Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hillary Clinton 2012 Watch (No. 2 in a Series) -- Bill Helps McCain on the Housing Crisis

October 01, 2008 7:33 AM

A new TV ad from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., approvingly uses a recent soundbite from former President Bill Clinton.

"John McCain fought to rein in Fannie and Freddie," says the announced. "The Post says: McCain 'pushed for stronger regulation'...'while Mr. Obama was notably silent.' But, Democrats blocked the reforms. Loans soared. Then, the bubble burst. And, taxpayers are on the hook for billions. Bill Clinton knows who is responsible."

Cut to the former president: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The announcer again: "You're right, Mr. President. It didn't have to happen."

This comes as Bill Clinton on the stump continues to praise McCain as a "great man," a term he pointedly refuses to use about the man who felled his wife in the primaries.

Question: earlier this year there was a lot of fuss about whether McCain voted for then-Gov. George W. Bush for president in 2000.

Who do you think Bill Clinton will vote for in 2008? How about his wife? Her brothers?

And if Obama loses, how much will liberal activists hold the Clintons responsible for these "tells"?

jpt

October 1, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (106)

User Comments

I don't know whether the Clinton's will be blamed or not. Hillary, I believe, has worked relatively hard for Obama. She has, in some cases I think, made complimentary comments about Sarah Palin that she did not need to make. But, they weren't devastating. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has been a total disappointment. His continuing praise for McCain/Palin is disgusting. If there were any reason I would not support Hillary in her next bid for the White House...it would be because of Bill Clinton's behavior during this election.

Posted by: Alexandra | Oct 6, 2008 3:01:16 PM

Bill is all about Bill. It has nothing to do with unfair treatment of Hillary. John McCain made disgusting comments about Clinton's defenseless teenaged daughter. You get over *that* to the point of drooling all over McCain's wonderful-ness at every opportunity, but you take lifelong offense at ambiguous maybe-insults from one hard-hitting politco to another?! No way. Bill is ###### because he thinks Obama has not paid adequate homage to him and the 90s economic boom. He is ###### because he got called out on his tone deaf attempt to characterize Obama as a Black novelty candidate after his SC win. He is all full of his own righteous anger over the only thing that *ever* makes him angry. People not kissing his ### enough and talking about his super-greatness. I can't believe I campaigned for this jerk off. Hillary is fine, by the way. She's campaigning for the party and doing what she's gotta. I wish she'd kick Bill to the curb so I could vote for her one day...

Posted by: jennybean | Oct 5, 2008 1:08:40 PM

It kills me that some of you actually can read an article like this and determine that Bill Clinton is turning you off from the Clinton's (Hillary) altogether just because he's campaigning for Obama. That is the silliest thing I have ever seen. Why can't people just see it like it is and just say, ummmmm.....Bill's campaigning for Obama and being enthusiastic about it? Who wouldn't have been upset by the way Hillary was treated in the primary? And this was her husband. Cut the man some slack here. I think he's coming around because of that idiot McCain picked. If anyone was going to get the democrats going it was going to be her. I wouldn't vote for the McCain/Palin ticket if Hillary paid me. That's one scary ticket. Don't get me wrong, Obama scares me a little, but McCain/Palin scares me A LOT. I'm voting for Joe Biden. And so is Bill. Good Day.

Posted by: Ellie | Oct 4, 2008 9:13:27 PM

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IF YOU THINK YOU CAN FOOL US INTO THINKING THAT YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE BILL CLINTON TO CAMPAIGN HARDER FOR OBAMA, YOU BETTER RE-ADJUST YOURSELF

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 4, 2008 2:17:06 PM

The best one I heard is from my 23 year old gay nephew who claimed that he is voting Obama (also voted Obama in the primary) because blacks have been oppressed for too many years. If Obama is elected it will be that age group which will be drafted due to the wars Obama creates......

Posted by: silly whites | Oct 2, 2008 12:37:27 PM

I am trying to find out the reason why "White Race Group" in America has become so generous toward Blacks.....Obama's wife is calling you White people "WHITEE????? or something similar to that, yet you are giving big support to that woman's husband.

Posted by: Ted | Oct 2, 2008 12:22:28 PM

Can't wait for the debate tonight.....expect a surprise!!

I agree with the coment that there is something hidden by this Obama guy and given the times I would never vote for someone that had pass ports from other countries and used one to visit Pakastan. Obama scares me with his ties to corruption and his secrets. I would have voted Hillary but now I will vote McCain

Posted by: country first | Oct 2, 2008 11:35:18 AM

I simply don't like Obama guy. Whoever is running for the office should come out clean as who they are and what they are. There shouldn't be a website called "fight the smears", which indirectly admitting Mr.Obama isn't clean and hiding so many facts. Setting up that webiste itself is misleading approach..because of that website, people become more and more cautious about Obama. Last month, an attorney from PA said Obama used to hold multiple citizenships. Then only Obama's guys posted on "fight the smears" site that Obama has abandoned his Kenya citizenship. Why didn't they say this before? I heard that Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 with an Indonesian passport. What was he doing there? studying Islam and meeting with al-quida? His associations with Pastor Wright, who hates America and whites. I become more and more cautious with Obama and I sometimes think he could be a al-quida's sleeper cell in American to destroy Americans. Call me childish but I have that kind of feelings. I don't think he's real, somehting hiding behind him.

Posted by: want the best for the country | Oct 2, 2008 11:17:56 AM

I voted for Hilary in the primary because I like her and she's experienced. If I have to choose between McCain and Obama, I will vote for the one who has more experienced..but not to the one who talks big with little experience. ONLY fools will vote for ther person.

Posted by: Hillary supporter for McCain | Oct 2, 2008 11:08:02 AM

Mariann Pepitone ....I like your comments, you've just said what I have in my mind.

Posted by: gosarah | Oct 2, 2008 10:59:16 AM

Hey..nan...like your comments. thanks.

Posted by: say the truth | Oct 2, 2008 10:54:02 AM

There are so many fools out there that I have become a supporter of the idea that each voter be tested for comprehension prior to voting. McCain and Obama are very differnent candidates with greatly different plans and a great difference in ability to accomplish their plans. Nancy and sooooo many of the Obama supporters are voting on skin color alone with no comprehension of what the Obama Presidency would accomplish and what it would cost them. Under McCain those earning under $250K per year would continue to receive the tax cuts in place plus while under Obama's claims they would receive a very slightly larger tax cut, however Obama fails to inform you and you clearly fail to understand that with Obama comes a great loss in jobs or hours(reduction of full time to part time jobs) because the business owners will not eat the increases in taxes that Obama is planning for those earning over $250K.....they will cut jobs and cut hours meaning you the worker will pay less tax because you will earn less than your present 40 hour week. Obama will send this country into another great depression, so if that is what you want then vote Obama. I am and will remain a Hillary supporter but I will never vote for Obama despite her push for Obama. If Obama is elected then we will see Hillary run against him in the 2012 primary and she will have great support even from blacks like myself because of the state of the ecconomy under his presidency.

Posted by: reality | Oct 2, 2008 10:09:43 AM

Bill Clinton is only being Statemanly. He has learn't from his experience at being overly partisan during the Primaries.

My support is for Obama but I wouldn't want Bill Clinton to be too partisan in his support for any of the Candidates.

He needs to be presidential and he needs to bear in mind that as a Former President of the United States of America, he was and he remains a Father to all irrespective of party affiliation.

But as an advice, he should tone down on the praises he heaps on Senator McCain. It may be misconstrued as support for Senator McCain and a rejection of Senator Obama.

He lives in a glass house and he should not be seen to be throwing stones at his party's Presidential Candidate because HRC will still use the same Platform to contest in 2012 and by then, it may be pay back time for him.

Posted by: Dare Nigeria | Oct 2, 2008 5:00:58 AM

i am sorry i an so late seeing nancy' comments,
nancy if you come back on please,please,
tell us.
what do you want hillary and bill to do for obama.
how can hillary cost obama the election.
why don't you have as much faith in obama as you have support for him.
this is really obama' election to win.
just as it is obama' job to win over hillary supporters.
obama has to prove the case as to why they should vote for him.
not just on hillary saying i support him and you better support him to.

nancy what do you want bill and hill to say and do.
first you all say bill and hill are the biggest fakes, and then you want them to get up there and turn flips for obama.
once again this election is for obama to win.
bill and hill cannot do it for him

Posted by: j | Oct 2, 2008 12:10:42 AM

When are you people going to get over the Clintons? You guys are obsessed!

Posted by: Psychodrew | Oct 2, 2008 12:02:49 AM

What I want and what will happen are 2 different things. I Want McCain/Palin in 2008 so Hillary can run in 2012. But Obama will win, as all the polls indicated, and because the media refuse to investigate all his shady dealings and past and won't even report on the Philip Berg federal lawsuit which was NOT thrown out of court and contends that as a person with MULTIPLE citizenships Obama isn't even eligible to be POTUS. But hey - who cares? It's only the constitution. Obama scares me. I feel much safer with mccain/palin.

GO HILLARY

Posted by: nan | Oct 1, 2008 10:50:27 PM

Bill and Hill should never have agreed to stump for BO. They will be blamed if he loses, and not credited if he wins! Also they must realize that the Nomination was stolen from Hillary - by the DNC, by Harry Reid, Natzi Pulooser, all the Elitists and Activists of the party! Be careful what you wish for - you may just be getting your own Dem George Bush! And if BO loses, no-one will remember him 6 months from now!!!

Go Hillary - Hillary 2012!

Posted by: Beckie | Oct 1, 2008 7:51:37 PM

All i can say its funny how all the Obama supports keep on saying the Clinton's are selfish etc etc and put themselves first....what a load of rubbish....Hillary has been out campaigning for Obama more so then any other presidential canadiate before her...she has done more then her part of helping electing Obama....President Clinton on the other hand, well he was the only Dem President in the White House over the last 30 years and served 2 terms....he did wonders for the States and the World....he is a very smart man, and he probably does not think Obama is up for the job....there is nothing wrong with thinking that, considering 1/2 the population thinks the same....If Obama's loses it will be his own fault to begin with....Not the Clinton's....

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 1, 2008 6:57:39 PM

Hillary 2012

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 1, 2008 6:13:35 PM

Unless the site administrator helps fix the last comment from me, it appears even an erudite person sometimes types poorly and can make mistakes with haste. (i.e. my previous comment should have the name 2erudite4u not the misspelled 2eruidte4u.)

Posted by: 2erudite4u | Oct 1, 2008 5:30:58 PM

If the Mayan calendar is not correct, then Hillary will have two choices in 2012. Either run against a sitting President or accept his invitation for her to become a Supreme Court justice.
If she waits until 2016, and the country's finances have not relegated us to 2nd or 3rd world status by that time, she would have a very good chance at being POTUS 45.

Posted by: 2eruidte4u | Oct 1, 2008 5:27:53 PM

Hey nancy, thank you for proving my point. I contend that the Clintons would be "disowned" by many many democrats, especially black democrats, if there is the perception, warranted or not, that they somehow sabatoged Obams election. That perception could be born simply by not doing anything, or not enough. They are the victims of the parties own tactics, ie, "you better do what we say or we'll cyr any number of things activism" that we routinely see from the radical left. That why Jake made this post.

J. SOrry I missed the POPE remark you refer to so I cant comment. Enlighten me i you wish.

Posted by: WakeUpPeople | Oct 1, 2008 5:01:29 PM

The Clintons need to watch themselves. Democrates will turn their backs on them because their pure selfishness of "ME" before "COUNTRY" is so evident. Bill's bitterness is evident. His fear that Obama will outshine him is evident. I'm a Democrat who would NEVER vote for Hillary if she costs Obama this election. The Clintons are so obvious and they should be ashamed. The Democratic party should be able to have some control over them. Do the Clintons think the party elite will forgive them?

Posted by: Nancy | Oct 1, 2008 4:42:50 PM

Any Democratic skeptics who were watching Clinton's Florida speeches today for any signs of lingering bitterness against Obama came away empty-handed:

"The Obama/Biden ticket, and particularly Senator Obama, have a better philosophy, better answers, better understanding, better advisers, a better vice presidential candidate, and a better plan for Florida. ... This is not close, folks. It is not a close question."

Posted by: panther | Oct 1, 2008 4:40:41 PM

wake up people, so as not to discourage you, i know you are growing. but you have proven that once again Pope' comment was and still is correct.

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 4:32:30 PM

dr david hill check this out.

basic answer to your question is that there was heavy pressure to ignore the situation on the theory that it would impede "affordable housing" for the poor, i.e,people who trditionally would not qualify for loans based on proven lending practices.

Now is this the AXIOM of economics or what.
Giving all this easy credit to unqualified people in the name of "affordable housing" fueled an unprecedented housing boom, which , created huge demand for all kinds of products which requires huge amounts of petroleum to produce and deliver and created lots of jobs and in the US, that at times there werent enough people to fill, thus promoting illegal immigration, which increased demand for social services and even more affordable housing, and the bubble grew until, BOOM, oil prices went through the roof, the housing proved to be not so "affordable" especially for the poor who got those loans, and the system couldnt sustain itself. Now, the root of the problem was the Loans themselves that created the demand taht fueled the boom and the crash.
The "affordable housing" loans for the poor people eventually drove prices so high that they were buying houses they couldnt afford simply because they could. Something had to give, and OIL popped the thing.

The lesson:

We just tried to build the economy from the ground up, and it didnt work. The foundation it was built on crumbled.

Please tell that to Barack Obama. Please tell him that people that have money, that manage money well, that invest, that innovate, are the ones who create jobs that last.

Trickle down sounds stupid, but trickle up defies logic and the laws of gravity.

Posted by: WakeUpPeople | Oct 1, 2008 4:22:59 PM

J. Your babbling. Your incoherent. You dont get it do you. If barack loses, this is what you will here.

A.)It because whites are racist and wont vote for a black man

B) The Clintons didn't do enough, and Bill even helped the McCain campagn by praising him.

or even more likely
C.) This election was stolen AGAIN.

D.)ABC, not the network,but A,B and C. : ) Lets smash some stuff and loot.

The clintons have to act like they support Obama, and hope he loses. Its that simple, or they will share the blame IF he loses. People are already crying that they arent doing enough, including the person from ABC who made this post FOR THAT VERY REASON DUH!

So, if they show a little more public support, and Obama loses, then nobody has an excuse to not vote for Hillary in 2012, let alone blame the Clintons. Dont you get it?

If you think Bill and Hillary want Obama to win this election, your a fool.

Living in a Box.
Thats my opinion. Its A socialist let the government run your life and make you dependants on the system cuz you cant think for yourself box. When you have to depend on the government to survive< PERMANENTLY, for no other reason than its convenient, then you ARE TRAPPED. The dems, and OBAMA are enablers of this mind set in their Peter Pan approach to economics. The lure of easy money, taken from one group of people and given to another, is hard to resist, but it will get votes from almost everybody who qualifies for the easy money. Thats the Box that the DEMS policy has built. Hate to say this, but an economy cant be built from the bottom up. I have envy of every rich person out there too, but I dont think they owe me a free living. Social programs are the reason for this countrys debt, and our Energy Policy is a perfect example of what being dependant on somebody else for a necessity will get you. Welfare is Crack. Vote for me and I'll give you some more. OIL is crack. We have to beg for more because were addicted to somebody elses product. Well, why dont they just give it to us free!!! It wouldnt work, we wouldnt have any incentive to conserve, look for alternative sources,explore for our own sources etc. Same thing happens when you give an individual something for nothing PERMANENTLY, as in its my right, you owe me etc.. Thats entitlement and they use it to get votes, and keep people in the box. I understand temporary programs, unemployment, housing programs for poor people etc, food programs. But we need more programs that get people off the system and into the work force. More Energy and infrastructure here at home, funded by private enterprise, but ALLOWED BY CONGRESS, would go alon way towards that. Thats what repulicans are trying to tell people. The dems wont let the people have access to our resources, keeping us,as a nation of oil dependent bufoons. Im sorry. Im babbling. But thats the box Im talking about. Keeping people down by promoting dependancy.

Posted by: WakeUpPeople | Oct 1, 2008 3:51:08 PM

To Pacific Moderate:

Following info is from Wikipedia:
Paul Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates.
However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression, and Volcker's Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building.

Posted by: Jake1 | Oct 1, 2008 3:48:08 PM

Ted, you are wrong about Paul Volcker. He did not "wreck the economy under Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. In fact he served as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board from August 1979 to August 1987, mostly during the Reagan years. He is widely credited for getting a handle on the stagflation that the country experienced in the 1970s. I'm glad that he's on Senator Obama's team of economic advisors, and will take one of him to 100 Carly Fiorinas any day.

Posted by: Pacific moderate | Oct 1, 2008 3:33:00 PM

Politicians are principally to blame for the impending financial collapse of the World Economy

Why is it that governments around the world did nothing until financial death was knocking on the door?
For they were told at least five years ago about the dire state of the international financial markets. In this respect clear examples of this knowledge that they had at the time were,

In 2003 the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the forthcoming financial collapse if Fannie Mae's activities were not reined in. The government did nothing and Fannie Mae was allowed to continue operating until only last month, some five-years after the warning from the US’s top banker was given. Indeed, the 30% of mortgages in the US, which are toxic mortgages, equates to losses for the banks of $3.1 trillion. Therefore how could politicians overlook such a failure it has to be asked? The only answer can be incompetence and complacency at the highest level.
In 2006 the Bank for International Settlements, the world's most prestigious financial body and the central banker’s ultimate bank, stated that the financial world was in a diabolical state and that it had to change its current ways and activities. No government throughout the world intervened until it is was too late and where caution was not on the agenda for them just a mere two years ago.
Clearly therefore it is the politicians who are to blame for all the mess that we all now find ourselves and due to them not taking any action years ago. Indeed, the dire problems that we are now starting to witness are a direct result of their total complacency for years and where eventually it will cause the worst financial crash that we have ever witnessed. For this is already transferring into the economy and where the wheels of industry are now steadily but surely starting to slow to a full stop.

It is not only the bankers therefore who need sorting out but their bed pals the politicians as well. For both have made enormous financial benefit out of this unprecedented, irresponsibility and appalling personal greed.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)
Bern, Switzerland

Posted by: dr david hill | Oct 1, 2008 3:28:39 PM

Bill and Hillary Clinton will be voting for McCain. His victory will help Hillary run for President in 2012. A Obama win will end it for Hillary until 2016-if not forever.

Posted by: basil | Oct 1, 2008 2:50:44 PM

Hillary was winning in the last three months of the primaries anyway, by large margins in many states. From her big victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on March 4th all the way to the last primary in South Dakota, Hillary put together a coalition of voters that would win a November election. She doesn't have to get everyone to vote for her. Enough Americans recognize what a fine President she would be.

She can do it again in 2012!

Posted by: Scott | Oct 1, 2008 2:36:05 PM

also wake up people.

on the living in a box deal.

do i have the honor of finally tipping the scale for you.
what you had been thinking it all along,
but it was just your good fortune that i logged on and you read my comment, and my comments finally proved the box deal, you are talking about?-that is funny.

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 2:09:57 PM

wake up people YOU said hillary can forget the presidency in 2012, if bill does not start supporting obama more now.
you said bill needs to do more,
i asked you what he has to say.
and now you say there is nothing he can say?
so YOU say bill needs to say more
but YOU also say there is nothing bill can say.

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 2:06:33 PM

Come on J. Black people vote their emotions. They stick to their guns especially when skin color comes into play. Merraim Barry, Jefferson (80k in the freeser), and Nagin, come to mind, THey RE-ELECT crack heads,corrupt and incompetent politiions just because they are black. Blacks are one of the BEST ethnic groups at any kind of protest. All it takes is one prominent figure, say Jesse Jackson, to call for action and its over. So I say, if one person says dont vote for the clintons cause they sabataged Barack, it will be exactly that. Blacks vote theri skin color when its an option, regardless of the history of the candidate. And that is theri right by the way, but dont deny it.

As far as what I would like clinton to say. Honestly? Hes waffling. Ask any left wing show host or Chris Rock. Today he was at a rally in Florida, so he may be stepping it up. I dont care what he says as long as he honest. It jsut seems that people on the left get mad when Bill speaks the truth in a non partisan way as opposed to slamming John McCain. He can be Pro Obams without slamming McCain. WHy is hate speech always demanded by the left?
I call a spade a spade. I see racism, I call it, not create it. I see biased, I call it. I see pandering, I call it. I want to vote for the best candidate, but its hard to see one when everything is blame blame blame and vitimization and crying like babies because a former president isnt falling in line, at least not fast enough.

You just proved something to me too. The black community is "brainwashed" perhaps forever, that they can only vote democratic, that the democrats are the only party that can EVER help them. You basically said that in your post J. Thats living in a box. Start thinking outside the box.

Posted by: WakeUpPeople | Oct 1, 2008 1:24:14 PM

Jake1: Your right and I am voting for McCain. I am already aware of the fact that this country would go into a disaster and possibly another 1929 depression. Obama doesn't have enough experience in politics or foreign policy for being in the senate three years. We don't need a VP running the country instead of the president and if Obama is elected that's what we might get. Whereas McCain is well qualified and so is Palin. Obama never ran anything in his lifetime only what he is running for now.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Oct 1, 2008 1:06:49 PM

mp, palin has even less experience that obama, so if mccain has to go into hosp.
who will be running the country for her?

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 12:55:36 PM

and by the way, you will see only poor black hurting themselves more.
the clinton' will be alright no matter what. so to say blacks will not vote for them, as payback, is the height of foolishness. so she does not win (if she runs)
blacks are hoping she will run, just so they can-not vote for her.
life gets tuffer for them,
welfare, no jobs, no college for kids,
but at least they paid that old Hillary clinton back. Is that the way you see this happening in 2012, wake up people?

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 12:53:36 PM

j: It doesn't matter who is the VP for Obama he wouldn't be running the country anyway his VP would. He lacks all experience in politics and foreign policy and had three days of training for the debate. With three years as a senator he shouldn't need any training. When he went on that European tour all he did was sit down for about l/2 hour and he was out to visit another leader. Palin can do the same thing. Biden has already done it. This debate tomorrow night will attack millions and millions of people and I believe because of Palin not Biden. When Palin made her speech at the convention she got 50 million viewers and outshined Obama.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Oct 1, 2008 12:51:37 PM

wake up people,
what could the clinton' do to satisfy you?
if you could turn on your tv, see bill clinton, and wave a magic wand. what would you have him say?

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 12:47:12 PM

I don't care about which party the candidate belongs to. My only concern is whether the news I saw in several sources is true..............The news is that PAUL VOLCKER will be one of Obama's top economic policy advisers. Should this be the case we must avoid the birth of Obama administration.......The reason is very simple........this economist PAUL VOLCKER is the one who destroyed America's economy under JIMMY CARTER in '70s. YOUNGER people probably don't know this name PAUL VOLCKER, but older people clearly remember the nightmare.

Posted by: Ted | Oct 1, 2008 12:44:10 PM

Wow. I thought all the lefties think obama hasthis thing in the bag. Why the concern? The way I see it, Obama doesn't deserve an iota of support from the Clintons. Yet, the Clintons cant intentionally, certainly not in a very public way, not support the democratic ticket. See, thaey cant alienate the black vote, just in case Obama loses, which they would love. But I'll tell you this, if the clintons dont step up their support, and Obama loses, come 2012, I predict Obama will run again. Trust me. If Obama loses, the Clintons lose the Obama supporters maybe forever. They are in a tuff spot. If clinton is on the ticket in 2012, you will see blacks simply not voting as a payback.

Posted by: WakeUpPeople | Oct 1, 2008 12:15:08 PM

To j:

Obama will be equally (or may be more)disatrous to this country than Bush is.

We do not want extremes (right or left) in office.
Hence between Obama and McCain , for this democrat the choice is clear --I will vote for McCain.
J, your country is more important that your party. dummies?

Posted by: Jake1 | Oct 1, 2008 12:07:32 PM

as an african american who always supported sen. clinton. but i have no choice but to vote for obama now.
because the truth is between
obama and mccain
obama is the better for the country.
sen. clinton was and is really the better for the country. but that is a dead horse now.
i just needed to say to all of the people especially my black brother and sisters.
everyone knows the clintons are not racist. and it was shameful, just shameful to let that comment ride.
when other were called racist, obama ran to their defense. Not the clinton
because it was politically beneficial to him to let the seed the clinton are racist-grow in the black community.

I will vote for him, because like i said between obama and mccain, especially now that palin is on the ticket, obama/biden are the only choice.
for mccain to pick palin as his vp and overlook all the other experienced rep. women was a very smart move politically,
but very unpatriotic.
it really does play to the comment, the vice president is not important.
but in mccain position with his health,
to put palin a heartbeat away from being the leader of this country. is very unpatriotic of mccain.
Hillary clinton to never be president is not a loss to her, (she and bill will be fine no matter what)
but this country will be the loser.
and apparently, that is just fine for many.
Their mantra is "let the country go to hell, forget about my interest, just no hillary clinton for president"
dummies

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 12:03:27 PM

Looks like Quinnipiac Univ. Poll is totally baised. must be done by immature, Obama fan, undergrad students.
Every other poll is showing that MaCain is ahead in Ohio (may be 1 or 2; but ahead) during same time interval.
This poll shows Obama ahead by 8. I remembered NH in DEM primary.
Why do not media stop publishing Quinnipiac poll and Zogby poll ? Of course liberal media will not allow that.

-Democrats for Hillary 2012

Posted by: Jake1 | Oct 1, 2008 11:59:48 AM

Looks like Quinnipiac Univ. Poll is totally baised. must be done by immature, Obama fan, undergrad students.
Every other poll is showing that MaCain is ahead in Ohio (may be 1 or 2; but ahead) during same time interval.
This poll shows Obama ahead by 8. I remembered NH in DEM primary.
Why do not media stop publishing Quinnipiac poll and Zogby poll ? Of course liberal media will not allow that.

Posted by: Jake1 | Oct 1, 2008 11:57:15 AM

Why do you have a Hillary clinton watch?
Do you want her to be president?
Sen. Clinton is out of this race,
Why are people insisting to keep her in?
and one last why

did obama win because he was a better candidate and would make a better president than sen. clinton?

if people think so,
why has obama surrounded himself with sen. clinton. and adopted all of the things she talked about during the primaries?

Posted by: j | Oct 1, 2008 11:52:08 AM

Date:Oct 1,2008
Time:11:13am

Re: marylou, of course the Clintons will be blamed, if Obama loses..Even more so as the Demoncratic Party, faces term oil.

As the President campagins for Obama today, and the election get's even closer...I can say without a doubt that Hillary's PUMA's "AIN'T FIX'IN TO DO THAT." NO OBAMA, NO HOW, NO WAY.

Sincerely,

Emmery Jones Jr
Hillary Clinton PUMA Suppoter

Posted by: Emmery Jones Jr Medical Record's CCS-P | Oct 1, 2008 11:44:54 AM

Now come on Jake. I know you support Obama a little more than I do, but he said some nastys about my wife, flipped her off, brushed her off as dirt, and has tried to steal the party from us. Now Jake, I think Obamas gonna win, I really do, but McCain is a Great man, a patriot, who tried to stop all this bad stuff from happening. That doesn't mean I support him, its just the truth. Im not ABC,and everything that comes out of my mouth has to be biased. I support Obama, I think he will win. SOrry I hurt your feelings you little neutral fella you.

Posted by: W Clinton | Oct 1, 2008 11:40:13 AM

Barack Obama burned too many bridges during primaries. Obamabots calling Bill 'racist' was too much.

Posted by: Dmitriy | Oct 1, 2008 11:37:24 AM

As someone who supported Hillary on the primaries,i often wonder what would they have to do to satisfy the liberal left...my response-NOTHING.They do not owe anything to the hate filled left and the Obama campaign that repeatedly and personally attacked Senator Clinton.They coluded with the media and the leftist morons like Pelosi and Reid and the DNC to sabotage her election.Let us remember no one was the winner of pledged delegates it were the dem insiders who decided this election.
Senator Clinton has been more supportive still of Obama than any other runner up in the history of this defunct party.Pres Clinton has been nothing but supportive of Obama ,short of a public smooch nothing will satisfy the liberals.
Thank god atleast we have a democratic national election with a secret ballot .

Posted by: exdem | Oct 1, 2008 11:35:06 AM

Bill doesn't believe in Obama to run the most powerful country in the world. He knows McCain can, so why would Bill want to appear the fool when all is said and done? Has little if anything to do with Hillary.

Posted by: Deborah Harry | Oct 1, 2008 11:26:12 AM

Liberal activists who hold Bill Clinton responsible do so because they don't want to accept their own responsibility (Or Sen. Obama's)for anything. They call Bill Clinton a "liar" but get angry when he doesn't lie when it is convenient for them.
The Clintons will vote for Obama. That is who they support. Really. Actually. They do. In fact, it's actually really obvious that they do. It is only bored, self-serving idiots in the press who think otherwise.

Posted by: stephanie | Oct 1, 2008 11:18:53 AM

We can take Obama, IF IT'S NOT BIASED TO WELFARE-CAPITALISM TOWARD BALACKS & HISPANICKS. Should it be the case, however, we need to destroy Obama administration. America must not turns into SOCIALISM, if not communism.

Posted by: Ted | Oct 1, 2008 11:14:05 AM

Don't confuse party loyalty for Obama support. It just isn't there.

President Clinton will obviously hold the party line for Democrats as evidenced in Florida--a state McCain will probably win.

What the Clintons do they do out of party loyalty and not for Obama or Biden.

Obama chose to throw the race card out whenever doing so suited his purpose when running against Hillary Clinton in the primary.

The Clintons will long remember the arrogance and personal attacks leveled against them by the Obama regime.

President and Senator Clinton will each hold the party line, but both hold little or no respect for Obama.

And, fortunately, we all vote by secret ballot.

Posted by: Jayhawk | Oct 1, 2008 10:47:22 AM

Bill Clinton is powerless to stop what is happening. And by the way, Democratic voter participation will go back down to it's normal levels if Obama loses and doesnt run in 2012, so Bill and Hill can't be thinking of that strategy. She can't win without him, just like he can't win without her. Bill however, is irrelevant in all this.

Posted by: Dem-4-Life | Oct 1, 2008 10:42:01 AM

Months ago I saw through Bill Clinton. He's going to do just what he has to do to keep his party happy BUT not enough to put Barack in the White House. Then in 2012 it will be Hillary. What he didn't bargain for is the fact that we are a lot smarter than he thinks we are and we see through his plan. Clinton is a piece of work.

Posted by: Mimi | Oct 1, 2008 10:33:57 AM

No one should be surprised that President Bill Clinton would support John McCain over Obama.

Obama is an interloper with little or no experience and chose to use race baiting as his primary weapon over Hillary Clinton in the primary.

So, in this election voters will choose between the experience and judgment of John McCain or the inexperience and lack of judgment of Obama.

President Bill Clinton's lack of support for Obama and documented respect for John McCain gives credibility to President John McCain.

Rightfully so.

Posted by: Jayhawk | Oct 1, 2008 10:27:43 AM

Hillary Clinton supporters:

REMEMBER THIS!

If Obama/Biden are elected, there will be no future Presidential chances for Hillary Clinton. As evidenced in his VP choice, Obama has no plans for any position for either of the Clintons in any aspect of his regime.

However, if McCain/Palin are elected, the chances are significant that Hillary Clinton will run for the 2012 nomination and be successful.


Be sure to vote.


Vote accordingly.


Against Obama and Biden.

Posted by: McCain not Hussein | Oct 1, 2008 10:17:35 AM

Once again, Clinton shrewdly whittles away at Obama using honesty.

The Truth is not something BZero wants told - nor his feral "fans".

Someone needs to disengage their caps lock - shrill and obnoxious wins nothing but a much earned avoidance for any future consideration.

The Clintons are polished, professional caring human beings who project dignity and grace. Quite a contrast isn't it - like comparing sheto to sunshine.

Posted by: Boo Radly | Oct 1, 2008 9:57:00 AM

Interesting observation, Samhiguchi!! If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Claire McCaskill and Donna Brazile, et. al. are the new face of the Democratic Party, you can have them!! Hillary should break with the far-left wing of the party and run as a new kind of candidate in 2012 with the support of more moderate and sensible types in the party like Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell. There are plenty of outstanding people of influence who would support her.

So, bravo President Clinton, I say!!

Posted by: Scott | Oct 1, 2008 9:47:14 AM

"Change" with integrity for middle class. That's exactly why Obama chose Biden.

Posted by: OBAMA 08 | Oct 1, 2008 9:15:49 AM

Awww, arent the kids singing for Obama so cute....

We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.


Grab waist paper basket, stick head in it and hurl regurgitated Kool Aid

Posted by: Subculture of Journalism | Oct 1, 2008 9:13:49 AM

To who thinks that if the Clintons don't stop "helping" McCain, Hillary might not keep her seat in the Senate, you are I N S A N E !

Keep drinking the kool-aid! yes, you can leap building in a single bound...

Posted by: jvsp | Oct 1, 2008 9:07:27 AM

Bill Clinton surprised me in one sense. With all his pointed armchair etherealness, he made such a simple and devastating mistake for seasoned politician.

By not putting all support behind Obama, he kissed the African American community support behind Hillary’s chances good bye forever should Obama not win. They supported him and his response is a slap in the face. By his own premise, people don’t just vote on issues, essentially gaiving them permission to practice what he preaches.

If I was Obama I would take what he said to Brokaw and use it against McCain under the premise Obama represent the future and McCain the past just to break his #####.

Posted by: sue | Oct 1, 2008 9:00:57 AM

WHAT CLINTON NEEDS TO DO IS ---TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS FILTHY PAST AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY--OR AT LEAST KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.

Posted by: rodney | Oct 1, 2008 9:00:39 AM

Almost all the people seem to be falling in love with the each side's candidate. They are now mentally blind. So, they are no longer capable of observing things without biased view. Poor-intelligent Americans. Real victory will be decided by post-election politics by the "election-winner." Winning the election is no more than All-Star game players picking.

Posted by: Ted | Oct 1, 2008 8:59:25 AM

JUST THINK GANG--THE BAILOUT WILL COST EVERY MAN,WOMAN AND CHILD APPROX 5 THOUSAND DOLLARS-----MAKE YOU PARTY SAY NO WHATEVER IT IS.

Posted by: rodney | Oct 1, 2008 8:55:52 AM

Hillary will vote for Barack, Bill I am not sure. But people need to get off Hillary' back. Bill can say what ever he wants. The truth is that Hillary has done more for barack than he has and will ever do for her. She got her supporters to donate about 5mill to his campaign while Obama supporters have barely lifted a finger to help her debt. She has been to California, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Michigan rallying for Obama. Why dont you report on that Jake? What other losing canidate has done so much for someone who beat them. Obama has certainly not called Bill a great man, so why should bill call him that?

Posted by: rachel | Oct 1, 2008 8:54:50 AM

Lets just hope Obama loses the election first. Then see who gets the blame.

One thing's for sure - it won't be Obama!

Posted by: Mark | Oct 1, 2008 8:54:45 AM

Bill Clinton is just trying to place the blame away from his signing a deregulated bill passed into law by a Republican Congress.

Banks/companies that are Regulated are not experiencing any econimic crisis, just the investment banks/companies which are not regulated or de-regulated and have no oversight! "One of the regulations meant to keep insiders from driving down the prices of their own company’s stock so that they could sell short at will to make a quick million whenever they felt like it was called the “uptick rule”. The “uptick rule” is another one of the FDR Era regulations which the Heritage Foundations was talking about when they said that they wanted to roll this country back to the days of Herbert Hoover. They succeeded. The Bush administration got rid of this safeguard last year---with predictable results.

The uptick rule is fairly simple. "

Posted by: Angellight | Oct 1, 2008 8:54:34 AM


Oh yeah... sure it's all Bill Clinton's fault. Why feed this point of view?

Posted by: rafraf | Oct 1, 2008 8:54:26 AM

Once again, Clinton shrewdly whittles away at Obama using honesty.

Posted by: Judasmac | Oct 1, 2008 8:52:38 AM

MHH
GET EDUCATED-------HE SOLD OUT OUR COUNTRY---AND DESTROYED OUR MILITARY---ALL IN THE SELF SERVING EFFORT TO LOOK GOOD.

Posted by: rodney | Oct 1, 2008 8:48:09 AM