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigning together for the first time next week, the press will focus on the party coming together. The endorsements of Carter and Gore, while largely expected, were also important in terms of legitimizing Obama as the party standard bearer. But it's notable that there have been no signals as of yet that the last Democratic actually elected as president, Bill Clinton, plans to explicitly endorse or campaign with Obama.

Bill's endorsement, in many ways, would symbolize a full laying down of arms between the Obama and Clinton camps. In the primary race, Bill Clinton, along with Penn, was viewed as advocating a harsher line against Obama, and was responsible for some of the most aggresive statements coming out of the Clinton camp, starting with his characterization of Obama as a "roll of the dice" in December. Even in the final days of the primary, when it was clear that it would require a small miracle for Hillary to win, Bill made his disgust with the ways things had turned out apparent, launching a parting shot at Obama for leaving his church.

So will Bill explicitly endorse Obama in the coming weeks and months, or will his endorsement be implicit in his wife's endorsement? Will that be good enough, considering he's one of the leaders of the party in his own right? Will a speech at the convention do the trick? What do you think?



Display:


Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (1.70 / 17)

He is the past , he doesn't need to endorse .

Anything that will remind the country about the scandal ridden administration is not needed .

Besides he is a gaffe machine , so he wouldn't be of much help. He played the race card in the primary , that should rule him out.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:50:25 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 2)

Your snark sustains me far more than the tears of the unemployed....

Does it occur to you that some of us could have misgivings about President Clinton without hating him?  That we could be disappointed in him without disliking him?

I'm proud of his Administration.  I don't have to be proud of every dumbass thing he does, though.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (1.75 / 4)

Looking at purely political or objective?

You're Bill Clinton. You have been painted as a racist, at best as a race baiter. You had the 3rd highest member in congress ( clyburn) say you are disliked by AA's.

You also happen to be the only one w/ a record , which I believe shows to be the best president in the modern era on economic growth/policies.

...and a president post his tenure that has done more for the downtrodden thru his charity than any president ( dollars and sense)

What do you do?

I hope he is better and larger man than me, in that situation. That's just being honest on my part.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:38:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

people are forgetting he WAS THE PRESIDENT (2.00 / 5)

and he can endorse when he feels like it. After what those guys in chicago did to him, how is he supposed to feel? He won two terms, a first for a Dem since FDR, and gets called a racist? Because he made our party palatable in issues which we once were extremely vulnerable on, like crime and welfare, which beat us 5 out of 6 elections from 1968-1988? before he came along, we used to average 113 electoral votes. We do way better than that today. Before him, we used to lose MI, CA, ME, NH, PA, VT, IL, NJ, DE, MD, and CT. now, we usually win those states in elections, all of which add up to a lot of electoral votes. He'll endorse when he feels like it. he restored our credibility on the economy which Carter RUINED. He can endorse when he wants.

that being said, I think he'll wait until next month. He is not going to do something because Wolf Blitzer says he should. He will do it when people know: it means something. He is acting on how he feels, not how the media feels. Perhaps even at the convention.


by Lakrosse on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:02:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good lord (none / 0)

Correlation isn't causation.  Bill Clinton isn't the reason Dems do better now than when they were at their nadir.  Perhaps you didn't notice, but we lost both houses of Congress when he was President and if he was as great as you seem to think 2000 would have been a walk.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

shut up about Congress already (2.00 / 4)

because he clearly made Democrats better off in terms of Presidential elections than we were in 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, or 1968. Just look at the fucking electoral map. Thats what matters. Look at the states we never used to win and mostly lost in those elections I mentioned that we now always win. These include Michigan, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, CALIFORNIA, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Maryland, all of which are worth an amazing amount of electoral votes, over 170. We lost nearly all of those states in those 5 elections. Also, we used to get blown out in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and they not only were won by Clinton, but even with weaker candidates, are still close. We only lost Congress because of corrupt Dems and an amazing amount of scandals that happened before his term. You also forget how poorly the media treated him. Gore also won more votes than Bush, but you also forget what an abysmal campaign Gore ran. He had no message nor did he try to define Bush, and he also picked a bad running mate. But how many times does our party get called "weak on crime" or "soft on welfare" anymore? Those are why we always would get killed in elections. If yo have any memory, those issues are what killed us from 1968-1988. We averaged 113 electoral votes during those years. We always do much better today. And it was Bill Clinton, not Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, or Hubert Humphrey who fixed our image on crime and welfare.


by Lakrosse on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I apologize for stating some inconvenient (1.00 / 1)

truths about the Clintonmessiah.  We lost those elections because we had bad candidates.  I love how you just omit 1976 because it doesn't fit your thesis.  Your worshipful analysis is too simplistic to take seriously.  It was not just "crime and welfare" that hurt democrats in that time period.

Bill did some good things but he didn't single-handedly save the party.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I apologize for stating some inconvenient (2.00 / 4)

Likewise, Bill didn't singlehandedly destroy the party, either, as some continuallly suggest.

Denigrating his accomplishments for political gain by Democrats has been shamefull.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 3)

maybe we lost it because after 40 years of dem congress rule . They were fed up w/ us? :)

Btw, did that loss stop the American people on economic prosperity? .... Oh hell no...

he left office after his 2nd term holding the highest rating as president in 40 years before him.

if you give us the economic prosperity of the 90's . I'm happy...


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

can't create a tech bubble (1.66 / 3)

or cheap oil.  So there's no going back to the 90s.  Balancing the budget like Bill did would be a good first step.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 3)

I think you need to be reminded that the Democrats, after a 40 year run as the majority in Congress, were a pretty corrupt bunch.
The list includes Abscam (late 80s), the House banking scandal of the early 1990's (20 out of 24 of the worst abusers were Democrats) and the post office scandal, which resulted in investigations that concluded with crimial charges in 1993.
Combine that with Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America" in 1994 (ok, I know it's not really Contract on America), and the reason that we lost Congress (only 2 years after Clinton's election) is obviously NOT the fault of Bill Clinton.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:15:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 3)

thank you!!  I was going to post this info, but you beat me to it

It is amazing how some people rewrite history to slam BC


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:25:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (none / 0)

No, his administration was not the primary cause, but his missteps certainly did not help.  His inexperience in dealing with Congress wasn't helpful.  I hope that Obama does better, given the fact that he's about the same age as Clinton was when he ran.  He's got legislative experience so hopefully he knows how to finesse Congress.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good lord (2.00 / 5)

and the unwillingness of the Congress to work with Bill Clinton wasn't helpful at all either.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He certainly didn't help (none / 0)

Many factors played a role.  The ones you mention and also Bill's political missteps at the beginning of his term.  Bill has many good attributes but he also has some very unhelpful ones.


by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 3)

Let me begin by saying I don't agree with everything you say all the time.  Sometimes I am slightly suspect about your motives and the 'gist' behind some of your commentary, but this is spot on.

There was no reason for the person who TR you to do so. You spoke absolute truth to the issue.  The sad legacy of this primary will be the progressive wing of the party turning on the only successful Democratic POTUS of their lifetime because they needed to denigrate his spouse and derail her chances.  Bill's accomplishments were even downplayed by the nominee himself on the campaign trail by his continual raising up of other's accomplishments while refusing to acknowledge Bills.  That was shameful, and anyone believeing otherwise has bought into the 'fairytale' about Bill and Hillary's rascism.

This issue alone is one of the reasons I simply do not trust those who hold themselves up as 'progressives' yet they continue to deride the Clinton years as shit.

Bill is a political force that still has drawing power and usefullness for the party.  However, if I were Bill, the way he has been portrayed and treated this campaign season, I would happily sit home on my hands and read Mad magazine.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 2)

Heh heh, I don't usually see snark from you lori.

Give Bill two weeks; I think he'll endorse him in Arkansas and have a "torch-passing moment."  I don't really expect him to be on the stump too much for Obama though.  The other Clinton will be with Obama a lot and will serve as one of Obama's four de facto vice presidents (her, Warner, and the Udall brothers); frankly, she's a much bigger figure in the party than he is right now.


by Blazers Edge on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 8)

You are probably right .

I expect him to be stumping a lot though , of course not the way he almost killed himself with all the small town trips for his wife , but substantially.

Yeah i am in a swell mood tonight , just got a call from a loved one.

Couldn't resist when I saw the diary , I said it during the primary that the same folks crucifying both Clinton's and telling them to get out , would be the same folks who would be telling them to get back on the stump for Obama.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree with her being the bigger player (none / 0)

He is the Democratic nominee and as such leads the democratic party.


by Grissom1001 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with her being the bigger player (none / 0)

the "him" in my post was Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama.


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 4)

uprating because (coming from lori) this is snark...right ?


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

classic and funny snark! (2.00 / 5)


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (none / 0)

I'm sure he'll endorse at some point.  To Hillary's credit, I think her efforts on Obama's behalf will mean much more than Bill's.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:29:51 AM EST

I agree (none / 0)

and since she has already endorsed him, her traveling with him speaks to her desire to get on with the general election.
I think this is a way of telling her supporters to get down to business. If she is over it then they need to be also for the best interest of the democratic party.
Those that do not have the party's best interest at heart? are no longer supporting her because she is no longer running.
by Grissom1001 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:46:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

5 ideas for the first campaign appearanc (2.00 / 1)

Well, politico has five ideas for the odd couple.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 8/11247.html

Unfortunately, Tennessee isn't mentioned and Bredesen kind of threw Obama's chances under the bus this week (though I'm sure the two are loved in Memphis).


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:34:09 AM EST

I wonder if the odd couple (2.00 / 1)

will be flying together to their destination on Friday.  After all, they have a late meeting on Thursday evening, which could occur even later in the evening if Obama really decides to fight this FISA nonsense.  

That should be one funny photo-op of Obama and Clinton sitting next to each other on the airplane if it happens or is allowed.  All of their photo-ops together are unintentional comedy.  Hopefully John Heilman will be invited on the plane and give us another New Yorker scoop piece.


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder if the odd couple (none / 0)

ive said it before and ill say it again.  your observations are classic BE!


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can see how the airport runway (2.00 / 3)

walk to the airplane will be choreographed.  Obama will emerge from one side of the bullet-proof, tinted-window black SUV.  He'll go over to the other side, open the door and out will come Clinton herself.  He'll probably extend her his hand, as the distance from the seat to the ground is probably pretty high for someone 5'6.  

Then Clinton will point out the bag that she is bringing with her and Obama will make sure that the cameras catch him carrying it for her.  Reggie Love and Huma will be trailing in the background.

It should be hilarious.


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

awesome.... (none / 0)

i love it!!!!


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can see how the airport runway (2.00 / 1)

LOL


by animated on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does it even matter? (none / 0)

Honestly, does it?

I mean Bill's involvement didn't exactly help Hillary.  Does it really matter if he endorses or not?

Come on.  Move on already.


by DawnG on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:34:56 AM EST

Re: Does it even matter? (none / 0)

I agree, I doubt it matters that much in the bigger scheme of things. All the same, it's a question worth asking, that I haven't seen too much in the press.


by animated on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but that's the thing... (none / 0)

...it really ISN'T a question worth asking.

It doesn't matter.


by DawnG on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:54:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but that's the thing... (none / 0)

OK, please feel free to ignore my diary. LOL


by animated on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does it even matter? (none / 0)

I agree it's a good question.


by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

didn't help? (2.00 / 3)

you must have missed all the small towns and rural areas which came out to vote for her. Someone campaigned there, and his was William Jefferson Clinton. OF COURSE it matters if he endorses. He is the only two term Democrat since FDR. He brought our electoral vote average from 113 electoral votes from 1968-1988, to 260 from 2000-2004 and higher if you add FL, which we WON in 2000. Much of the party still loves him, and he has a ton of sway with a lot of people. he damn well matters.


by Lakrosse on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:56:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: didn't help? (none / 0)

Is that you Diamond Jay?

By the way, I believe that West Virginia is in play this year.  Obama was down seven in WV prior to his claiming the nomination; his bounce in the states where Hillary dominated him by over thirty has been huge (+15 in AR and +12 in KY); so this theory holds, he should be within the margin of error or possibly in the lead in WV.

I hope Plouffe and Axelrod realize that these six electoral college votes can be won with some work and run some commercials in WV. Charlie Black and Rick Davis know it and that's why they are lying about the reason why they are running commercials there.


by Blazers Edge on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does it even matter? (2.00 / 2)

some people think Bill hurt Hillary, some people think Bill helped Hillary

at any rate, BC is still a major player - as of this date, he still has the 2 term democratic president since FDR under his belt and people should be wise and use him

He is still a major asset for the democratic party.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it matters (2.00 / 1)

that much. Some may want it and some may need it to make up their minds....though I would think that would be a small segment of the population.
Some have no respect for him so don't think about it one way or the other.

Personally? It does not matter to me if he endorses him or not.


by Grissom1001 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST

Re: I don't think it matters (2.00 / 1)

since you stated you were a republican, of course it doesn't matter to you.

However, to the millions of democrats out there - it does matter.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (none / 0)

It doesn't matter to this Democrat.  

What significance do you assign to a Bill Clinton endorsement?  Would Obama's positions change if Bill Clinton endorsed him?  (hint: the answer is no)


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (2.00 / 2)

Which brings to mind that the endorsemnets of Gore, Edwards, Richardson, Pelosi, Reid, mean what?  The same as a BC endorsement would mean.

Unless he decides to be Jimmy Carter and stay out of the endorsement buisness until he's older, he will endorse, no matter how badly he's been portrayed by the folks (like yourself) who openly dislike him so much.

Frankly, I'd like to see him sit it out.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:59:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (none / 0)

To me, endorsements don't mean anything.  

That is why I asked the same question you did.  

Re: Jimmy Carter

Go fuck yourself.  I have never said one bad thing about the man so go run up a stick you fucking piece of shit.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (2.00 / 2)

Apparently reading comprehension is not your best trait.

I was referring to your dislike of Bill CLinton, something you have openly stated before.

As for the rest of your tirade, I'll consider the source, which means that it means absolutely nothing.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (2.00 / 1)

it matters to millions of democrats, minus you.

Endorsements from a successful two-term democratic president (the last one since FDR) may not mean much to you, but it means a lot to the democratic party.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (none / 0)

Why?  

What will happen if Bill Clinton does not endorse Obama?  My answer:  Nothing.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think it matters (2.00 / 1)

more unity.  


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 6)

All this bashing of Bill Clinton is exactly why I am not sure I like being in the democratic party anymore...

Who do you all think you are to talk about the most successful living democratic president like that????????

Seriously how many of you are GOP trolls?


by dtaylor2 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:38:16 AM EST

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 3)

Of course he will endorse, and of course it will be a separated event from Hillary's events with Barack. Every Obama event with a Clinton will mean big free media, they would be dumb to put them together when they can have multiple events.


by micha1976 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 05:02:11 AM EST

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 2)

The most sensible comment in the entire thread.
Of course Bill will endorse Obama.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (2.00 / 3)

Of course he will is right. He'll do a couple of high profile events and do a great and moving speech for Obama but I don't expect him to be on the trail like he was for Hillary, which is fine. For his part Obama will talk up Bill's legacy and his presidency. Instead of the usurper Obama will become the heir. All one big happy family again.


by hankg on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton - The Missing Endorsement? (1.50 / 2)

I love it.  Bill is smarter than all those clueless Dems who have jump on the cool aid band wagon.  Can you spell backbone.


by orion1 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.