Grave Error

It was telling about the hate, devisiveness, and disgusting nature of Billary how after Obama’s win in S.C., it was Bill and not Hillary who first spoke to the press. And what did Bill say? He said that even Jesse Jackson had won a primary in South Carolina. That’s about as devicive and bottom-feeding as you can get.

Are you disgusted? Well, apparently the majority of senior Democrats have had enough of Bill (who now thinks he’s running for president). Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. What does it mean for Hillary’s experience argument when Ted Kennedy (who has been a U.S. senator for 40 years) says that Obama is more qualified than Hillary? It means that it’s time for change. Ironically, every single candidate in the race, both Republican and Democrat, all represent a break from the past . . . all of them except for Billary.

Dick Morris was one of President Clinton’s most trusted advisors and able spinsters. He has just written an op-ed piece confirming what I have previously said about how the Clintons were using Obama’s race and latent racial slights to Obama’s detriment. It is all just too disgusting, especially considering that all of the Clintons’ repulsive techniques appear to be bearing fruit. Is there any hope for this country if playing the game is what wins an election? Continue reading →

Just after having written my last post on why I find Bill’s over-the-top campaigning inappropriate, William sends me this excellent piece from the New Republic: Continue reading →

Americans have a special relationship with the presidency and their presidents. Americans and American politicians on both sides of the table can disagree with their president on policy and other issues but will always support and honor the figure of the “president” out of respect for the institution of the presidency.

As a result, when a U.S. president’s mandate reaches it finale, the president is converted into an ex-president with all that the new mandate entails. Ex-presidents are honored as elder statesmen, as having served their country, and are bestowed with the enduring title of “President”. Former presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, are still officially called President Clinton and President Bush (respectively). And former presidents continue, for the remainder of their lives, to be representatives of their country.

Nevertheless, in the present elections, we’re seeing some of these traditional notions change. Of course, there is the obvious (and possibly hypothetical question) as to what role a former president may play in the new administration if his spouse becomes president. But there is a much more immediate question, that I believe, should be raised. What is the appropriate behavior of a former president in a presidential campaign? What happens when Bill Clinton acts more like James Carville, the Ragin’ Cajun, than like a dignified statesman? Or said another way, is it ethical for Bill Clinton, with all of the weight of his honorary role of ex-president, to campaign as fervently as he is doing now? Continue reading →

Does anybody realize what alternating dynasties and revolving door presidencies say about our country? I think that our history, our country, and the world deserve so much better.

Unfortunately because we’re in the primaries, a certain degree of decorum (and party loyalty) impedes Obama from raising this fundamental question about the state of the American democracy when the role call of four consecutive presidents could potentially be “Bush Clinton Bush Clinton”.