Bill Clinton is emerging in full force this week in the middle of an election year. Is this good news for Kerry or does it make Kerry make a difficult choice of how to politically define his relationship with a controversial president?

I don't think it will particularly hurt for Kerry to be loosely associated with Clinton; after all, Bill Clinton was elected to two terms, and they share membership in the same political party.

The appearance of Clinton's book and the book signings do take some attention away from Senator Kerry, but as it appears that it is Bush who is hurting Bush's chances at four more years and not Kerry, he might not need to compete with Clinton for the limelight, at least for now.

Kerry needs to stand on his own and be elected for his own sake. He doesn't want Clinton's coattails. Clinton's book explains the reasons for his mistakes and indiscretions. It's an Oprah thing, not an opportunity for another politician to tag along.

I nulled my vote, because I don't know quite frankly what Kerry can do at this point or should do. Heck, people were first gushing over the prospect of McCain being on the ticket and that's not going to happen, so they are looking elsewhere for something, ANYTHING to spark the Kerry campaign. Pretty strange if you ask me for someone who's supporters claim is doing so well. It really seems to me to be honest about all of this that the problem is Kerry. Those who do support him seem to mostly support him because they don't like President Bush and he's really their only alternative to Bush. With that kind of mindset, Clinton isn't going to help him or hurt him. If Clinton stays in the spotlight it might help Kerry by keeping him out of the spotlight and he probably does better that way.

i believe kerry is doing everything he can to associate himself with clinton. everything but actually changing his name to william clinton II.


as far as how i feel he should handle all the publicity clinton is getting,,, i feel he should just ignore it. i dont see how addressing it in the possitive or negative can help him.

This won't hurt Kerry at all and actually might be able to deflect some of the wrong perceptions that the republicans have been making about him, by having the republican villain Bill Clinton out there taking the heat which he will be able to throw right back at them. Especially since he was able to do before.

This is one of the things that I think made Gore lose cause it did not want to embrace the good things Clinton did worry about being associated with the bad thing Clinton did. So far it seems as though Kerry is not making this misstep.

Kerry is doing better than expected in the polls. Seems to me that every pundit who doesn't have too much flesh in the GOP is acknowledging this. However, Clinton is a spotlight hog. He should get his couple of weeks on the NYTBSL for the book and be done with the spotlight. Kerry should not encourage Clinton to amble into one of his two-hour monologues. So, loose connection.



Any basis for this belief, or is it just wishful thinking that Kerry can be associated with scandle that he had nothing to do with and is old news?

Kerry was in Colorado recently with a strong message for the middle class. Seems to me that associating the Demos with technical leadership in the US to create good-paying jobs resonates with the Front Range communities (Denver, Fort Collins, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Trinidad). I suppose with a bit of logic stretching, this is associating with the Clinton boom times.

Side note: Nancy Reagan is actively pushing for stem cell research. Ronnie died from a horrible disease that could be cured with stem cell research. Kerry is pushing for stem cell research -- is he trying to associate with RR? Makes about as much sense as Kerry wanting to be BCII.

I do agree that the early lead in the polls for Kerry has more to do with the Bush administration incompetence than the power of Kerry's campaign. Someone commented in the media that the Bush administration will do the right thing -- once all other options are exhausted. That pretty much sums it up.

However, the dim bulbs out there are starting to brighten. That Kerry recently visited Colorado, a staunch Republican state in elections past, is interesting. He must feel there's a chance to win Colorado this time around. We might also have a state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to split up the Electoral College votes, as Vermont and Nebraska do. It's the easiest way to fix an outdated system.

Anyway, Kerry should be friendly to Clinton but keep the spotlight on himself and his campaign, and the greater issue of taking America back from the narrow theocrats who would rather RR die horribly than allow scientific research, and who deny other research that goes against The Plan.

Which now looks like saving GWB's tush at all costs.

Oh, then there's the healthcare issue. That might be considered Clintonesque, but in actuality, it is a solid Democrat Party issue that's shared by Kerry as well.

So Demos are defining themselves as pro-science, pro-technical leadership, pro-good-job-creationists, pro-healthcare. Repubs are trying to define Demos as wishy-washy -- as the Bush administration turns 180 degrees on handling Iraq and shuts up about The Bush Doctrine (of unilateral invasion). Yep, wishy-washy all right except the muck is sticking to the tosser. Granted, the dim bulbs haven't brightened that much, as reflected in a recent poll, but give them time, and give the Bush administration time. Shoot, give the Kerry campaign time too. It will all come clear by November.

Clinton didn't have coat tails when he was in office. Why should we assume that he will have them while he is out of office.

Clinton has, quite frankly, NOT been Presidential every since leaving the White House. He simply does not seem to have the ability to be taken seriously since then.

Clinton's popularity was due to his charismatic nature, not his policies. Many people have been turned off by Clinton's lack of propriety.

I would keep Clinton at arm's length (or farther) if I were John Kerry.

I watched Clinton on 60 minutes, and boy I sure do miss that type of person in the White House. He was amusing, light hearted, and fairly straight forward. I know this will make some heads spin in here, but he reminded me of Reagan.

I think that people in this country will begin to remember the "Good Times" that they experienced while Clinton was in office, and be able to answer the question "Are you better off now than you were 4 or 6 years ago?" And that will reflect poorly on Bush.

With Clinton in the news, people will remember the days when we were not frightened. Days when gas was closer to $1 per gallon not $2. Voters will remember when unemployment was NOT a news headline, and when interest rates were at reasonable level. (as opposed to being near an extreme), and that will reflect poorly on Bush.

With Clinton in the news people will remember the days before the Patriot Act when Big Brother had to play by the rules, and the rules were the same for everyone.

Kerry should loosely associate with Clinton. Doing so might not boost his numbers, but with Clinton in the news, I think it will have an adverse effect on Bush's numbers. I for one would switch Clinton for Bush OR Kerry in a heart beat.

I voted loosely associated- simply because, even if it were all positive Clinton comments all the time- Kerry could get lost in all that Charisma- something that Clinton has in enormous supply and Kerry has very little of.

GW Bush is Kerrys best campaign manager, so it is smart for Kerry to play up his positives and former presidents positives while allowing GW to continue to step on his own feet. I think Kerry is really starting to do things right- like in Colorado.

I believe that he should have a close relationship with Clinton. Clinton would make a good attack-dog, someone who can go out in public and do responses for Kerry, which won't make him look like he's over doing it on every point of criticism. Gore didn't have the heart to level criticism, but Clinton knows how to mix it up some and not come off as someone who would stab you in the jugular....like Bob Dole. Yes, Clinton is a lightning rod of sorts, but the folks who hate him always have from day one, and they've never considered voting for Kerry in the first place. I would gladly take their anger if I were Kerry, and cash in on the amazing fundraising ability of Clinton and his pals. The guy could truly help out the ticket financially through his popularity in the African-American, union, as well as cultural liberal electorate.

Proof of Clinton's coattails?-Rahm Emanuel trouncing his opponent in the Illinois senate(?) race. Let's also not forget Hillary bringing out the whooping stick on her opponent either.

Poor Billy Clinton the cheater the liar. He seems to have commonalities with John F. Kennedy . With the exception the Kennedys became rich off running illegal booze . I would really like to hear alrushmo talk badly about JFK, But instead he has claimed him as a republican. Hmmm I wonder in fifty years if clinton will be claimed as a repub. As far as having good morals I would not put (US) even close to the top of the list ,But then again its easy for any of us to play judge. The lies, and cheating are very snake like . But as I clearly remember the country was running very well and healthy in the 90s, without having it shoved down my throat everyday being told how well things are going like TODAY(and there not that good or bad). The reason being price hikes for everything you buy meaning more money in the economy. I suppose it would do Kerry good for someone anyone to talk for him , Kerry is starting to remind me of bush (drones) HILLARY 2008 Bill can sleep in the lincoln room who cares

Bill Clinton is an albatross that Kerry should avoid at all costs.

Clinton might have some, well... "character issues", but you cannot deny that he was an excellent President. I think it would do Kerry some good to associate himself with a smart, popular man like Clinton.

Of course you can deny he was a good president. If only for the fact that his destruction of our intelligence services that opening the door to allow 9/11 to occur happened at his behest. If that isn’t a reason to claim him a failure, what is?

-Then we have to mention the failed attempts to "fix" health care" with that disastrous Hillarycare.

-We have all the "gate" scandals from "travel-gate" to "file-gate", etc., etc.

-We have more of his appointees put in jail than nearly every president we ever had.

-We have Waco and all the murders by the Federal Govt and Janet Reno

-For his party he lost the power over the entire Congress!

-Then his personal behavior that was no better than that of the gutter. The dozens of women that claimed he either raped them or at the very least had illicit relations with them, over and over throughout his entire public life (which is still continuing today, by the way)

Clinton was one failure, mess and instance of personal malfeasance after another. He was a total failure.

He had one quality and one quality only. The ability to fool some of the people all of the time.

While I don't have links about it, a plan by terrorists to blow up planes over the pacific during the millennium holiday was thwarted by the U.S. government. If that is being weak on terrorism, well, I'm not sure what is.



O.K., but I believe a lot of voters and citizens in general viewed that whole episode as an item that got caught up in politics, rather than the proposed solution itself, being viewed as totally ridiculous.



If Kerry hangs around Clinton and uses him a lot for fundraising and for putting out the issues to the public, will people really not vote for Kerry because of "travel-gate" or "file-gate"? These episodes were only important in the right wing press, not in the general media. Not only that, but those "gates" didn't result in the indictment of a single individual.



I had some doubts about this, so I did a little digging. Here's what I found:


www.wischepp.com/TruthDir.htm

Joe Conason also wrote a piece about Clinton administration problems, both real and imagined.


http://dir.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/07...index.html?pn=2

The point? As mentioned above, a lot of these episodes are viewed as being insignificant, too political, and of questionable merit to hurt someone like Kerry. Who is really going to vote against Kerry because of a non-indicted "travel-gate"?

I agree 100% with nebraska29 and his points. I did some research to better improve his points and found mikehersh.com... I'll quote a few things from there...

First link here to show Clinton was good President


Then Bush comes in and messes everything up. Clinton has excellent leadership qualities, and people (except for the right wingers that have disliked him from Day 1, which like nebraska29 pointed out, weren't planning to vote for Kerry anyways...) respect him.

You are right about the conviction record. I wasn't paying attention when I wrote that one!

But as far as the supposed "good times" during Clinton's years that is poppycock if you want to say Clinton had much to do with it all. He was bowing to a GOP congress most of the time and he supported THEIR agenda because he had no choice. His and his wife's socialist ideas were doomed to defeat and he knew it.

As to the economy, his policies helped it go down to the low point when W. Bush took over the presidency. It was Reagan's policies that gave Clinton a great economy on a silver platter. Clinton didn't make the good economy, but he sure helped squander it.

And the destruction of the intelligence services is no simply partisan comment. He eviscerated the ability of the CIA by focusing on the boogy man of "anti-government militias" (which did NOT exist to any degreee) and the forced codes of "tolerance" and "diversity" (idiotic PC watchwords) within the agency. He destroyed the careers of many good agents who quit the service because of the silliness of George Tenet. Further Clinton is responsible for the wall built between the CIA and the FBI that stopped any possibility of sharing info about terrorism.

In fact, Clinton had no interest in Terrorism at all. He didn’t even want to hear of it. He didn't even meet with his CIA chief in person the whole time he was in office (James Woolsey who resigned over his non-existent relationship with Clinton).

Clinton ignored Osamma, ignored Al Qaieda and only mealy mouthed words about Saddam, but Sdid NOTHING of note. Until, of course, he wanted to hide the Monica scandal so he threw a few missiles at Iraq.
He ignored the first WTC bombing and tried to pretend it was nothing but a "lawyer’s" issue! Imagine. Our country is attacked by a well organized militia from outside the country and Clinton wanted to sue them instead of KILL them!

Sorry. Clinton was a failure. He was lucky on the relative quiet we enjoyed. He was in the right place at the right time to do nothing well and still come out smelling like a rose.

Kerry would be wise to seek Clinton's advice and counsel as he is still quite popular with Democratic voters. However, he will have to establish that he is his own man and unlike Al Gore, Kerry does not have to go out of his way to do so.

Clinton can be a definite asset to the Kerry campaign. I'm sure some lame Republican attack ad will attempt to join the two of them at the hip, but such an effort will probably only be convincing to those who already hate both Clinton and Kerry.

Some people seem to have the idea that Clinton just bumbled through two terms and lucked into whatever good fortune came his way. That shows a desperate attempt to rewrite eight years where the country was at relative peace and a budget surplus was left for the incoming Administration.

While Clinton lied about his sex life, Bush lied about the reasons we went to war. Nobody died because of Clinton's lies.

"While Clinton lied about his sex life, Bush lied about the reasons we went to war"

Wow is THAT an untruth! Bush never lied at all about the war in Iraq. His reasons were quite well stated and they were all agreed to by the international community (I don't mean that they agreed he needed to go into Iraq, I am saying they agreed that his reasons were truthful)

But, I would think this is for another thread so I will not correct you further.

Here is what Clinton said at his 60 Minute Interview:

“I don’t want to comment on what happened on President Bush’s watch. That’s for the 9/11 Commission to do. We not only attacked his training camp in ’98 and tried to get him. I signed several authorizations to use lethal force against bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” says Mr. Clinton.

“We broke up about 20 al Qaeda cells. We arrested some of their people. We prevented several terrorist incidents, including attempts to blow up planes flying into Los Angeles -- to blow up the Los Angeles airport over the millennium, to blow up sites in the Middle East as well as in the United States over the millennium," adds Mr. Clinton.



(From CBSnews.com) Mr. Clinton denies that his decision to launch missiles against bin Laden in Afghanistan and in the Sudan was an attempt to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. He also told 60 Minutes that he launched the Afghanistan attack after the CIA told him bin Laden was in a training camp.



So basically you are saying that instead of trying to go about solving problems peacefully, we should just go and kill everyone that harmed us? I think that Clinton's way of solving that was better than Bush's way...

Furthermore, in a poll by CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup, Clinton finished third as most popular President. If that's not having coat tails, I don't know what is.

I must admit that this is quite an interesting tangent of discussion about the Clinton presidency. At the same time, I fail to see how anyone come November will say: "I'm not going to vote for John Kerry because he stands with Bill Clinton, who was responsible for travel-gate!" Events such as that were minor occurences, a passing memory for some, and completely forgotten by most. Clinton does have coat-tails because has "baggage" doesn't follow him, and what does follow him, is recognized as being "political" by most people.