Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« John Richards Cries for Help? | THE BRINK! »

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The First Jewish President

posted by on September 24 at 10:35 AM

Suddenly Bill Clinton is observing the Jewish holidays? From an interview with Larry King that is airing later tonight, here’s Clinton’s response to a question about when he’s going to get out on the trail for Obama:

“When [the Clinton Global Initiative] is over, and after the Jewish holidays, which follow close on it, I intend to go to Florida, to Ohio, to northeast Pennsylvania, and to Nevada at a minimum,” he said. “I may do events in Arkansas depending on what the Democratic Party does down there. And I’ve agreed to do some fundraising for them in California and New York.”

“Are you kind of feeling Jewish that you’re waiting until after the Jewish holidays?” King asked, according to a CNN transcript.

“No. But I think it would be — if we’re trying to win in Florida, it may be that,” Clinton began, before discussing his real Florida target: “You know, they think that because of who I am and where my politic[al] base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the ‘cracker vote’ there.”

“But Senator Obama also has a big stake in doing well in the Jewish community in Florida, where Hillary did very well and where I did very well. And I just think respecting the holidays is a good thing to do,” he said.

What a mensch!

But isn’t Clinton sounding pretty aloof and cool about Obama lately? He wasn’t a hugely enthusiastic cheerleader on The View recently. And he was so flat on Letterman the other night that Chris Rock, up after Bill, did a whole monologue on the subject. Maybe it’s over-analyzing, or projection, or the creation of a fun “sore loser” narrative that doesn’t quite connect with reality. But people are talking about it.

Here’s how Bill explained it all on The Daily Show last night:

RSS icon Comments


I don't know. If anyone should know the power of personality and people's emotional attachment to their candidates, it's Bill. His support for Obama just sounds extraordinarily halfhearted. Disappointing.

Posted by leek | September 24, 2008 10:48 AM

Hillary is looking so much better than him right now. And what do Jews care if gentiles don't observe their holidays? Just don't campaign in Florida until those holidays are over.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 24, 2008 10:55 AM

Shomer fucking shabbos!

Posted by lusk | September 24, 2008 11:04 AM

Bill Clinton is WEAKSAUCE! Get over it dude, she lost!

Posted by Raven | September 24, 2008 11:10 AM

He gets douchier by the day...

Posted by michael strangeways | September 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Fuck all the Clintons. Chelsea too.

You know she's out there, waiting to to be installed in power by her family. It's going to be like a horror movie ending.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2008 11:20 AM

@6 et al.

1. He didn't put HRC on the ticket after she got nearly half the votes. What do you expect?

2. He didn't call Bill for 100 days then Bill called him. What do you expect?

3. He let Bill be called racist and never defended him. What do you expect?

4. Bill has said over and over he would do anything that the Obama campaign asked for. Apparently they haven't asked. What do you expect?

5. People like you make jokes about sticking dynamite up HRC's vagina. What do you expect the reaction to be?

6. People like you bitched and moaned about HRC endless and made jokes like when conceding she should assume the position and let Obama shove it up her ass, or she should lick his ass. What do you expect?

7. None of the Obama high donors donated to HRC as is typical. What do you expect?

Obama, and you all, were all about unity but when it came to the test you did not show unity. In fact at one point HRC clearly said the American voters might get to vote both for BHO andher. All the OBama fans said "oohmygod what a bitch she's ASSUMING she's going to win and she's ASSUMING this means BHO is VP -- how insulting!!!!"

When in fact what she siad assumed nothing of the kind and was a very clear olive branch.

Payback's a sumbith right. Go cry in your beers. What I see is a former president who has been slighted and ignored and not even asked to do anything after he gave a great speech at the convention. Grow up and stop whining. Obama has only earned half hearted support from Clinton. If Obama loses by 2-4 points, it'll be his own fault.

You were told that putting HRC on the ticket would get the full enthusiastic support of both Clintons all their donors all their fans etc. You said fuck you. So go lie in the bed you made.

Oh and of course I'm supporting Obama with money talking it up togs yard signs and so are the vast majority fo Clinton folks. In fact you can read in the NYT today one Clinton donor arranged the Miami dinner that netter a few million for Obama.

Th Clinton supporters not supporting Obama are a small percentage. That could be the margin of difference. You want to blame the Clintons somehow go ahead, you may well be blaming them for the next 4 years of GOP rule. But you were warned and told and you didn't listen so elenchos fuck you too.

Thewhole strategy of "fuck the Clintons, now Clintons -- you come vote for Obama!" was so incredibly stupid, juvenile and misguided it's shocking. What a load of crap. It's too bad you guys are still saying fuck the Clintons.

People like me, I'm doing some stuff for Obama. But only 1/10th what I did for Kerry. And It's largely people like you that make me feel that way. You have not welcomed any Clinton supporters into your team so stop whining when they don't come in 100%.

All Obama has to do is ask Billdawg. He couldn't even bring himself to call the guy and ask for lunch -- Billdawg made that call.

Go ahead and call me troll, call me GOP, it's exactly that kind of attitutude that does not win you more votes. You're not even for unity within your own party. What a bunch of arrogant idiots. You can't even count to 50% +1.

Unity y'all--and fuck you, too.

Posted by PC | September 24, 2008 11:33 AM

So by your reasoning, PC, you can only vote for someone once that candidate's supporters "embrace" or "welcome" you? Get the fuck over yourself! By the way, all the stuff about not calling Bill or not defending him is pure normative conjecture on your part. Like every one of your bullshit posts, it is based on how you "feel" and has fuck all to do with facts. Who care's about what Obama's supporters do or say? You should be voting based on what YOU think about the candidate and the issues, ya douche.

Posted by PC Has Finally Lost It | September 24, 2008 11:41 AM

well if "people like you" said it, it must be true.

Posted by brandon | September 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Obama has not attempted to create a warm realtionship with the Clintons. It is actually pretty clear that he doesn't care for them. I don't think that it is a very good political strategy. That they should be cool towards him in response is only natural. That they are doing any campaigning for him at all is probably because they feel a duty to their party.

Posted by inkweary | September 24, 2008 11:49 AM

Bottom line is that the primary elections fucked us over a little bit, and hopefully not enough to lose the election. It divided us, and we talked shit about each other. But the Clinton supporters did as much as the Obama supporters. We are all guilty of it. We are all guilty for dividing this party. But in the end, we have a common goal, to not have another 8 years of a GOP president, another Bush, and doing what's right for this country. Yeah, the Clintons got called names and were ignored or whatever, but they can be the bigger person in this situation and do what's right. If HRC had won the nomination, this same thing could have happened to Obama and his supporters. I don't know if they would have done the right thing or not, but it needs to be done in order to make sure the Democratic ticket wins the election. Once the Democrats are in the White House (Obama), then Bill can put his flaming bag of dog poo at the front door.

Posted by Scottie Yahtzee | September 24, 2008 11:57 AM

Sheer jealousy. Clinton is all about being the adored, charismatic big dog. What happens when an even more charismatic, possibly world-historically important even, guy comes along to take over his party? He gets forgotten. He can see it coming, and he don't like it one bit.

Posted by Terry | September 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Could we hire Jesse Jackson to cut off that white-n***ers balls?

Posted by DENVEROPOLIS | September 24, 2008 12:07 PM

I think @10 basically said what PC was trying to say, just in a shorter, more rational form.

The narrative about "the Clintons aren't doing enough!" and "they say they support Obama and that he would be a great President, but they don't really mean it!" is getting really old. Seriously.

[This coming from an Obama fan since 2003].

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 12:10 PM

(Note on what PC posted today: Too long. Didn't read. Given that it's extra, extra long today, I'm guessing it's pure "word salad", as the psychiatrists say.)

It's been a while since we looked at PC's other identity, SusanUnPC. Now I know some say PC writes in pidgin English and Susan Hudgens/SusanUnPC uses sentences and grammar, but look at PCs other sock puppets: McG, Julie, etc., who also mostly use standard English. The broken English is merely a disguise. A shitty, incompetent disguise.

Another note: PC no longer claims that she volunteers and donates to Obama since I called bullshit on that. Score on for the truth.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2008 12:10 PM

I agree with @10. Obama has done very little to embrace the Clintons or even defend them from some of the more unfair attacks from the left. Preferring one candidate over the other is fine, Obama has done pretty much zilch to mend the rift that developed over the primaries. Obviously he has a lot going on, but I thought he would have done more to reach out to the Clintons and their supporters. IMO, I have seen the Clintons come across as pretty gracious and supportive, especially at the convention. It's starting to seem like Obama has a severe ego problem. The chilly relationship with the Clintons and Obama's current polling problems were unexpected, at least to me.

Posted by dino | September 24, 2008 12:12 PM

did he say hillary has done more for obama than all the past nomination losers combined have done for the nominee? is that true?

she is needed more because thus is a closer race. look at richardson or romney and figure out what an endorsement looks like...

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2008 12:13 PM

@15. Why would you think that I am PC sock puppet? This was actually the first PC comment where I read the whole thing through to the end, but based on the first few sentences of most of the posts I would be shocked if we had very much in common...

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 12:26 PM

i'm tired of the "clintons aren't doing enough" talk as well.

the problem is, the clintons are still out there being lukewarm. that is arguably worse than if they didn't show up at all. so, as long as they are being weird about it, people are going to respond negatively. (maybe the clintons want to bring in the reluctant to vote for obama crowd by really acting the part!)

but all you people who think obama needs to reach out more... hello? it's like if you won a civil court case against someone, and they refused to pay because you weren't nice enough when you asked for the money. obama is not being a sore winner, he's not rubbing it their faces, so they in turn need not be sore losers. and it would be really nice if they got on the same team.

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2008 12:26 PM

After the campaign Senator Clinton ran -- constantly trying to make race an issue and aligning herself openly with the bigot vote -- I don't know how her husband, who participated in the race baiting, can end up the bigger man in this.

But the truth is, if Pres. and Senator Clinton cannot campaign with their full support behind their party's candidate, they shouldn't campaign. It doesn't help to have Pres. Clinton talking about what Senator Clinton would have done to avert this economic crisis without pointing out what the Democratic nominee has proposed to do about it. It doesn't help to have Pres. Clinton prop up McCain's standing by inviting him to speak at his Global Initiative. Half-hearted support only draws attention away from the candidate and onto the Clintons, which is not what is needed.

President Clinton is right. This isn't personal, it's political. He needs to stop laying the groundwork for '12, and start worrying about Nov, '08. If he cannot contribute to the party this year, he should retire from the political arena until the election is over.

Posted by joeyp | September 24, 2008 12:41 PM


"Julie in Chicago" is not the same as "Julie." Just like "Homo Will" and "Will in Seattle" are lightyears different. Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2008 12:43 PM

@21 - Actually... they are. I switched from Julie to Julie in Chicago about a month ago because some other Julie was briefly posting some racist, shitty things about Obama. Plus, I got tired of having to explain that I don't live in Seattle.

I still don't see how I have anything at all in common with PC...

And @infrequent... I guess I think that the whole "the Clintons are being lukewarm" thing is a bit of a judgment call. Well, aside of the Letterman appearance, which was ridiculous. I’m primarily thinking about the convention speeches and the criticism that they weren’t enthusiastic enough, which I thought was bullshit.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 1:10 PM

@21 - Actually... they are. I switched from Julie to Julie in Chicago about a month ago because some other Julie was briefly posting some racist, shitty things about Obama. Plus, I got tired of having to explain that I don't live in Seattle.

I still don't see how I have anything at all in common with PC...

And @infrequent... I guess I think that the whole "the Clintons are being lukewarm" thing is a bit of a judgment call. Well, aside of the Letterman appearance, which was ridiculous. I’m primarily thinking about the convention speeches and the criticism that they weren’t enthusiastic enough, which I thought was bullshit.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 1:11 PM

My druthers are to not indulge the circular firing squad mentality and delay the gratification of a "fun 'sore loser' narrative" until after Obama is elected president.

Posted by chicagogaydude | September 24, 2008 1:13 PM


I might have guessed. The clues that showed that you are a PC sock puppet were when you threatened to start calling me "pit bull elenchos" as PC after previously threatening to call me "trollerchos". There can't possibly be two different people who think they have the power to intimidate by threatening to call someone a name. It's just too unique a psychosis.

The other clue is the tic of saying elenchus instead of elenchos, which you also do when posting as McG.

Susan Hudgens is still your real name.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2008 1:36 PM

@25. You must be thinking of someone else then, since I can't remember ever having done either of those things. "Pit bull elenchos" doesn't sound like something I'd say at all...

So, sorry. I don't do sock puppets.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 2:02 PM

Susan, "I can't remember" doesn't prove anything. You sound like fucking Reagan. How many times do you have to get caught before you realize how bad you are at this?

You do sock puppets, lady. You bet you fucking do sock puppets, all day long.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2008 2:06 PM

Just for the record, I am a real person, not a sock puppet. I am in Chicago right now, looking out my office window at the Hancock Center, and I am not, in fact a rabid-Hillary supporter who writes 1,000 word essays to post in the Slog comments and says stupid shit like “unity, y’all”. You are thinking of someone else who called you “pit bull elenchos” because it wasn't me. That is all.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | September 24, 2008 2:25 PM

a judgment call? well, i was talking about the letterman appearance. but other then that, it's not that difficult to tell what enthusiastic support looks like. the letterman appearance, for me, was the indisputable straw that broke the camel's back. we'll see what happens in the future, but in light of the letterman debacle, it's fairly easy to see a lukewarm trend.

i won't talk about you stabbing me in the back anymore once you stop stabbing me in the back.

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2008 3:36 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.