Hillary Clinton: ...you talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.I was at the office quite late last night and didn't see the debate. I'm actually sort of happy I missed it because apparently it was quite the heated exchange (and thus, because we're both supporting different candidates, watching the debate with my partner may have itself turned into a heated exchange). But, on the Barack-Hillary back-and-forth quoted above...
Barack Obama: You're husband did.
Hillary Clinton: Well, I'm here. He's not.
Barack Obama: Well...ok...I can't tell who I'm running against.
It has become increasingly obvious for the last several weeks that former President Bill Clinton's role in his wife's campaign has become that of attack dog against Sen. Obama. As someone who has admired him, defended him, and voted for him (twice), I must say that this behavior is indefensible. He is a former president, the current de-facto leader of his party, and as such he should not be jumping into the gutter in order to defend his wife. I am not saying he shouldn't defend Sen. Clinton, but doing it in such a public way, with such vile attacks against her opponent, is extremely unbecoming of a former president. Not even George Herbert Walker Bush (who invented the modern day negative campaign) stumped for his son this publicly and this dirty against fellow Republicans in 2000.
*************************************************************
Over the last year, I have tended to dismiss the chatter on the blogosphere that, since they have always billed themselves as "two for the price of one," the Clintons were essentially running for an unconstitutional third term with Hillary's candidacy. While that may not be true technically , you wouldn't be able to tell from the way Bill Clinton has been campaigning on her behalf. I have seen more of him on the news this month than of the actual candidate.
So, if I were Bill, I would make a hasty retreat into the background. Because mark my words: This. Will. Backfire. Voters will reject this sort of constitutional hat trick because, believe me, there have been way too many games played with the Constitution under the current regime; not to mention no American wants a replay of the psycho-drama of the 1990s (nor, for that matter, do they want to continue the imperialist dynasties of the 90s and the 2000s - ie: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton).
Look...Bill Clinton was an excellent president. His term was marked by the largest and longest economic and peace expansion since the end of WWII. There is no doubting his excellent work as President of the United States. Even today, despite all of this bullshit, I am proud to have voted for him, and proud to have defended him when the Republican-Fascists couldn't help themselves and impeached the man over a personal indiscretion.
But he is demeaning the role of former presidents by becoming Hillary's pit bull; and neither of them are fooling anyone when they say she's the one running, not him. If that's true, then he needs to get off the stage and save whatever slim chance she may have of winning next November (if she is the nominee). If not, then they need to admit they are running for a third Clinton term...and be soundly defeated because of it.
Running in 2008 on a platform of returning to the 1990s, while it may sound good to the Clinton team on the face of it, is not what the country is looking for right now. And is most definitely not what it needs.
A seven-and-a-half minute clip from the debate below. (Damn...how did things get this nasty? One reason: How dare this upstart out of Chicago derail She-Who-Is-Inevitable.)
