« | »

Bill Clinton Gets A Role In Dem Convention

From the New York Times:

Bill Clinton to Have Leading Role at Party’s Convention

By JEFF ZELENY | Sunday July 29, 2012

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton is set to play a central part in the Democratic convention, aides said, and will formally place President Obama’s name into nomination by delivering a prime-time speech designed to present a forceful economic argument for why Mr. Obama deserves to win a second term.

People seem to forget that Clinton is only a slightly better orator than Obama. In fact, Clinton’s debut on the national stage was at the 1988 Democrat convention, where his long speech nominating Michael Dukakis was so boring when he finally said, "in conclusion," the audience burst into cheers and applause. So maybe history will repeat itself.

But think how far the Democrat Party has fallen when they have to trot out an impeached President, who is also a convicted perjurer and sexual predator as their knight in shining armor? A man who only got re-elected because he was in three way races, and he was ‘an uncommonly good liar.’

After all, Clinton was so wildly popular he never got more than 49% of the popular vote, even running against Bob Dole.

The prominent role of Mr. Clinton, which is scheduled to be announced on Monday, signals an effort by the Obama campaign to pull out all the stops to rally Democrats when they gather for their party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C…

Bill Clinton was so popular he never got more than 49% of the popular vote, even running against Bob Dole.

“There isn’t anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective on not just the last four years, but the last two decades, than Bill Clinton,” David Axelrod, a top strategist to the Obama campaign, said in an interview on Sunday. “He can really articulate the choice that is before people.” …

What an odd thing to day, since Clinton has come down on the other side of Obama on so many issues, including most recently, extending the Bush tax cuts.

Hilariously, the New York Times cannot get through even one article about the Democrats without putting in some dig at Republicans:

Dick Cheney said on Sunday that Sarah Palin was not ready in 2008 to be his successor as vice president and that Senator John McCain’s decision was “a mistake” that Mitt Romney should seek to avoid making in his own choice of running mate.

Speaking to ABC News in his first interview since undergoing a heart transplant in March, Mr. Cheney said Mr. McCain’s choice clearly reflected considerations other than Ms. Palin’s ability to serve as vice president…

Meanwhile, as this article noted in passing, Joe Biden is not even going to be allowed to get stage to himself during a night at the convention. Which is practically unprecedented. But it certainly is a wise precaution.

By the way, the Associated Press report on this news is even more laughable:

Key role for Bill Clinton at Democratic convention

By JULIE PACE and KEN THOMAS | Monday July 30, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton will have a marquee role in this summer’s Democratic National Convention, where he will make a forceful case for President Barack Obama’s re-election and his economic vision for the country, several Obama campaign and Democratic party officials said Sunday.

Notice how the AP parrots The Times story, almost word for word.

The move gives the Obama campaign an opportunity to take advantage of the former president’s immense popularity and remind voters that a Democrat was in the White House the last time the American economy was thriving.

Really, the American economy has not thrived since Bill Clinton left office in January 2001? Did we imagine the economic prosperity for the years under Bush until 2008?

Obama personally asked Clinton to speak at the convention and place Obama’s name in nomination, and Clinton enthusiastically accepted, officials said. Clinton speaks regularly to Obama and to campaign officials about strategy.

Clinton’s prominent role at the convention will also allow Democrats to embrace party unity in a way that is impossible for Republican rival Mitt Romney. George W. Bush, the last Republican to hold the White House, remains politically toxic in some circles. While Bush has endorsed Romney, he is not involved in his campaign and has said he does not plan to attend the GOP convention…

And to think some people claim the news media is biased.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, July 30th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Bill Clinton Gets A Role In Dem Convention”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Das party uber alles!

    Doesn’t matter that Bill-Jeff hates the man. Doesn’t matter that he said, “he’d be getting our coffee”. No.

    What matters is 1) the paycheck that the DNC will fork over to captain McPants-Down and 2) the party.

    Note the party takes second place over personal income. That’s the “over-under” and the finery of it. “What’s in it for ME?”

    But…after that, it’s all the party, of the party, for the party. The national socialists MUST prevail, as they see it..(as long as there’s a little sumpin’-sumpin’ in my wallet)

    • Petronius says:

      Rusty: Yes, they always have to wet their beaks. But we should be careful about calling them national socialists as that could be unfair to true national socialists, who were at least nationalists (although of the most extreme sort).

      Here I am going to make a leap of faith and assume that Rusty Shackleford is your real name and not an alias, as I’d like to offer some observations on the surname Shackleford.

      I always liked this old Anglo-Southern surname. Went to school with Shacklefords. Although there are no Shacklefords in my family tree, there are several lines of Shackletts. (Shacklett is not English at all, but rather French Huguenot, orig. Jacquelot.) Anyway, thought you might be interested in this snippet from :

      Charles Wareing Bardsley, Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames (London, 1901, reprint Baltimore, Gen. Publ. Co., 1996):

      Shackleford. — Locational, var. of Shackel.

      Shackel, Shackell, Shackells, Shakel, Shakell,Shackle. — Baptismal name, ‘the son of Shackell’; cf. the local Shackleton, i.e., the settlement of Shakel, also Shackleford and Shackerley, the latter probably standing for Shackle-ley.

      Bardsley ends by giving medieval examples, chiefly from Norfolk, also Yorkshire, Durham, and London.

      There is of course a Shackleford village in the south of England, in county Surrey, near Guildford, lying between Guildford and Farnham. According to Wikipedia, the village does not appear in the Domesday Book, and first appears in 1220 as Sakelesford.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Actually, and at the risk of losing all credibility, I stole the name from the Dale Gribble character on the TV cartoon, “King Of The Hill” where Dale is a conspiracy theorist, a “survivalist”, married to a hot weather-gal who’s cheating on him via John Redcorn, the local American Indian.

      Dale would use the name Rusty Shackleford whenever he wanted to be anonymous on the phone or in an interview with some poll-taker in the mall.

      Because of my line of work, using my real name, which is equally as ancient in Olde English and such…I would get the stink-eye from my employer and possibly get terminated or punished. They’re like that. Freedom of expression is not something they consider a right, even if you are on your own time, using your own mind. They would feel it would “reflect badly” on their company and thus..make my life a bigger living hell than it already is.

      Don’t get me wrong…I love my job but it’s highly specialized and I just can’t stand the management in our company…the same know-it-all baby-boomers that we have for democrat “leaders” in DC. Same arrogance, same “better-than-you” attitude, same “down-the-nose” looks when you ask a question. Clearly they think of themselves as betters and the rest of us the hoi-polloi.

      But I pulled the name..and yes, looked it up even….just to use as a statement of being a rebel without seeming snarky. And to be fair, compared to Dale Gribble, as drawn, I have about 130 lbs on him and a few inches in height. I don’t smoke not believe everything is a conspiracy. (just most things, LOL)

      However, with all that said, I have always found your posts to be enlightening, sometimes clever and always direct and honest. I never see that in any of the left-wing drabble that comes out…I go to Am Spect sometimes and see who I think is also you with the same moniker, laying out the same matter-of-fact-ness as here. In that blog, I refuse to engage with certain loopy leftists who are more angry than they are right and yet they persist in walking on the carpet with dogsh*t on their shoes.

      I use the words national socialists because the people I’m referring to are so muddled in their thinking and so insecure in their lives and so angry with, well, just about everything that…distilled, they are all like Moochelle Obama. Not proud of any American achievements and stuck in the lie that the US stole everything from everyone else. So they feel that in order to have a nation to be proud of, they must have a government that tells everyone what to do and think. Thus, philosophically arriving at a nation they, too can be finally proud of.

      But they are so compartmentalized in their thinking that they cannot see how government control will ruin their day, too. Not just the conservatives. Funny how a government-sponsored surveillance program when under Bush was “light the place on fire” bat-sh*t against the Constitution but the drone bit under Herr Obama gets no noise from anyone on the left…because it’s intended for the purpose of “good” (as defined by the left, once again…who, more than anything else, are convinced they’re right about everything).

      So national socialist it is…because they want the US flag to be red with a sickle and hammer on it, so that all the “workers” can have “solidarity” and “the man” will be punished and “held to account” for his “evil” against the masses.

      It’s the same old argument, over and over..and it falls flat. It’s been told and re-told and the end result when enough people listen and employ their “fixes” is a very unhappy nation where the people who MIGHT take initiative to start a business….don’t because the government will punish them, or not allow them to get started to begin with.

  2. Right of the People says:

    I wonder if they’re paying old Slick Willy in cash or BJs or a combination of both.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »