When he took the backyard podium, Obama, 50, noted Clinton’s “remarkable” economic record in his two White House terms and referred frequently to the political powerhouse standing behind him, who stands to be a huge fundraising force in the final months of the presidential campaign. – Obama and Bill Clinton campaign together on economy
IT WAS NEVER going to be otherwise.
That Barack Obama as a candidate in ’08 never once lauded former Pres. Bill Clinton’s economic record, preferring to cite Ronald Reagan instead, was one of the primary insults that caused the deep rift with staunch Hillary supporters. Pres. Obama has learned a lot since, most of it forced on him by circumstances of the job of president that is far more difficult than anyone can imagine from the outside looking in.
For Pres. Obama not to call on the ultimate Democratic ATM machine, William Jefferson Clinton, would be political malpractice, because against Mitt Romney and his Wall Street buddies, with an assist made possible by the Roberts court decision on Citizens United, he’s going to need all he can get in an election that will be a race to the bottom that depends on big cash cows.
The 44th president is enlisting the 42nd president, both as a historical validator of his own leadership and as a PIN to one of the richest A.T.M.’s in American politics. Rather than viewing him as a relic of the past, Mr. Obama is embracing Mr. Clinton as a party wise man who can reassure both the general public and the well-heeled benefactors needed to win re-election. – Hardly a Close Ally, Clinton Teams With Obama to Raise Cash and Votes, by Peter Baker
That Pres. Clinton offers a bank shot to the Hillary wing of the Democratic party is obvious. That many of these voters are still not enamored with Pres. Obama is true, but only part of the story.
In general election presidential years voting practicalities make even the most wayward Democrats come home, which I’ve been noting for over a year now. Pres. Clinton’s presence in the recent OBL ad, along with his fundraising efforts for Pres. Obama, reveal the common interests of party insiders when faced with a situation that could wreak havoc with what the Obama administration has tried to do economically.
“When you’re president, there are very few people to whom you can turn who really ‘get’ what the job demands,” Mr. Axelrod said. “President Clinton has been the source of very good advice, and very meaningful support.”
Privately, Democrats portray the evolving alliance as more utilitarian. “Once Obama’s out of office, I doubt they’ll take family vacations together,” said a former Clinton aide who has also worked for Mr. Obama and asked not to be named to avoid offending either man. “But Clinton thinks it’s critical for the country that he gets re-elected, and will do whatever he can to see that that happens.”
Another Democrat who has worked for both men said: “There’s no love lost. But Bill Clinton is not stupid. He knows if he can give a little of his 60-percent-plus approval rating halo to Obama, and Obama does well, that only helps Clinton. And it helps the missus if she wants to run.”
There’s a reason there is “no love lost,” which I recount in my book THE HILLARY EFFECT in chapters “Blaming Bill” and “Eating Your Own.”
What many anti-Obama Democrats simply will not accept is that when your average Democratic voter meets his or her choices inside the voting booth, looking at Mitt Romney’s willingness to adopt Paul Ryan austerity, as well as the hard right’s war on women, there isn’t a more practical choice than to pull the lever for Pres. Obama, even if it requires holding your nose to do it.
Pres. Clinton’s presence makes this more palatable.
The political disagreements I have with Obama are wide and deep domestically, but particularly on foreign policy, having been against the Libya bombing, as well as questioning his overreach of the Executive branch on a whole hosts of issues. But I’m anything but your average voter, who sees voting for president as a choice between two people, one who represents your basic political philosophy, even when you disagree, and the other guy, who is from another political planet, one that doesn’t believe in women’s individual freedoms, and that’s just for starters.
What Democrats offer women that Republicans don’t also extends to economic issues. The entire Republican party establishment voted against the Lily Ledbetter Act, which equalizes a woman’s options when she’s discriminated against by her employer. Nothing cuts to the heart of the American modern family more than a woman’s inequality at her job. While Mitt Romney says he won’t repeal Ledbetter, this is simply not good enough. Nothing less than a full-throated statement saying his party was wrong on the vote is acceptable. That should be a minimum standard for a Republican nominee who cannot win without women.
However, Mitt Romney is no William Jefferson Clinton, so even when the opportunity presents itself, which is accompanied by a moment to also help himself, there’s unlikely to be a Sister Souljah moment on women for Mitt.
Left out in the cold are The Gays, as Kathy Griffin would say. Neither Obama or Romney have the courage required to make equality a reality for all families. In 2016, you can bet Republicans still won’t be on board with that one, but just maybe if Hillary Clinton runs she will.
Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans offer a way out on the hamster wheel of our insidious flailing that is the “war on drugs.” Both political parties are immune to reality, even when a person is sick or dying of a disease that medical marijuana can make more humane. There remains no politician willing to take on Big Pharma on behalf of medical marijuana and other options outside pharmaceutical dependency, because in U.S. politics, money decides policy.
TM NOTE: For the record, as I wrote earlier this year in “The Party’s Over,” I will not endorse anyone in 2012, and will abstain from voting for president altogether in order to cover it as I see it, which includes giving Pres. Obama credit when it’s due, as well as hell when it’s earned; and the same goes for Mitt Romney, though with his stance against women’s individual freedoms, I remain unimpressed with him as a 21st century candidate.
For some of us life-long Dems, pulling a lever for Romney doesn’t require any nose-holding whatsoever.
That’s something I cannot do. I’m also not prepared (yet) to vote for BO. We’ll see. I used to say that I would never vote for him, but he is starting to look better against the alternative.
There is always Rocky Anderson.
Yes there is, and if he’s on the Maryland ballot, he’ll get my vote.
Obama won’t, and neither will Romney. Won’t get fooled again.
You have that option.
Solo- I may not have that option, if the Democratic Party Machine here in MD keeps him off the ballot, which is a distinct possibility.
Maryland doesn’t even allow write-ins. Democratic, indeed.
I won’t waste my vote. Not to worry, Solo. Be sweet to me between now and November.
Remembering all of those “not satisfied with and therefore not endorsing Obama” posts at this site from a few months back and, in particular, a mocking admonishment to a commenter who posited that, as the election approached, this blog’s position would be reversed and an endorsement forthcoming in the face of “too radical” republicans. Looks like that about-face is occurring right on schedule, and that commenter (can’t remember who it was now) is owed an apology.
If I remember correctly the commenter you are looking for was Benjamin and I don’t remember any mocking admonishment towards her /his comment. If anything the mocking tone was in his/her comment against TM yet her/his comment was allowed to stand for all to read and agree/disagree with. Therefore not sure why anyone should apologize to him/her. Seriously, relax. Your vote belongs to you alone, no one can make you vote for Obama OK. No reason to get so worked up anytime someone expresses some approval for some of his work.
Mistake….commenter was elliesmom but rest of my reply stands.
I could have been more precise in my language, Isis. Taylor’s reply wasn’t so much insulting to the commenter as it was insistent in the absurdity of the commenter’s position that, come election time, Taylor would, in fact, endorse Obama. Posts like this one support that commenter’s (will take your word for his/her identity) position and show Taylor, at best, to be lacking in self-knowledge.
There is a a certain something in the air reminiscent of post-primary 2008, isn’t there jinbaltimore?
In any event, it is never a good sign when posters’ ad hominum attacks are given wide latitude while references to matters of the public recored get flagged.
If you keep voting for people just because their slightly better than the people you won’t vote for ,then you eventually end up right where we are. All of those drooling for 2016 and the resurrection of the newly minted ” Hillary The wild ” are taking too many drags on their bong.
I don’t know that there is any other path in the short-term. It’s a waiting game. Waiting for an evolution of thought in which the general well-being of all people becomes priority one (education, healthcare, equal rights, acceptance of differences, etc.)
Real education, where the school curricula is left to the individual teacher’s imagination and parental input. Respect and compensate teachers as highly-valued members of society; not scapegoats for bureaucratic failures, economic fuck-ups, and pure ignorance. This would be my first priority.
Side Note: I support President Obama
There is no such thing.
If your talking about this country, you have a long wait. Good luck with that. You are right about the bong though.
One night President Obama and his wife Michelle decided to do something out of routine and go for a casual dinner at a restaurant that wasn’t too luxurious. When they were seated, the owner of the restaurant asked the President’s secret service if he could please speak to the First Lady in private. They obliged and Michelle had a conversation with the owner. Following this conversation President Obama asked
Michelle, why was he so interested in talking to you. She mentioned that in her teenage years, he had been madly in love with her. President Obama then said, “so if you had married him, you would now be the owner of this lovely restaurant”, to which Michelle responded, “no, if I had married him, he would now be the President.”
From Facebook
I would have replied “Hey Michelle, why was your position in life- either as someone living in the White House, or someone who owns a restaurant- fated to be determined by the person you married?”
It would have been kind of snarky, but accurate. Enough with the “behind every successful man….” Isn’t it time for the woman to be in the front?
After all the talk four years ago about how Obama, with an assist from some of the Kennedy clan was retiring the “Clinton” dynesty, there is a delicious full circle feeling when I see 44 looking to 42 for help. Maybe Axelrod will finally get a clue.
By the way, I can’t help but point out that Taylor must disagree with Hillary on Libya as well, unless I’m not understanding Taylor’s position. According to reporting I’ve seen, Hillary was instrumental in getting Obama to sign off on military action there.
Had some time, so here are some links, StrideHyde… See here, but yes, I disagreed with her on Libya, as well as her comments on Egypt that happened on the day of the SOTU & few covered (which is in my book), but also going back to Iran’s Green Movement & State’s silence (also in the book).
Taylor engages. Bravo!
*dynasty* oy, vey, spelling! Sandmann, unfortunately, when it comes to the education issues you cite, there’s not a lot good to see from either pres candidate.
You’ll get no argument from me on that.
“That Barack Obama as a candidate in ’08 never once lauded former Pres. Bill Clinton’s economic record, preferring to cite Ronald Reagan instead, was one of the primary insults that caused the deep rift with staunch Hillary supporters..”
Preach Pastor Taylor! I’m over here rocking side to side with a heavy HALLELUJAH…(Somebody say AMEN!)
What happened to all that Ronald Reagan talk (That used to really piss me off)
Too much, dafederalist…
AMEN!!!!
Maybe like Reagan himself they forgot?
Thank you, Taylor for those links. I am a relative newcomer to your blog so they gave me a better where you stand. I am always very conflicted about what we should do when an awful humanitarian situation is unfolding in front of us. I do think the US makes its choices based on cynical self-interest, because for every situation where the administration pushes intervention there are many others that stay off the radar. But for me the moral conflict is the standing by why horrible things are being done to people but at the same time not wanting to ask anyone to die for anything.
I found the whole narrative about Samantha (she’s a monster) Power and Hillary really ironic, particularly given Power’s support for Obama in ’08 was based on his supposed “getting it” in foreign policy.
…better *idea* where you stand.,, geez, typos.
Both Kerry and Gore shied away from WJC…huge mistake. Nobody can make an economic case for Dems better.
Let me add to the hallelujah chorus~
I am just not excited this election year. Its hard to get excited about both the candidates we have. I am just hope for a third party candidate. I will vote for democratic senators and congress people, if they agree with some of my views, but I live in a red state so thats not going to happen. I would vote for a Republican if there was a moderate one to choose from, which there is not. This election is going to suck, and i have to watch those terrible campaign commericals.