Bill Clinton took to the airwaves on The Charlie Rose Show. Basically, it was an attack fest on Barack Obama, with more than a little subtext of ‘ Who does he think he is, running for President?’

UPDATE: Bill Clinton, on ‘Charlie Rose’ Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready — Obama Responds

NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama — “it’s not close” — but that voters who disagreed would be taking a “risk” if they picked the latter.

Repeatedly dismissive of Obama — which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign — the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even “a gifted television commentator” who would have just “one year less” experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.

He praised Obama’s intelligence and “sensational political skills” but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the “senior governor” in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.

Asked if Obama was ready to be president, Clinton failed to endorse that view, saying, “Well the voters have to make up their mind.” He added that “even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn’t run the first time. I could have.”

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been “vetted” — another subtle slap at Obama.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be “the best agent for change” not merely a “symbol for change….symbol is not as important as substance.”

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was “like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I’ll get a chef or a plumber to do it.”


Rest of article is HERE.

Ok, here I go. I was trying to be nice, but no more.

I want someone to tell me, exactly what EXPERIENCE does Hillary Clinton have?

Are you going to try and make it that her being MARRIED to Bill Clinton counts as experience?

Are you?

Being MARRIED to someone is experience?

If that’s the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committe. Laura Bush will have the said EXPERIENCE that Hillary Clinton had when she ran for the U.S. Senate.

Exactly what the hell did she do as First Lady?

Oops, that right, we don’t exactly know what is part of Hillary’s ‘EXPERIENCE’, because they won’t release her papers showing what she did as First Lady.

We DO know that the ONE thing she was assigned to do- Health Care-


Not only in terms of results, but her APPROACH.

Secret Meetings.
Not willing to tell how it was organized.

Does this approach remind you of anyone? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney.

This is her natural instinct. This is her style. This is her EXPERIENCE.

Hate it with Cheney. Hillary is no better.

So, let’s go to ELECTIVE experience.

She has ONE full term of elected office. ONE term in the Senate. That’s it.

She got it because?

Because she was married to Bill Clinton.

She’s gotten everything in her professional life because of WHO SHE WAS MARRIED TO.


She walked into NYC, and ran on her husband’s coattails.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, wasn’t even completely well known on the South Side of Chicago, let alone the state, when he ran. But, he did the hard work. The grunt work, going from town to town, winning over the voters, until he earned the Democratic Nomination.

Same thing for President.

She expected a coronation.

Barack Obama wants to be elected.

Huge difference.

He’s done the work for it; going state to state, raising the money – FROM THE PEOPLE – not PACS or Lobbyists – FROM THE PEOPLE. He put together the organization, state by state, from the ground up. Doing the hard work. Doing the grunt work. Presenting himself to the American people, and trusting them to respond.And, they have.

Is part of the ‘ Experience’ mantra of Bill Clinton, is that HE’S part of the experience?

So, you’re telling me that the reason we should elect the first FEMALE President is because she’ll bring ALONG A MAN TO HELP HER?

Hillary Clinton’s EXPERIENCE can be whittled down to 2 pivotal moments:
1. Her handling of Health Care
2. Her vote on the Iraq War – a vote in which she has NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR.

Don’t we already have a President that makes bad decisions, and refuses to live up to the mistakes that they bring? Why the hell would we elect another? And, she was on her way TO IRAN, until the NIE came out.


Let’s get this straight, once and for all.

IF you tell me that you’re choosing a candidate based upon ELECTABILITY – then you should be going with JOHN EDWARDS – you see that, in the history of the United States, there has never been anyone elected other than a White Male, and he’s a White Male.

I wouldn’t like it. I would think you were wrong. BUT, I wouldn’t think that you’ve lost your mind.

BUT, do not try and shill me, that, a woman who HALF THE COUNTRY has already told you, they will NEVER VOTE FOR, is the one that is most ELECTABLE.

This is a year out from the November 2008 elections, and HALF THE COUNTRY has told you they will NEVER vote for her – and, in what world, does that make her more ELECTABLE?

I am not naive. I fully know that Barack Obama could be a victim of a ‘ Bradley Effect’. But, for him to get where Hillary is RIGHT NOW TODAY….the ‘Bradley Effect’ would have to the size of a TSUNAMI.

I’ll remind people again.

Barack Obama is NO OLDER than when Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992.


Barack Obama was a Senator from a state with 12 million people.

Bill Clinton was Governor of a state of only 3 million people.

Who had a harder road to tow to election?

Obama’s response?

Obama throws back Bill Clinton’s 1992 quote in his face…….
Q: Can you respond to President Clinton’s comments last night when he asked when was the last time we elected a president with less than a year of service in the Senate before running for president. Can you respond?

OBAMA: Well look this is an argument they have been making during the duration of this campaign. I guess, here is a quote: (he reads) ‘The same old experience is irreverent, you can have right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience and mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change’ … and that was Bill Clinton in 1992.

Other comments from Obama:

Obama cites ‘over a decade’ of experience
“And I’ve been involved in government for over a decade,” replied Obama.

The Illinois senator said he had “the experience that the country needs right now, of bringing people together, pushing against the special interests, of speaking to the American people about what needs to be done to move the country forward.”

When asked about Sen. Clinton’s reference to possible “surprises” coming out about her rivals for the nomination, Obama said, referring to the senator and the ex-president, “The argument they’re making is that they’ve been around a long time. So whatever negative information is out there, people already know about. The assumption, then, is that lurking in other candidates’ pasts that haven’t been around for 20 years there might be something.”

But Obama said “I’ve probably been more reported on than any political figure in the country over the last year … I hardly think that I’ve been under-exposed during the course of this race.”

He added, “I understand there’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn…. I recall what the Clintons themselves called the ‘politics of personal destruction’ — which they decried. My suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at right now. They are not interested in politics as a blood sport; they’re interested in governance and solving problems” such as job creation and product safety.

The sense of ENTITLEMENT REEKED from Clinton during the Charlie Rose interview. And, that is exactly why he, and his wife, need to be sent packing. She is NOT ENTITLED to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES because she suffered the public humiliation of his philandering.

This is as nice as I can be. There was another undercurrent in that interview, but maybe I’m too ‘ sensitive’ as a Black person and picked up on it. If any other Black folk saw the interview, maybe they’ll tell me if they picked up on the undercurrent too…….

Related Posts with Thumbnails