Bill Clinton to Have Leading Role at Party’s Convention

Simple question. Good idea, or bad idea?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

good idea

A very good move politically, since people associate the last five or six years of Clinton's presidency with one of the best periods of prosperity in our nation's history.

Of course, a lot of ignorant voters don't realize that policy has gone in the opposite direction in recent years, and that Clinton-era policies were in many key respects the opposite of those pushed by Obama. Remember, federal spending (as a percentage of GDP) fell by over three percentage points during the Clinton years. Coupled with the fact that the Clinton Treasury supported a strong and stable dollar (a result of which was lower price levels for oil and most commodities), it's no accident that the economy of the 1990s was comparatively healthy.

By contrast, in recent years we've been served heaping helpings of the sort of pseudo-Keynesian nonsense that has never worked at any time in history.

A GOP-controlled congress jettisoned PAYGO ten years ago so that they could simultaneously pass big tax cuts and lard up the budget with politically-motivated spending increases on almost everything under the sun. Then Democrats piled on even more tax cuts and more ineffective, wasteful spending increases in 2009.

Now it appears that we'll have trillion-dollar deficits from now until the end of time (or until something busts).

What could possibly go wrong?

Is he lining up the women for the party or what?

Hell just want to see him do it with a straight face.

Great idea. He could sell ice cubes to Eskimos and talk the birds out of the trees all at the same time, with one hand tied behind his back. He's the best retail politician I've ever seen. Period.

It's a gamble by Obama, I think. Clinton can rally some of the disaffected, but the contrast between the Clinton administration is stark, and it may remind more people that Obama is not Clinton, and turn off a few. In fact, I think there are many Clinton supporters who would be a lot more comfortable with Romney.

I don't know. Still wondering about it myself. And TTH is right, Clinton is the consummate politician. But he wasn't a bad president, at least when compared to his successors.

I think the author here makes a couple of pretty good points regarding the assumed perspectives of a lot of the electorate:

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2...ll-clinton.php

And then there's this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...545.html?hp=l7

It's a gamble by Obama, I think. Clinton can rally some of the disaffected, but the contrast between the Clinton administration is stark, and it may remind more people that Obama is not Clinton, and turn off a few. In fact, I think there are many Clinton supporters who would be a lot more comfortable with Romney. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If they are like most of the libs here, they are not smart enough to see the difference. Clinton says vote for him, they'll vote for him, no questions asked or thoughts provoked.

The libs here will vote for him is Satan were to tell them to. They are going to vote for him regardless.

I was just wondering about the validity of the move politically. Just playing the game.

It just shows that Obama can't stand on his own, but we all knew that.

And also, let's fact the fact that Obama is taking a chance with Clinton. It's pretty common knowledge that Clinton does not like Obama, and does not think he up to the task of being President. Clinton is sneaky, and could use this to undermine the Obama campaign. Hillary will have a much better chance of defeating President Romney in 2016 than a Marco Rubio, or whoever, running against 8 years of Democrat rule under Obama.

If I were Obama, I'm not sure I'd take the risk. The election is close. If Obama can simply stick to his prompter, and wait for Romney to screw up (which we all know he will) he has a better chance of re-election than if he depends on Clinton.