I have a theory, but it's not really complete yet. It's based on how to reconcile two disparate sets of facts.

Fact Set 1: Bill Clinton is the smartest political operative of my lifetime. While his private choices have been questionable, his purely political ones have been uniformly excellent.

Fact Set 2: Bill Clinton made one of the dumbest political blunders of the primary with his race-baiting spin on Obama's SC win, the effects of which are only now being seen.

Here's the theory: Bill Clinton wants Obama to win!

It's the only rational way to view it, really. Did the man who beat Gingrich by shutting down the government really not see two chess moves ahead to the effects of what he was saying? Particularly when it was so transparently not an off-the-cuff remark? No! Hell, no!

I tell you, if you view Bill's actions of the last month through this prism, it all makes so much more sense. And, of course, it's much more comforting. Which is the best thing about theories like this.

Thanks, Big Dog! Thanks for helping Senator Obama! We always knew you wouldn't desert us!

collin...

do you think that on some unfathomable, psychological level, bill clinton may not want hillary to win?
that in their co-dependence and control for power, he may actually be rejecting/rebelling against a secondary position for himself, and it is demonstrated in this way?

(i am sure there remains an undiscovered 38th play of william shakespeare, somewhere on the archaeological site of the globe theater.)

I love Collin's take on Bill Clinton's behavior. It is a comfort....

More anecdotal evidence of a shift in America: My stepdaughter and her husband in S.C. re-registered as Democrats to vote for Obama.

Hell officially freezes over.

Caroline's endorsement mattered to me, but not because she's the daughter of a famous president.

It's because she's the mother of three teenagers, all of whom support Obama. I'm in a similar situation.

My daughter has supported Obama from the beginning, and there's no way I would want her hopes to be dashed, her budding political leanings ending in disappointment.

Of course, it helps that I've always leaned toward him as well. But knowing my daughter felt the same way has been a huge factor.

"Here's the theory: Bill Clinton wants Obama to win!"

This is my wife's theory, too.

I think I've heard it all now. Are you people serious about Bill wanting Obama to win? Why? Obama would replace him as the de facto head of the Democratic Party. And that is only for starters. When did Bill like playing second fiddle to anyone?

The only way to really sell my theory, I think, is that we need a rational explanation for exactly why Bill would not want Hillary to win. Since I don't subscribe to the winger theory that theirs is a sham marriage of convenience, my job in concocting a rational explanation is tougher. But that's not to say it's impossible. Is it irresponsible to speculate? It's irresponsible not to!

We start from the premise that Bill wouldn't do something like this without a reason. Bill is a rational actor. Bill doesn't make political mistakes. Also, Bill is ambitious. Think Bill wants to spend the next eight years as First Hubby? Me neither.

So . . . what can Obama -- as Prez -- give Bill that Hillary couldn't?

Answer: Supreme Court appointment. The Big Dog wants to be Taft.

If Hillary nominated Bill, it would kill her presidency. It would smack of nepotism. He could be her Sec. of State, and not many would complain. He could be an ambassador and there wouldn't be a peep. Hell, he could be Atty Gen., and after the last 8 years, nobody would complain. But . . . the Court? No. She wouldn't be able to do that.

But Obama could. There would be no charges of nepotism, for one thing. It would solidify the Democratic party. Even though Roberts would be the Chief Justice, people would probably start referring to it as the Clinton Court. Coming from the post-partisan Obama, it would be more difficult to filibuster the appointment.

It all makes perfect sense, if you think about it. It plays into our two biggest pre-conceptions about Bill: that he's relentlessly ambitious; and that he doesn't make dumb political moves.

Of course, I am always open to other explanations.

"do you think that on some unfathomable, psychological level, bill clinton may not want hillary to win?"

Then again, when has Bill ever treated her right? Besides, campaigning for her by race-baiting is a poor substitute for being a bad husband and humiliating her more publicly than possibly any woman in American history.

JK's c, I don't think you're really taking my theory in the spirit in which it is offered.

collin:
And Clinton has given any hint of this, when? Does he even practice law at all anymore? It's even more fanciful then the talk a month or so ago about Hillary appointing Obama as a Supreme if she wins.

JK's c:

Clinton does not practice law anymore. You do not need to be a practicing lawyer --- or even a lawyer at all --- to be a Supreme Court Justice. The only position in the Federal Government requiring a law degree is Solicitor General.

But, again, I don't think that you're taking my suggestion with the proper grain of salt.

Dunno if Bill actually wants Obama to win-- although I've seen plenty of older men who seem to resent their wives' increased interest in work just as their own drive is diminishing-- but I still think that Obama's his proper political heir* & Bill's efforts to take him down may be creating some internal conflict.

*he's far more disciplined & self-aware than Bill, of course, but has similar appeal to an audience.

And, finally, "I read Caroline Kennedy's endorsement, and if her and Ted Kennedy are endorsing, he must be okay."

Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: A President Like My Father

I Like my father, but I would not want him president...just because I liked him.

I liked JFK, but like my father, I would not want him president now either.

JFK got Viet Nam going and put our troops into a civil war. Right now, our troops our in a civil war...JFK would not have the answer.

JFK inherited a strong economy with a resilient manufacturing base and made it stronger. Whoever is our next president, that person will inherit weak economy with a manufacturing base that has all but disappeared.

None of the top candidates including Miss Kennedy's choice have addressed both these issues. Edwards has said he would withdraw the troops to nearby Kuwait which is both strategic and hospitable, but he has not outlined an Industrial policy. Clinton does have experience with bad economies and has proven adept, but thinks the war is going alright.

Then we have Obama who says he is against the war, but he has supported the war ever since he took his senate seat. Obama was raised in one of Hawaii's most exclusive enclaves and supported to the age of 32...I guy who said "yeah...I've done some blow". I say, hey, aren't we just getting rid of a president like that?

No Ms Kennedy your choice is not like your father. As a reminder, your father took a high risk Navy job in the South Pacific fighting the Imperial Japanese, at the same age Barack Obama was in a drug induced haze supported by his family's inheritance from the Armour meat packing fortune...yes both JFK and Barack Obama were born to wealth and privilege, but JFK was truthful on the matter and did his military duty, Barak on the other hand lies about his upbringing and has never shown any sense of duty outside that which serves his interests.

No Ms Kennedy this isn't your father's presidency and it should not be Barak's either.

Teddy's endorsement is more helpful to Obama than a Gore endorsement, believe it or not.

This is the first moment since NH where I've actually thought Obama has a viable shot at the nomination.

As Ezra notes, the key here is older demographics. Teddy helps precisely where Obama has been getting slaughtered by Clinton.

On some level, family members are the cab drivers of electoral politics, the folks media types turn to because they let us into their thinking, while the rest of the electorate remains stubbornly opaque.

This is one of the wiser observations I've read in a very long time. It articulates for me why I have been so struck by what my non-political family members tell me, and the thoroughly irrational extent to which they ALL -- Democrats, Republicans, and Bush-hating independents alike -- can't stand Hillary Clinton. It passeth all understanding, and it definitely shapes my view of her electability -- quite possibly more than it should. I went to hear Senator Clinton in Hackensack, New Jersey last week, and had to wait at the end of a line of more than 2,000 people. I never did get in. I never did hear her. But I couldn't help it -- notwithstanding the polls and the many, many enthusiastic votes she has already received, I cannot tell you how viscerally surprised I was to find a crowd that large of people who really, really LIKE Hillary Clinton.

Again, I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong here -- just that you're really onto something in the way we use family as surrogates to explain a profoundly opaque electorate. This is a VERY smart post.

I meant to take credit for that post about Hillary and my family. I keep inadvertently posting anonymously. Gotta be more careful.

FWIW, I just talked to my sister & it looks like my [Rockefeller] Republican BIL is liking Obama too... she only half-jokingly attributes it to his being a (Myers-Briggs, for those who pay attention to such things) INFP who can't resist positive idealism. There's my cab-driver contribution, anyway.

Then again, BIL thought Howard Dean was a very sensible Democrat, lol, so maybe he's not as different from my family of origin as he likes to pretend.

Maybe I'm alone in this -- my closest friend assures me that the blogosphere is not the Democratic party, and certainly the media, including the Lefty media, isn't either -- but this campaign has been the most disillusioning in my lifetime.

My friend, by the way, is a military wife, very active in her community, and she tells me she has not, among the many mostly Republican and Republican leaning people she regularly interacts with, when the election comes up, encountered the kind of Clinton hatred exhibited by Democrats in the blogosphere. She thinks people are taking this election very seriously and aren't very interested in personality and "character attack" politics this time around.

Perhaps my problem is I have been following the campaign too closely on the internet, but, for me the question is no longer which candidate to vote for, but whether or not I can support the party.

In terms of tactics, I don't see any innocents in this campaign. And despite the rhetoric, I don't see any strategy for unity. I just see the most ugly, divisive intra-party squabble in memory.

I can't respect a party that, rather than recognizing and respecting me as a voter, seems to have gotten whole-heartedly behind character-assassination politics and believes the best way to appeal for my vote is to "drive up the negatives" on their opponents, or their opponent's spouse. Especially when that spouse represents the only successful two-term Democratic administration in the last half century, who served the Democratic constituency, not perfectly, but better than any other political leader who served during that time. This is a bazarre kind of cannibalism that is hard to watch. And that says something very bad about how the party sees the voters. I'm not a voter who votes on the basis of hatred for the "other," and I don't want to be part of a party that doesn't respect me enough to appeal to me in better ways.

Take, for instance, the argument that the Clinton's are using race against Obama. Implied in that argument is one or both of two ugly accusations; that large numbers of Democrats can be persuaded to not vote for Obama simply because of race, or, that the Clintons' believe the Democratic base is racist -- because they would have to believe that to think race-based tactics would be useful to them.

Not believing either of those assumptions are true, I have to believe that the accusations against the Clinton's are cynical, and that all of those Democrats who argue for support of Obama on the basis of such accusations are both dishonest and disrespectful of me as a voter.

If I wanted to be treated in that way by my party, I'd be a Republican.

Just once I'd like to see Obama supporters make an appeal for my vote that didn't require rejecting someone or something. And instead showed an understanding of me and the issues that matter most in this campaign.

I can't believe in a message of unity from a campaign that so far has sown mostly division. And I can't believe in a party that let's this kind of behavior pass without a rebuke.

I don't want my vote, at a time as important as this, to have to come down to a choice based on who behaved with the least integrity during their campaign.

I should be able to expect integrity from all the candidates. Right now I'm not seeing enough integrity from either campaign, or from the party leadership as a whole.

"Barack Obama was in a drug induced haze supported by his family's inheritance from the Armour meat packing fortune"

WTF? Dude I'm sorry to say it but you've gone completely off the edge.

yeah, ezra, interesting grandmother story. My mother is in her seventies and has literally never in her life voted for a Democrat for anything. Literally never, and she always votes. She just told me that she's voting as a Dem in the California primary so she can support Obama. I don't know if this bodes well for him or not. Is the Republican Grandmother constituency big enough to help him? But I do think it's interesting. His message is reaching a broad swath of people, even if I can't exactly figure out what that message is.

Esmense: you didn't explain how Edwards offended you. He happens to be in the race, too.

Ezra, I quickly caught that it would have an impact on the older crowd. Yet Obama's weakness organizing among Latinos remains. A Bill Richardson endorsement this week could help, so let's keep our eyes open.

I don't believe the Kennedy endorsement will win CA or MA but it should win him a few more delegates. And that's what he needs for Super Tuesday, not to outperform Hillary but just to stay close in the delegate count.

The other February primaries after Super Tuesday give him plenty of time to catch up.

Damn, I think care more about EK's grandmother's endorsement than I do either of the Kennedys'.

S. Brennan: I can't really believe your comments. First of all, if you don't see the similarities between Obama and Kennedy, you are not being objective (to put it nicely), furthermore, the similarities are between the people, not the circumstances of the country. I suggest you go on UTube and check out some JFK videos and look out for 1.)the speaking style and 2.) the message. Furthermore, I think Caroline and Teddy Kennedy are more reliable a source on who is and is not like JFK. And while you are educating yourself, take a look at "In Retrospect" by Robert McNamara to get a better understanding on the initial decision making involving American policy in Vietnam, it was a little more complicated then you are presenting it.

"Implied in that argument is one or both of two ugly accusations; that large numbers of Democrats can be persuaded to not vote for Obama simply because of race, or, that the Clintons' believe the Democratic base is racist -- because they would have to believe that to think race-based tactics would be useful to them."

I don't think it's that well thought out. I think Clinton got pissed a dropped a few doosies.

Neither Clinton thought that they would be doing this-- they were both in coronation mode. Now they're pressed and BC's "black president" mask is starting to wear off.

This is just like how, having flung around a lot of "I will not answer that question" in the debates, HRC arrived in NH announcing that, okay, *now* she'll take questions.

Not the coronation.

Stef,

When I wrote [see below], I don't believe I addressed the:

1.)the speaking style and

2.) the message.

I addressed the background and paths the two chose to take.

Like the baby boomer he he denies he is, Obama represents the nihilism* of the 1970's.

*...a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.
________________________________

Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: A President Like My Father

I Like my father, but I would not want him president...just because I liked him.

I liked JFK, but like my father, I would not want him president now either.

JFK got Viet Nam going and put our troops into a civil war. Right now, our troops are in a civil war...JFK would not have the answer.

JFK inherited a strong economy with a resilient manufacturing base and made it stronger. Whoever is our next president, that person will inherit weak economy with a manufacturing base that has all but disappeared.

None of the top candidates including Ms Kennedy's choice have addressed both these issues. Edwards has said he would withdraw the troops to nearby Kuwait which is both strategic and hospitable, but he has not outlined an Industrial policy. Clinton does have experience with bad economies and has proven adept, but thinks the war is going alright.

Then we have Obama who says he is against the war, but he has supported the war ever since he took his senate seat. Obama was raised in one of Hawaii's most exclusive enclaves and supported to the age of 32...I guy who said "yeah...I've done some blow". I say, hey, aren't we just getting rid of a president like that?

No Ms Kennedy your choice is not like your father. As a reminder, your father took a high risk Navy job in the South Pacific fighting the Imperial Japanese, at the same age Barack Obama was in a drug induced haze supported by his family's inheritance from the Armour meat packing fortune...yes both JFK and Barack Obama were born to wealth and privilege, but JFK was truthful on the matter and did his military duty, Barak on the other hand lies about his upbringing and has never shown any sense of duty outside that which serves his interests.

No Ms Kennedy this isn't your father's presidency and it should not be Barak's either.

Posted by: S Brennan | January 28, 2008 1:22 PM

What I am trying to suggest, if somewhat ineffectively, is that I strongly disagree with the idea that JFK and Obama are dissimilar. I think that their similarities lie in their speaking styles, their messages and the effect these two components had on American opinion of and involvement in government. The fact that Obama is inheriting a less prospering America is only more reason to support a leader with the skills set require to lead as opposed to rule(which is what is suspect Clinton plans on doing). Furthermore, I completely reject the notion that because a person experimented with drugs or is considered wealthy by some, that he is not an inspirational or competent figure.

"he's far more disciplined & self-aware than Bill"

You apparently do not know how Obama spent his time in Springfield.

Brennan-- about the drugs thing-- that's one of the reasons I like Obama.

Yes, Bush did drugs-- but he's never publicly admitted it. Even though it's common knowledge, we're supposed to all pretend to look the other way and make a special exception for him-- the Bush presidency in a nutshell.

Clinton did drugs too, but immediately weasels out of any responsibility for it: "but I never inhaled...."-- The Clinton Presidency in a nutshell.

Obama did the same thing, but he actually took responsibility for his actions.

That's the difference.