I love Bill Clinton, but this is a fair point for the Obama campaign to make. The presidency of Bill Clinton was clearly good for the country, but it was horrible for the Democratic party. Furthermore, without Bill Clinton at the center of it all, the party essentially collapsed after his presidency. It wasn’t until 2006 and the implementation of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy that the party recovered from its 1990s losses.
I think one of the major concerns for primary voters is a candidate who, once elected, will also have coattails. I think the concerns about Sen. Clinton not having coattails on election day are not valid, but I think it’s after that that matters. Many would like to see 60 Democratic senators in order to get this important legislation to pass, and the contest is who can deliver.
Related
Fighting Fristy!
Obama Campaign Takes The Stupid Pill
Keep It Up, Newt
What in the Hell is the Obama campaign thinking? That the way to the nomination is to take out the most popular Dem leader since JFK?
I don’t think this is a place they needed to go.
Let’s see how the Dem public reacts, but I’m thinking that, just like his comments about “the GOP was the party of ideas in the 90’s” and “Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was more transformational than Bill Clinton’s”, someone is giving his campaign very, very bad advice and terrible direction.
He should be talking about why and how HE is positively the one who can lead us to “yes we can”, and not stoop and drag us to “no, they didn’t” or “no, they can’t.”
He has the “yes, we can” deal on the table, he has a huge number of interested buyers, but this is going to alienate more people than bring in new buyers, and close that deal.
If his campaign is REALLY behind this, he risks losing my support entirely, and I was set to support him 100% if he was chosen as our candidate. And I don’t think I’d be the only one.
I will not support Democrats who tear down other Democrats by using demonization and GOP talking points.