The Onion headlines one of its parodies, “Bill Clinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President'”. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart mocks Bill’s claim to have overheard incidents of voter-intimidation in Nevada, noting that Bill and his entourage do not exactly fade into the wallpaper.
Thus, mockery of the Clintons spreads beyond the purview of Sen. Barack Obama and left-leaning bloggers.
Of course, this is not the first time the Clintons have been a laughing-stock.  They were comedic targets in 1992 and 1997-98.  The Clintons survived both periods, winning the election in 1992 and his impeachment trial in 1998.
However, in the past, comedians targeted Bill’s inability to keep his pants on in the workplace. This time the subjects are the implied co-presidency the Clintons offer and Bill’s honesty with respect to the political, rather than the personal. Those doing the mocking are not conservative talk show hosts, but left-leaning humorists. As previously noted, a psychological line may get crossed that permanently erodes — to some degree — the style of politics the Clintons made dominant in the 1990s.
(h/t Memeorandum, HotAir.)
The scrutiny won’t stick, nor will the jokes, though I wish they would. Watching them eat their own is very satisfying.
What’s scary is that, given the opportunity, Bill would run for president over and over again, and he’d see nothing wrong with being president-for-life.
Washington left office voluntarily, setting a model for the new country of the presidency as a temporary office. No one person should be viewed as absolutely essential to a nation or everything falls apart. That way lies arbitrary rule, rather than rule of law.
I got The Onion’s World Fact Book for Christmas. Sheer brilliance.
I don’t know if the American public wants Bill running around acting as co-president. The more the point is made that electing Hillary will also result in Bill having a heavy hand in running the country will turn many people off. I think many people who are undecided or might lean towards Hillary haven’t thought of this aspect of voting for her.
I disagree, Ken.
I think Hillary’s appeal lies almost solely with the wistful yearning many Dems feel for Billy Jeff. Throw in an immortal desire to see him vindicated in light of his impeachment at the hands of evil Rethuglicans and their Grand Inquisitor, Ken Starr (hey, it was just a blowjob, get over it!), and you can see why they would like to have back around. Plus, no one really likes Hillary. Not even Bill!
Kelly, I agree re: hardcore dems and their intentions. But what about all those undecideds and independents? If Hill was running alone, say with Bill locked away on an island somewhere, perhaps those independents might lean her way. But just the thought of Bill back there and semi-running things has to be a major factor in deciding on whom to vote.
Chubba?
Stick a fork in him – he’s done. He just can’t keep his mouth shut, and every time he opens it, it becomes more obvious that he is an egotistical shit-for-brains.
I don’t think he has realized yet just how many people are onto his schtick. He takes it for granted that his BS will fly, because he is so much smarter than us mere mortals.
I have taken to calling him “Chubba”, because it is so obvious that that is what the sound of his own voice gives him.
Believe me, Ken, no one would like to see and hear less of Bill Clinton than I. But I don’t think too many of the independents and undecideds are too keen on her either. Candidates’ “likeablity,” for better or worse, is still very important and from what I’ve seen Barry has more in his right index finger than Hill has in her considerable thighs.
LD: I laughed out loud at “Chubba.” But I thought you had christened a new moniker for…Hillary!
Hillary! has three things going for her.
Number one is name recognition. The vast majority of Americans, including those who vote, don’t pay much attention to anything outside their own neighborhoods. When they get to the polls, they look for a name they recognize. This is the purpose and function of both TV ads and what Karl calls “the ground game”, though the TV ads make the most difference in that respect. One of the things that sank Thompson was simply that when people saw the name, their response wasn’t “what’s he for?” but “who?” Hillary! has been in the news regularly for fifteen years, so people recognize the name.
Number two is identity politics. IP has been around for a long time, but it’s only been lately and by strenuous effort that Democrats have been able to make it crucial. There are a substantial number of people, primarily themselves female, who will vote for Hillary! simply because she’s a woman.
And number three is Bill. This divides two ways. If she were the wife of an ordinary citizen or a minor (up to Representative level) politician, she would never have been even considered for her Senate seat, much less as a Presidential candidate. As Bill’s wife she inherits the political machine the two of them put together, and is working it as hard as she can turn the crank; but, IMO more importantly, there are large numbers of Democrats who want Billy Jeff back and are making a Lurleen Wallace / Ma Ferguson maneuver to accomplish that.
Independents are really only susceptible to the first two, except to the extent that the Clinton Machine can keep her name recognizable. Committed Democrats largely respond to the last factor, Bill, either from a machine point of view or the Lurleen Tactic. Bill’s antics won’t affect committed Democrats in any way, but it’s already possible to see negative reactions among independents to them. Long may he wave.
Regards,
Ric
What’s scary is that, given the opportunity, Bill would run for president over and over again, and he’d see nothing wrong with being president-for-life.
He’s our own little Peron – and Hillary is his Eva (Evita is a diminutive… OK, that was just mean).
Would Hillary and Bill argue over who’s in charge?
“a psychological line may get crossed that permanently erodes  to some degree  the style of politics the Clintons made dominant in the 1990s”
Insh’allah. I’d really rather come home from helping finish off AQI (and helping set the Iraqis on their feet) to a country that had rid itself of the horrid stain of Clintonian 1990s politics. Or, in the immortal words of General Melchitt in Blackadder IV “no use winning the war over here only to go home to Blighty and find everyone wearing overalls and breaking wind in the palaces of the mighty.”
Clintonism and flatulence stalk our land like two great… stalking…..
things.
Hey! What did I ever do to deserve that?
Look…Bush would have been a much more effective president if he had gotten an occalional blow job in the Oval Office. Are there any interns who will step up and do their part to help redeem the last year of the continuing disaster known as the Bush Administration?
Why don’t you, dave? You’ve probably gotten some good practice with the staff of Mother Jones.
Oooooh…snappy comeback there, Kel. Two problems with that. First, I’d never qualify as an intern, since I didn’t graduate from Messiah College or Patrick Henry. Second, I’d like the Bush administration to stand as a monument to clusterfuckery for the next generation to learn from, so I have no interest in seeing it redeemed. Looks like you’ll have to take on that job yourself.
dave. As you grow up and learn more about the life of an adult, you’ll learn that you never screw around with anyone who has less to lose than you do. But hey. If he’s your hero.
[…] mockery of — and anger toward — Bill Clinton’s role as hatchet man for the campaign of […]
[…] Clintons continue to make themselves a laughing-stock, the object of mockery. Clintonian über-spin is so […]