Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

local news, national news, political news

Obama goes 'Red' to tell his story

2 Comments

Hand it to President Obama. He delivered a State of the Union speech to a Congress now in full control of the opposing party and then he heads right into the center of the Red State base of the Republican Party.

He took his sales campaign today to Idaho. He is heading to Kansas on Thursday.

Idaho gave 64 percent of its vote in 2012 to GOP nominee Mitt Romney, while Kansas was casting nearly 60 percent of its vote for Mitt.

That doesn’t deter a lame-duck president who isn’t likely to call himself such as he pitches his middle-class tax cut to residents in states where he’s held in relatively low esteem.

“I still believe what I said back then,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at Boise State University. “I still believe that as Americans we have more in common than not.”

He’s surely entitled to believe that. Some of us out here in the Heartland aren’t so sure about the commonality. Still, I give the president props for taking the campaign into the heart of the loyal opposition’s territory.

Here’s a thought. How about coming here, Mr. President?

Texas isn’t friendly to you, either. But you did do nominally better in the Lone Star State than you did in Kansas, winning 42 percent of the 2012 vote against Mitt.

I even can make a pitch for Barack Obama to come to the Panhandle, where the 26 counties of this region only gave him 20 percent of the vote in 2012. But hey, he says we’re “not a Blue America or a Red America. We’re the United States of America.” He repeated that mantra Tuesday night at his State of the Union speech, recalling how he introduced it to the nation during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Look at it this way: If Bill Clinton can come here in 2008 and campaign on behalf of his wife, Hillary, and pack the Civic Center Grand Plaza Ballroom to overflowing, surely the Leader of the Free World can command a big audience to sell his vision for the country.

I know more than a few Republicans who’d attend.

 

political news

Now it's Sen. Graham thinking about '16 bid

Oh boy, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for the upcoming presidential campaign.

The potential Republican field just got another name to ponder: Lindsey Graham, the senior U.S. senator from South Carolina.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/lindsey-graham-2016-elections-south-carolina-114362.html

Why is this such an interesting development?

Graham is a noted conservative from a deeply conservative state. He and fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona take turns bashing the dickens out of President Obama, particularly on foreign policy — which is understandable, given that the domestic economy is starting to rock along. Heck, sometimes Graham and McCain are singing together.

However, Graham has had this annoying tendency — if you’re a Republican — to say nice things about some of the appointees the president puts forward to fill key administration posts. While many other GOP senators were slamming Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general, Graham said she’s a solid pick, highly qualified and he indicated his intentions to vote to confirm her when the time comes.

This is the kind of thing that’s going to make him a target among other GOP White House contenders when they line up to debate — if Graham decides to run, of course.

He’s a sharp lawyer. Remember when, as a member of the House, he managed the Republicans’ successful effort at impeaching President Clinton? Well, the Senate decided correctly to acquit the president of those “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So, as he told “Meet the Press” today, he’s thinking seriously about a presidential bid. He told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he has “set up a testing-the-waters committee under the IRS code that will allow me to look beyond South Carolina as to whether or not a guy like Lindsey Graham has a viable path.”

Just one request, Sen. Graham, if you take the plunge: Stop referring to yourself in the third person.

national news, political news

Oh, for that 'new car smell'

1 Comment

Sometimes a simple throwaway line has this way of sticking to the wall.

President Obama just might have uttered it recently in an interview. He said the next president may need to bring a “new car smell” to American voters.

Former Clinton pollster: Hillary lacks ‘new car smell’

And that brings up the question: Does Hillary Rodham Clinton — the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination in 2016 — have that “new car smell”?

A former Clinton pollster, Doug Schoen, doesn’t think so.

According to The Hill: “‘The president said [last week] that the next president needs … a new car smell, and it’s pretty hard for me to say … that she [Hillary] has a new car smell,’ Schoen told radio host John Catsimatidis in an interview to air Sunday on New York’s 970 AM.”

Yes, she’s been in the public eye for a long time, dating back to 1992 when Bill Clinton told Americans if you elect him as president, “you get two.” She became a highly visible first lady, then became an equally high-visible senator from New York and then became an even more highly visible secretary of state in the Obama administration.

New car smell?

Hardly.

For that matter, Mitt Romney seems a bit musty himself if you consider that he’s run twice for president, been a high-profile governor in Massachusetts and also helped rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.

A Quinnipiac Poll shows Romney leading Clinton narrowly in a head-to-head matchup. But, hey, the election is two years off.

I’d bet real money that “new car smell” just might become something of a jingle once the next campaign gets going.

 

national news, political news

Impeachment for show only?

A thought occurs to me now that impeachment of the president has returned to the arena.

Just suppose the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is actually is so blindly stupid that it actually impeaches President Obama for exercising his constitutional right of executive authority and tinkers with immigration reform.

Now, let us now suppose that the Republican-run U.S. Senate gets articles of impeachment and puts the president on bleeping trial for it.

The next Senate is going to have a maximum of 54 GOP members, depending on the outcome of the runoff race in Louisiana set for December. It takes 67 votes to convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove him from office.

Does anyone in their right mind think Republicans are going to persuade 13 Democratic senators to engage in this ridiculous charade?

The thought then boils down to this: The impeachment talk, should it ever come to pass, is meant to put an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name. The members of Congress who detest him and the policies that got him elected twice to the presidency simply want the word “impeached” next to his name. They want his obituary, when it is finally written, to contain the “I-word.” They want his presidency scarred for life with the notion that the House of Representatives trumped up a phony “crime” upon which to impeach the 44th president of the United States.

Well, the last time the GOP tried that — in 1998 against Bill Clinton — it fell flat on its face. President Clinton walked out of the White House in January 2001 with his standing intact and he has emerged as arguably the nation’s premier political leader.

That won’t matter to the current crop of congressional “leaders” who are insisting that Barack Obama keep his mitts off any executive orders regarding immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner declared not long ago that impeachment won’t happen while he’s the Man of the House. Yet his GOP caucus has been strengthened and made even more strident in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election.

We’ll get to see how much clout he can wield if the nimrod wing of his party starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

national news, political news

'W' stays on the post-presidency high road

It well might have just tortured Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity to hear his talk-show guest refuse to criticize President Obama.

Then again, perhaps Hannity knew the response he would get from former President George W. Bush.

Whatever the case, President Bush has chosen to remain on the high road nearly six years after leaving the White House.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-w-bush-why-refuse-135613369.html

Bush said he doesn’t “think it’s good for the country to have a former president undermine a current president; I think it’s bad for the presidency for that matter.”

Then he added: “Secondly, I really have had all the fame I want. I really don’t long for publicity. And the truth the matter is in order for me to generate publicity … I’d have to either attack the Republican Party, which I don’t want to do, or attack the president, which I don’t want to do. And so I’m perfectly content to be out of the limelight.”

What a concept. A former president following the lead set by his father, another former leader of the Free World, in refusing to mix it up with those who come along after them.

Take heed, former Vice President Cheney. He’s been popping off repeatedly ever since he moved out of the VP’s mansion.

Indeed, this unofficial vow of silence that former presidents take has more or less been followed since the founding of the Republic. I say “more or less,” because President Bush’s immediate predecessor, President Clinton, has been pretty vocal in criticizing Republican critics of Barack Obama, although I cannot recall Clinton torpedoing George W. Bush’s foreign-policy decisions during W’s presidency.

Let’s not ignore President Carter, who on occasion has shot darts at all the men who assumed office after he left the White House in 1981. He does pick his shots, though.

But in my memory of former presidents, which dates back to Dwight Eisenhower, it’s been the custom for former presidents — and vice presidents, for that matter — to stay quiet and let their successors suffer the barbs that others toss at them.

It’s an appropriate thing for these former leaders to do. They belong to an exclusive club. Only they know all the ins and outs of the world’s toughest job.

As we all understand, we can have only one president at a time. For a former president to take a seat in the peanut gallery and “undermine a current president” is very bad form, indeed.

Well said, President Bush.

 

national news, political news

Jeb's running? So says 'P,' the son

That settles it.

Jeb Bush is “more than likely” going to run for president of the United States in 2016.

That’s according to George P. Bush, the son of the former Florida governor.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/10/george-p-bush-more-than-likely-jeb-will-run-197647.html?hp=r3

I’m not yet sure about that, although I likely shouldn’t challenge what “P” knows about his dad’s intentions.

Perhaps I should presume that Jeb told “P” it’s OK to say he’s “more than likely” to run if the question came up — as it did — on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday news talk show.

“P” himself is a candidate for Texas land commissioner and figures to win the race in 10 days. After all, he’s a Republican and in Texas these days that’s all the credential he needs to win public office. Put an “R” next to your name and you’re in.

I’m still kinda/sorta pulling for Mitt Romney to make one more run for the White House. He’s made two stabs at it already, winning the Republican nomination in 2012 only to lose by 5 million popular votes to the president of the United States.

Jeb Bush, though, also intrigues me, given that I’m quite certain Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to seek the Democratic nomination. Imagine yet another Clinton-Bush campaign for the White House. Would Jeb seek to atone for his dad’s dismal campaign against Bill Clinton back in 1992?

More than that, though, is the idea that Jeb could run as a moderate Republican, which is where I believe the family pedigree guides him — despite brother George W’s rightward shift when he was elected president in 2000.

The final say on whether Jeb runs, of course, will come from Mom. That would be Barbara, who’s already suggested the nation is tired of the Bush name in national politics.

A “more than likely” candidacy doesn’t make it a certainty.

 

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

Bill Clinton helps more than Michelle Obama? Umm, yes

The headline over Dallas Morning News blogger Rodger Jones’s post asks: Does Bill Clinton help Van de Putte more than Michelle Obama helps Wendy Davis?

Well, duh? Do ya think?

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/does-bill-clinton-helps-van-de-putte-more-than-michelle-obama-helps-wendy-davis.html/

The 42nd president has endorsed Democratic lieutenant nominee Leticia Van de Putte. Meanwhile, first lady Michelle Obama has recorded a radio ad for another Democrat, the nominee for governor, Wendy Davis.

With all due respect to the first lady, who I consider to be profoundly successful in her role, she ain’t no Bill Clinton.

President Clinton is a genuine political rock star. He’s the 800-pound gorilla in any political setting imaginable. He can walk into deeply red Republican regions — as he did in 2008 when he campaigned in Amarillo for his wife’s bid to become president — and pack ’em in.

Jones refers to Clinton as “Bubba,” and his endorsement amounts to a “seal of approval.”

Van de Putte will need all the help she can get in her uphill fight against Republican nominee — and fellow state senator — Dan Patrick. Clinton’s standing as the leading Democrat in the nation — yes, even more than the man who now occupies his old office in the White House — gives any candidate who receives his blessing maximum oomph.

It’s an astonishing comeback for the second president ever to be impeached. The Senate acquitted him of those politically motivated charges relating to his misbehavior in the White House. It didn’t take long at all for the president to regain his standing among many Americans.

And in the 13 years since his leaving office, that standing has grown almost beyond all recognition.

Will his endorsement put Van de Putte over the top? I doubt it. Still, she isn’t going to erase this “seal of approval.”

International news, national news, political news

Politics is the roughest of them all

Yes sir. Politics and to an extent public service can be the roughest of the rough jobs on Earth.

You bring someone on board to carry out your policies, they do your bidding and then they return to private life, write a book and then blast those policies to smithereens.

Leon Panetta is the latest former public official to turn on the man who hired him. His criticism of President Obama is drawing praise from Republicans (no surprise, there) and condemnation from Democrats (again, no surprise).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-leon-panetta-and-other-obama-subordinates-stunning-disloyalty/2014/10/06/c4ae4448-4d95-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html

It’s the norm, I suppose.

Panetta, whose dossier is sparkling — former leading member of Congress from California, former White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, former CIA director, former defense secretary — now says Obama disregarded his advice about leaving a “residual force” of personnel in Iraq. He also says the president misunderstood the threat posed by the Islamic State. He says the president is reluctant to engage his critics.

Yes, he’s written a book.

Is he the first former presidential insider to trash his boss? Hardly. Hillary Clinton has done so. Ditto for Robert Gates. They both are former Obama hands who’ve said unkind thing about him.

George W. Bush got the treatment from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill; Bill Clinton got ripped by one-time political aide George Stephanopoulos.

Frankly, none of this serves any president well.

Still, there’s something quite unsettling about the latest trashing of Obama by his former defense chiefs and his one-time secretary of state. They come at a time of intense international crisis.

Panetta’s critique is particularly unnerving as the president looks for answers to dealing with ISIL, fighting a deadly disease in West Africa, trying to find peace between Israel and the Palestinians, seeking a solution to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine … and God knows what else is going on around the world.

Why not make these people pledge — in writing — to keep their thoughts to themselves until after the president leaves office? Is that too much to ask?

national news, political news

Former candidate might hold Senate key

If the Democrats hold the U.S. Senate — and that remains a huge if — they likely may owe their rescue to a Democrat who wasn’t even on the ballot.

No, I’m not talking about President Barack Obama.

The rescuer might be a fellow named Chad Taylor, a former Democratic candidate for the Senate from, of all places, Kansas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/nbc-poll-senate-democrats-2014-elections-111611.html?hp=r4

Yes, that Kansas, one of the most deeply red states — behind Texas and Utah, perhaps — in the country.

Taylor dropped out of the Senate race against incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts. He left the campaign to a third candidate named Greg Orman, who’s running as an independent but who appears ready to caucus with Senate Democrats if he’s elected.

Orman is holding a double-digit lead over Roberts at the moment and with less than a month to go before Election Day, it’s beginning to look rather grim for the veteran Republican lawmaker.

The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls shows Republicans with a potential seven-pickup in the Senate; they need six to win control of the place. So, Orman’s possible victory isn’t the only race that could keep the Senate in Democratic hands.

Iowa needs to stay Democratic. North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagen is holding a slim lead over her challenger. And former President Clinton has returned to his home state of Arkansas to campaign on behalf of his pal Mark Pryor, who’s trying to keep the seat in Democratic control.

If it boils down, though, to a single race — the one Kansas — Democrats might have to send former candidate Chad Taylor the biggest bouquet of flowers they can find to say “thanks” for bowing out.

International news, national news, political news

Obama deserves unified nation

The late great Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan had it right.

Partisanship, he said, should “stop at the water’s edge.”

Put another way: When a president takes a nation to war then it becomes imperative for a nation to rally behind the effort.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obama-un-address-111287.html?hp=l1

President Barack Obama went before the United Nations today to tell the world body that it’s time for the world to step up in the fight against the Islamic State. He didn’t sugar-coat it. He said the fight well could take years. He said ISIL is a tough and resilient foe. He also said that dozens of nations have lined up as part of a growing coalition to fight the terrorists.

But can the commander in chief perform his duty to protect Americans without much of the partisan carping that has plagued him to date? If his Republican foes choose to heed the words of one of their predecessors — the late Sen. Vandenberg — then there might be a unified nation rallying to fight a determined enemy.

Unity, of course, isn’t always the norm.

President Bush was able to rally the nation initially when he took us to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Much of the support evaporated when he expanded that fight into Iraq in March 2003.

President Clinton had his critics when he started bombing fighters in Bosnia and Kosovo.

President Truman heard the critics when the Korean War dragged on.

And Vietnam? Well, we know what happened there.

Barack Obama received congressional authorization to arm and train Syrian rebels. He’s consulted with political friends and foes in advance of launching the air strikes. Some critics will continue to say the strikes are too little too late.

Let us not undermine this necessary effort to destroy the Islamic State, however, with partisan carping.