Bill Clinton and "Candidate X"

Matt Welch | August 26, 2008

The National Democratic Institute, the taxpayer-financed foreign policy shop for the Democrats, had its regularly scheduled program of former foreign leaders talking about democracy-deliverance infused just now with a jolt of newsmaking when a croaky and dry-mouthed Bill Clinton showed up to give one of his patented off-the-cuff rambles. True to form in '08, Bubba might have stepped in it:

Whether government can actually deliver becomes quite important. It becomes in a way, THE question. Suppose for example you're a voter. And you have Candidate X and Candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?

Whoops! Clinton quickly appended that "this has nothing to do with what's going on now." Uh-huh.

Another interesting Clinton observation, about the culture/political boom:

This campaign will go down in history, our primary campaign, not only because it was a hard-fought and close race between Hillary and Senator Obama, but because of the infusion of cash in small amounts from Internet donors, and because of the explosion of blog sites, and the incredible variety of sources from which people got information, disseminated information, made arguments, and actually conducted, if you will, both virtual and real campaign events. So for those of us who are interested in politics this was an endlessly fascinating process already, and it's still got some twists and turns between now and November.

It sure does!

Comments

Bill Clinton|8.26.08 @ 12:51PM|#

Jesse Jackson gave a speech at the Democratic convention twice--in '84, and in '88.

|8.26.08 @ 12:54PM|#

This campaign will go down in history, our primary campaign

Wasn't it your wife's primary campaign, Willie?

|8.26.08 @ 1:06PM|#

Maybe I'm a cynical bastard, but so I suspect that the Clintons will attempt to sabotage the Obama campaign to set up the Hillary 2012 bid. She'll be 69 in 2016, perhaps they feel 2012 will be their last chance to cement the Clinton legacy into the Democrat party structure.

I honestly suspect they are that selfish.

Dagny T.|8.26.08 @ 1:08PM|#

This campaign will go down in history, our primary campaign

Wasn't it your wife's primary campaign, Willie?

The Clintons have reached the Singularity. This does not bode well.

BDB|8.26.08 @ 1:10PM|#

It's Mark Warner in 2012 if Obama loses. The Keynote speaker is always the favorite for the nomination next time.

He could even run in 2016 (he'd be 60, young enough).

|8.26.08 @ 1:14PM|#

The Clintons have reached the Singularity. This does not bode well.

Or Willie is actually Locutus of Borg. You will be assimilated.

|8.26.08 @ 1:18PM|#

Didn't Bill already get to be president? Can't he just shut the fuck up?

BDB|8.26.08 @ 1:19PM|#

Bill Clinton NEVER shuts the fuck up.

I started liking him him around 2004 (combination of 90s nostalgia and wanting a President who could complete a coherent sentence), but as soon as he opened his big mouth for his wife for the last year I'm hating him all over again.

Franklin Harris|8.26.08 @ 1:22PM|#

I honestly suspect they [the Clintons] are that selfish.

What's wrong with you? Of course they're that selfish!!!

|8.26.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Candidate X will be able to deliver on everything he's promised, including Hope, Change and More Promises.

Candidate Y may be more able to deliver on his promises, but that's only because it's a list of countries with either 'bomb','invade' or 'tarriff' next to it. Oh, and bring back the draft.

|8.26.08 @ 1:22PM|#

It's Mark Warner in 2012 if Obama loses. The Keynote speaker is always the favorite for the nomination next time.

Who was the keynote speraker in 2004?
Oh, Barack Obama. IIRC, he wasn't the favorite in 2008. That would have been the junior senator from NY.

Other than that quibble, it is a spot for a rising star.

BDB|8.26.08 @ 1:24PM|#

I shouldn't say favorite, I should say the guy most likely to win next time it seems.

(Bill Clinton in '88 was the keynote, remember).

BDB|8.26.08 @ 1:25PM|#

Well, I guess rising star is a better description. Nevermind.

Dagny T.|8.26.08 @ 1:25PM|#

Or Willie is actually Locutus of Borg. You will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile.

(You started it!)

Alan Vanneman|8.26.08 @ 1:33PM|#

What's "funny" (or something) is that Obama, if elected, is quite likely to be Bill Clinton II, talking New Deal while walking Republican moderate. And, with any luck, he won't end up screwing Monica Lewinsky!*

*Though she's probably game. I mean, come on! Two presidents! Who could resist it!**

**Seriously, has there ever been a chick who has done two presidents? Did Angie do LBJ? The Kennedy-Johnson nexis is certainly, um, fertile, since they both presumably scored in the hundreds.

|8.26.08 @ 1:35PM|#

Put me down for Candidate X! I'd likely disagree with him on everything, but he can't deliver on anything.

This doesn't really help me with the current race, though. There are two candidates that disagree with me on just about everything and probably can't deliver.

So now I'm stuck trying to choose between the vapid big-government liberal, and Obama.

|8.26.08 @ 1:36PM|#

(You started it!)

That is fantastic. I knew about Zod, but not this.

"LORE: When you disassemble me, make sure the world can kiss my ass."

HAHAHAHA

|8.26.08 @ 1:57PM|#

Locutus is so 1990s. Everyone knows it's all about the Borg Queen.

|8.26.08 @ 2:12PM|#

She'll be 69 in 2016

Do . . . not . . . EVER . . . refer to Hillary and 69 in the same sentence. Please. I'm begging you, here.

|8.26.08 @ 2:19PM|#

Locutus is so 1990s. Everyone knows it's all about the Borg Queen

First Contact is so 1990s too, dude.

Time to go 80's retro with Greg Stillson for President.

Seitz|8.26.08 @ 2:47PM|#

One of the problems the last two Democratic Presidents have had (in terms of getting stuff done) is a lack of any experience in the Federal legislature. They came in as outsiders, and despite belonging to the party in power, they weren't popular with the legislative bodies at the time.

So assuming Candidate X is Obama, and Candidate Y is McCain, what makes Clinton think Obama, with solid Democratic majorities AND federal legislative experience AND a fairly good process guy as a Vice President will have a tougher time getting things done than McCain, who will have hostile majorities in Congress?

Seitz|8.26.08 @ 3:07PM|#

To add, I'm well aware that most of the readers here would prefer a President who CAN'T get things done. That's not really what I'm addressing, though.

|8.26.08 @ 3:23PM|#

So assuming Candidate X is Obama, and Candidate Y is McCain, what makes Clinton think Obama, with solid Democratic majorities AND federal legislative experience AND a fairly good process guy as a Vice President will have a tougher time getting things done than McCain, who will have hostile majorities in Congress?

Actually, I'm pretty sure "Candidate Y" is Hillary in this case. And that he was making a comment about her stance on the Iraq War; "you didn't vote for her on a difference of opinion, but you'll be sorry in 4 years when nothing has gotten done."

|8.26.08 @ 3:27PM|#

If Obama loses, Hillary will be blamed and her presidential aspirations will die on the vine (and her influence in the party will likely wane*).

The irony is, if she had bowed out in February and Obama lost, Hillary would be seen as a savior in 2012. Instead she'll be painted as Lady MacBeth.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer gal.

* The difference between Clinton in 2008 and Kennedy in 1980, is that most Dems like Obama a heck of a lot more than they liked Carter. Plus, Kennedy didn't extend a losing streak.

Seitz|8.26.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Actually, I'm pretty sure "Candidate Y" is Hillary in this case.

Fair enough.

If Obama loses, Hillary will be blamed and her presidential aspirations will die on the vine (and her influence in the party will likely wane*).

I think her only chance in 2012 is to throw herself 100% behind Obama, Bill included, then secretly hope he loses. If she does that, she still has a shot. Otherwise, I think you're right.

|8.26.08 @ 4:27PM|#

If Obama loses, Hillary will be blamed and her presidential aspirations will die on the vine (and her influence in the party will likely wane*).

I doubt it. She will have been proven right, and her core support will be reinforced. Still, I think she would be well advised to:

I think her only chance in 2012 is to throw herself 100% behind Obama

I just wonder what price she will extract from Obama for this. She's already rolled him once, by getting huge concessions at the convention. I'm guessing a two-fer - Bill at the UN, and for her, Secretary of State, maybe?

|8.26.08 @ 4:29PM|#

I think her only chance in 2012 is to throw herself 100% behind Obama, Bill included, then secretly hope he loses. If she does that, she still has a shot. Otherwise, I think you're right.

That ship has already sailed. All of the crap from Bill and her in the past few months have already ruined that option. Now everyone will see through this.

For Bill, it's a feature not a bug. He doesn't want Hillary to be a better president than him. That's my theory why she's played a lot nicer than he has since she conceded.

|8.26.08 @ 4:42PM|#

That's my theory why she's played a lot nicer than he has since she conceded.

My theory is that he's a narcissistic asshole who no longer has to hide the fact that he's completely empty inside when not trying to make people like him, so he can now expose his temper tantrums to the world without fear of reprisal.