MyDD :: Clinton and the Connecticut Event

Clinton and the Connecticut Event

by Matt Stoller, Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:48:02 PM EST

Apparently the Bill Clinton event was supposed to start at 4pm, but Clinton still hasn't arrived. It's not unusual for ex-Presidents to be late, but it's still an embarrassment.

And here are the rules of the event. No video cameras. No cameras. No recording devices.

Only the traditional press can record anything. Ordinary citizens, not so much.

And there are metal detectors.

Joementum!

(If you haven't already, check out this video of Barbara Boxer having to answer for her exceptionally poor decision to act as a surrogate for Lieberman.)

Tags: Bill Clinton, Connecticut (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Ambush interviews (none / 0)

After the ambush interview being discussed by some over at dKos (look for a diary by skippy), I am not surprised about the rule against recording devices.

Once burned, twice shy.

by dataguy on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:51:50 PM EST

Re: Ambush interviews (none / 0)

While ignoring you're somewhat tortured logic about equating an "interview" with merely having a recording device to have an accurate record of what was said....

how exactly is it an "ambush" to ask questions about previous on the record statements at a public campaign event?

You seem to have an interesting defintion of "ambush"

by avagias on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ambush?!? (none / 0)

It's not like Barbara Boxer was cornered in the bathroom or something. I asked her a question while she was taking questions from people and members of the press. How on earth could you consider that an ambush?

(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)

by Maura in CT on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 12:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and the Connecticut Event (3.00 / 1)

You know what, I didn't fully understand the whole Clinton/Lieberman thing until right now. The whole time we, the progressive blogosphere, have been viewing this the wrong way. The Clintons aren't helping Lieberman because they like him (as today's event shows), they are helping him because they might need him in 2008.

Its a win-win for HRC. If Lieberman wins, and as an incumbent that would seem likely, then HRC now has Joe and his allies in her back pocket for 2008. If, on the other hand, Lieberman loses, then HRC has got 2 years to patch things up with Lamont. And of the two, Lieberman strikes me as more the vindictive type. As a Machiavellian move, its pretty good.

Now for Bill Clinton, this is the ultimate form of revenge. Lieberman, the guy who publicly stabbed Bill in the back during impeachment, has to crawl begging to Clinton to help him out. And Clinton obliges, but disallows anyone to record him being there. Plus, he arrives late. All this to remind Lieberman where his place is. Damn. . .

by Jim Treglio on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:03:41 PM EST

Hillary and Ned (none / 0)

Please it won't take 20 seconds to patch up relations between Hillary and Ned should Ned win the primary. Hillary doesn't even need to send money, Lamont is running now not two years from now and in any event really doesn't need the cash. Anything less than a HRC backing for a Lieberman Independent Run is a win for Lamont.

Bill is exhibiting a loyalty down move that frankly Joe never exhited in loyalty up, and the winner in this is Bill and by extention Hillary. Backing incumbants is what the Party is expected to do, I don't even blame the Party for officially backing "9,000,000 cent" Jefferson. But once Democratic voters have expressed their will the bets are off. You go against the will of the local party then some people are going to get pissed.

by Bruce Webb on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary and Ned (none / 0)

Lamont and HRC: Yep, Lamont will be easy to appease if he wins. First, he's smart enough to know where he stands as a challenger and political novice. Second, someone is going to have to show him what's what in the Senate if he wins.

Bill and Joe: what you said is true, but Clinton is making Lieberman kiss his ring for the help. That's what good politicians do, and Bill Clinton is the best politician out there. Make no mistake, there are strings (if not chains) attached to this appearance. All in all a good play.

As for the voters, well they get to choose. If Lamont wins by 10 points or more (8 or 9 will do as well), then Lieberman is done. No one will support Joe, financially or otherwise.

by Jim Treglio on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and the Connecticut Event (none / 0)

There must be cameras there because I just saw a good bit of it live on Chris Matthews. I think they would have showed lots more if it didn't run into the end of the show.

by DonBinTN on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:18:26 PM EST

Metal Detectors (none / 0)

To be fair, Matt, the metal detectors are a secret service deal, not something that Lieberman or the President wanted. Or could have objected to, probably.

by LaX WI on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:25:24 PM EST

Re: Clinton and the Connecticut Event (none / 0)

Bill Clinton's stumping for Joe Lieberman is less about his supporting Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary, and more a warning shot across the bow to us, the liberal base. It was Sister Soldjah Redux.

by Maeven on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 01:33:18 AM EST

Re: Clinton and the Connecticut Event (none / 0)

Clinton's support for Lieberman is all about maintaining the favors of certain large donors to the Party for whom neocon Lieberman is a favorite. Clinton has been suborned by them in behalf of his wife's need for their support in 2008.

by Bob H on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 07:26:57 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.