The Clintons and their people no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt with regard to putting their loyalty to the party above their pursuit of personal legacy. Two evenings ago, Tony Rodham and others met with...

Just saw this on HuffPost in article "Progressives Sound Alarm About Obama Campaign" quoting John Aravosis at America Blog:

There is an incredible discontent out there with the way this campaign is being run. The fact that the discontent isn't being recognized, isn't being assuaged, is disturbing. People aren't worried about the election, they're becoming despondent about it. They're not motivated to work twice as hard, they instead feel as if they've had the wind knocked out of them. This is far beyond a healthy skepticism as to whether Obama can win. While Obama's attacks today on McCain are heartening, we need to see more of it. People need to see that Barack Obama has as big of balls as John McCain and, well, Hillary Clinton.

No it is not a casual remark or anything. He purposely spent time praising the nominee of the party that worked day and night to impeach him just days before his own party's convention. Full discosure: I LOATH the Clintons. I guess I have nothing to catharsisize at the convention, but Bill might have just begun:

That's the big question. The way Hillary skewered Obama during the Democratic Primary with pointed statements that McInsane is more qualified to be president leaves serious room for doubt.

More after the jump.

He does. His record is the best out of any republican in a long long time. Either he or Obama would be great at this issue, even though I prefer Obama, Obviously.

As you guys prepare to rip a hole in me, consider the source. President Clinton, in his "who cares about the party tour", continues to throw his half-hearted praise onto Obama. Link to Praise .I am one who believes that he was a hell of a President. Record surpluses and peace. Jobs and prosperity. Homes for many. But I must say, it doesn't seem as though he has ever cared about the party. His centrist politics have always made it seem as though there was something wrong with being a democrat. and his affair has delivered the country to the Neo-Cons on a silver platter. It gets me that even after he was given a speaking role on the same night as the V.P. Hillarys name will be placed in nomination, against the best interest of the party and Obama. and that silly tag line about sexism was allowed in the platform, he continues to act this way. Is it too much to ask for support?

Quote below the fold.........

Don't do me any favors.

Former president Bill Clinton was in Las Vegas yesterday to open the National Clean Energy Conference, a confab of industry and government leaders.

Clinton championed tax incentives to develop solar, wind and other alternative forms of energy and called on industry to "rethink the economics of energy."

He also, as has become his wont of late, backhanded Barack Obama.

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Throughout the ages, life has been but an allegory for the Shakespearean drama Macbeth.  When people observe the strength of a wedded woman, they wonder.  Might she be the spouse behind the man?  Couples whose passion for power burns brightly may be reminiscent of those who perform in the tragedy played out on many a theatre stage.  A pair, married partners, in the present, may be as characters in a revival of the this best-known of William Shakespeare's tragic productions.  The tale, written in centuries long past, often evokes reverie of today's truths.  Only the characters differ.  

If this dramatic piece, were to be performed today, possibly, Hillary and Bill Clinton would be cast as the main characters.  The two are slightly more modern, and a bit less morose than the actors in years gone by.  

Maybe I'm just in concern troll mode, but I really am starting to wonder about Obama's game plan.

Recently a group that I belong to, made up of Americans, British, Dutch and Canadians got into a discussion of left and right leaning socialism.

While it was evident from the beginning which were Americans from their shouting matches over the benefits of electing Obama or McCain, there was several intelligent individuals who condemned America's left-socialism and claimed it was the cause of all our problems today.

A lot of folks have been bemoaning the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton will be getting such prominent places at the convention.  Most of the attention has focused on their egos, wanting to hog the attention and possibly set up a 2012 run for Hillary.  

I'd like to offer another possible take on the scenario: Bill and Hillary will do what they do best: attack, attack, attack.  What's more, Obama will not take any heat for it.  The reasons are below...

    The DNC 2008 draft platform (courtesy of Pam's House Blend) says

    The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, ...
    ...We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

, but one wonders what happened to the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare". Bill Clinton invented that--the best thing he ever said--; so if unlike the 2004 platform, the '08 platform doesn't even include "rare", Dems will look like they're

    less sexually restrained than Bill Clinton.

    Is that something the party can afford these days, especially after John Edwards' zipper problem? Probably not.
    --And "We also recognize..." is sort of tepid language, I must say. Again, where's "rare"? It was there in the '04 platform...

    (much more below)

Its the elephant in the room that noone wants to talk about.
The teaming up of Hillary/Bill and John that could turn the
election upside down.  Don't discount it.  The Clintons are
so into their own personas that this scenario could happen.

In 1992, I was fortunate enough to be very active in the Paul Tsongas for President campaign (although I was only 20 at the time).  I was his coordinator in Houston and was elected a delegate for him.  I was a die-hard supporter who wanted to keep fighting long after he had suspended his campaign.  I was also very angry at Bill Clinton because of his campaign tactics (as is almost universal among the supporters of a losing candidate).  Although Paul wasn't formally placed into nomination, he was given a speaking slot right before the nominations and he informed his delegates they were free to vote anywhere they wanted.  I, like about half of the Tsongas delegates, voted for Paul.  This gave me a real sense of closure and I was then much more willing to fully support Clinton in the general election than if I had been basically forced to vote for Clinton (against my wishes) at the convention.

Inside information from a friend now heading to the Convention with the development of the Clintons going to the Convention and now a Ballot from the floor conversation prompted this dairy entry.

One of the great disappointments of being involved in Democratic politics in this era is the fact that seemingly everything must always lead back to the Clintons - even conventions nominating someone else:

As you have probably heard by now numerous times, the "no drama" edict is the one handed down from the top of the Obama campaign that permeates every facet of that organization.  Every person hired to the Obama campaign gets the "no drama" speech when they are hired.  We don't do drama here. Sorry. Tight ship and all that.

Perhaps it is the lull in the season, perhaps it is the fact that Obama is on vacation, perhaps it is the Olympics dominating the news cycle, but...a lot of us in the political realm and in the media are seeking the drama.  Drama good. Boring bad.

Well, from what I can see, the drama doesn't help.  And I'm taking the Obama no drama pledge from here on out.

Why is Bill Clinton speaking at our convention in Denver? He had nothing good to say about Barack Obama during the primary season and shot several nasty broadsides at him which, if not downright racist in nature, were certainly interpeted as such by many.

The rationalization appearing every day of the week on this blog site is he is a former President and as such,common courtesy dictates that he be invited. Others say we must invite him out of respect for the office he once held. But lest we forget, Bill Clinton was one of only two Presidents impeached for misconduct while serving in that office.

Dick Nixon resigned before he could be impeached on August 8,1974.had he not resigned he most definitely would have been impeached and we would today have three former Presidents carrying the stigma of impeachment.The difference between Nixon and Bill Clinton is that Nixon never again spoke at a National Convention after leaving office and we Democrats feel obligated to invite Bill Clinton every 4 years.

No More Clintons!