Gore v Bill Clinton

Ugh, Gore had the sense to stay low and let the current candidates shine - why can't Bill have the same sense. Even nonpolitical observers have told me that it feels like Clinton is running his wife's campaign. And this message coming from not particularly politically active WOMEN undercuts the root of Hillary's appeal to women, both implicit and stated by the campaign.

per political wire:

Marc Ambinder notes that Al Gore "has not told any of his political advisers and friends if he is considering an endorsement. During the past year, he has spoken privately with all three leading Democrats."

However, an adviser said that Gore "had long ago decided to lay low once the Democratic delegate selection contests began so as not to interfere in the race."

Now there's a man with good sense and sensibility who knows when to leave the stage. Bill on the other hand, not so much. This Politico piece lays it all out:

Who can say what Clinton’s effect on the campaign trail really is? However much journalistic critics and Obama supporters cringed at Bill Clinton’s performances, they seemed to help Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada.

But those experiences seemed to unleash something more antic and unruly in Clinton’s attacks on Obama and the media, making the Clinton campaign even more about him and less about her. The effect was a bit like a dieter who reads on the Internet that doughnuts are actually good for you.

But the gluttony strategy backfired in the South Carolina primary, and it backfired again in the Kennedy endorsement primary.

In his own career, Clinton’s errors have always been followed by recovery, self-indulgence by self-correction. The next several weeks will determine whether he can follow the same pattern on behalf of his spouse.

Also, Congressman Raul Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, has switched his support from Edwards to Obama, according to local papers:

Grijalva had endorsed Edwards on May 3, saying the former senator from North Carolina "has shown principled leadership on the way in Iraq and on economic opportunity in America."

Grijalva will be very helpful in Latino outreach, especially since California is one of the biggest prizes on Feb 5th. And apparently the first interview that Teddy Kennedy and Obama did after the historic speech and endorsement was with Univision - way to understand your audience. Teddy Kennedy is remarkable - he carried Kerry on his back in Iowa, with the farmers, and the Reagan democrats, the white males, and the union members. He has the trust and respect of many of the Latino voters and civil rights organizations. Teddy Kennedy is like instant cred.

Which Hillary could have used, right about now, as her husband appears to be flailing in his own ego and hubris.

Are the Clintons trustworthy? Or, will you still love me tomorrow?

This dkos post gets at the heart of the matter - why people are wary of the Clintons. I hear some form of this from relatives, strangers, friends, people in bars, people in cars. From total political junkies to political neophytes -

Will they stab us in the back? Will they be there for us when the chips are down?

It's what everyone wonders and what progressive activists are most afraid of - that when push comes to shove, Hillary and Bill will push us all over the cliff before they get dragged over. It's what I'm most afraid of, and what I am pretty sure will happen - not when, but if. And I am not even as close-minded to Hillary as most of my friends are (you know, the run to Canada or not vote in the general election type.) It's Clinton's Tracy Flick and she needs to deal with her husband being Slick Willie. It's throwing aside Iowa and South Carolina and praising states like Florida and Michigan only because they can benefit her in the delegate count. If Florida winds up apportioning most of their delegates to Obama, will she still love them tomorrow?

Several people who are close to the President said Mr. Jackson's emotional support should not be underestimated. "Jesse Jackson has been as good a friend as we've had in this," said Paul Begala, a senior aide to Mr. Clinton. "Oh, he's been good."

Indeed. Throughout their personal and political crisis, when Jackson was needed by the Clintons, he was there for them. During the impeachment proceedings, Rev. Jackson rallied thousands on the steps of the Capitol:

"The American people do not view Bill Clinton as a bad man," the Rev. Jesse Jackson told the crowd. "They see him as they see themselves -- as flawed, as less than perfect."

Everyone knows someone who has betrayed them, and no one wants that person to be the President of this country, especially after the complete incompetence of Bush. If this is what Obama is hitting on, it's brutally effective, especially since they see the Clinton camp's desperation.

Rep. Clyburn: Bill needs "to chill"

I am liveblogging his appearance just now on CNN Situation Room.

Rep. Clyburn, a senior leader in the party, says that he is afraid that GOP will use Clinton's talking points and that it will suppress and depress the minority vote. Same point I have been making for a while.

Also says that what Barack Obama said about Reagan being a "transformational president" "made him cringe", "to what extent you praise Ronald Reagan, make very sure you don't cross the line and praise his policies. It's one thing to praise his personality, but his policies were very bad for African Americans. . . Reagan WAS a transformational leader, but the problem is what way it was transformational. His policies were very bad for African Americans."

Smart man.

"History is a great predictor of the future, and we always have to stay vigilant to not allow history to repeat itself. So we have to make very sure as a Democratic party. . . a lot of the differences in [Carter's campaign] is that African America voters stayed away in droves, and they did it because they were depressed and disenfranchised"