digg

Join DiggAbout

Bill Clinton on "the person who wants you to hope" watch!

youtube.com — In 2004, Bill Clinton described "one of Clinton's laws of politics": "If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes; you'd better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gwayo, on 03/01/2008, -7/+50Tell it, Bill! W00t!
    • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/01/2008, -6/+6None of the candidates that are Council on Foreign Relations members, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers or Bohemian Grove attendees give me any hope. There were two candidates that gave me hope, Kucinich and Paul, so I'm doing a write in.
    • knobtwiddler, on 03/01/2008, -4/+7ah, wise words from cocaine-dealing-murderer-globalist clinton.
    • spudnic, on 03/01/2008, -2/+8"Times have changed now, we have very real things to fear. To ignore them is just a further demonstration of Barak Obama's lack of judgement. Obama has his head in the clouds and lacks the experience needed to be president."*

      *Note: I don't believe a ***** word of this, but I guarantee you it's what the Clinton camp will say to backtrack.
      • jchrome, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Arg, my bad. My digg-up misfired. :/
    • sgtpppr, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Tell them what? To pick the lesser of two evils? American politics is a giant toliet bowl these days. I'm so glad I get the choice of which corporation to sell my freedoms to. Choice is everything.
  • kdawg1012, on 03/01/2008, -3/+156Damn, does that mean Bill Clinton is endorsing Barack Obama? LOL
    • keithburgun, on 03/01/2008, -1/+12Thanks for explaining the joke...
      • theone3, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1I wasn't aware that this was a joke.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/01/2008, -6/+0No it means that Baracka Obama Jr. stole the words....again.
      • Mejari, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3he stole the word hope? Owww, stop hurting my brain.
  • ichchappycat, on 03/01/2008, -1/+29Someone should edit these two videos together...
  • coffeebaby, on 03/01/2008, -12/+54wow... what happened to the clintons... i used to respect them so much before this election.
    • taffyhealscrowd, on 03/01/2008, -8/+24Yeah, I mean its not like they did anything scandalous before this.
    • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/01/2008, -10/+20You respected the Clintons? :points: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA.........
    • d03boy, on 03/01/2008, -8/+7Let me guess... you're voting for Barack?
    • masterm1nd, on 03/01/2008, -5/+14What does that tell us about your judgment?
      • cquinnd, on 03/02/2008, -2/+2That its better than the people who still respect GW Bush?
        • masterm1nd, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2And the people who think they know stuff when they really just stereotypically assumed it?
    • Stevanoski, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1We have been telling you Progressives for 16 years about the Clinton's and you have defended them at every turn. The Clinton's have not changed, your paradigm has.
  • okayokayokay, on 03/01/2008, -27/+5Dupe of a dupe of a dupe. Buried.
  • anluis, on 03/01/2008, -8/+29OBAMA 2008. Even Bill said it a few years ago, with his Clinton's laws of politics : "You better vote for the person that wants you to think and hope"
    • d03boy, on 03/01/2008, -1/+8yeah, I think the video demonstrates that. Thanks though..
      • writerwriter, on 03/02/2008, -2/+2y'know, you don't need to smack every commenter down... Just let them say what they will and keep scrolling, ok?
        • diceau, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2But then it's possible they'll make more stupid comments. Nah, it's better to say something. Otherwise, take your own advice, if they want to comment on someone else, they can, you just keep scrolling, ok?
        • thedude42, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2http://xkcd.com/386/
  • Revovisionary, on 03/01/2008, -3/+33I miss that Bill...
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/01/2008, -33/+5The leftists must be desperate to dredge up Slick Willie from whatever whorehouse he frequents in order to stump for the Dems.
    • lamprey187, on 03/01/2008, -6/+20The right wing must be desperate if they dispatched you to digg to spam political stories.
    • Grindelwald, on 03/01/2008, -2/+8This election is more important than your stupid "right" ideologies and your evenly stupid "left" ideologies.
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/01/2008, -4/+2Yep, CFR thug versus CFR thug, that's going to change the way things are done around here! /s
      • knobtwiddler, on 03/01/2008, -3/+3communists vs fascisct. choose one!
    • ozydingo, on 03/01/2008, -2/+3You don't quite get the point behind this post, do you?
    • goomba323, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2RIGHTIST!!!! I hope that hurt... :-(
  • Ecanem, on 03/01/2008, -19/+1Hope that the US voters are stupid enough to believe their propoganda so they vote for Clinton.
    • jon30041, on 03/01/2008, -0/+11This was in 04 in an endorsement for Kerry.

      Used now, it represents the fight between the fear mongering Clinton campaign and the optimistic Obama campaign. C'mon, buddy. You didn't see Kerry in there?
  • turdblossom1, on 03/01/2008, -5/+9haha. lying hypocrite bastards!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc
  • Dorke, on 03/01/2008, -9/+3hai guise.
  • rgersmrk, on 03/01/2008, -7/+11Is Bill announcing his support for Obama? LOL!
    • rgersmrk, on 03/01/2008, -4/+6Lol, shows me for not reading. He was endorsing Obama in 2004. I r idiot.
      • jon30041, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Kerry. He was endorsing John Kerry.
        • rgersmrk, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0Lol, yeah, I saw that on the video after I typed my response. Saturday hangovers suck.
    • halfdirt, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2For God's sake, you're the second person in the thread to reply "Is Bill announcing his support for Obama? LOL" right down to the braindead LOL. I swear.. . he is contrasting fearmongering with hope here. Hillary isn't fearmongering. This video is not relevant! You are dumb for thinking it is!
  • teknobryan, on 03/01/2008, -1/+101Obama should make this a TV ad. I could just see it.."I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message"
  • inobla, on 03/01/2008, -2/+15Vote NO on Billary!!
    • CdnPhoto, on 03/02/2008, -2/+1Billary?!?
      I thought it was Hillbilly
  • goldfenix, on 03/01/2008, -1/+14Irony, thy name is Clinton 2008.
  • merlinxlr, on 03/01/2008, -2/+14I can't handle another 8 years of a hypocritical lying snake. Our first step in repairing foreign relations is showing the world we're truly committed to progress. Make it happen. BAMA 08
  • Izz24703, on 03/01/2008, -4/+4So, I think it's time for Bill to start stumping for Obama...that is if he follows the ideals he portrays in this speech.

    ...Oh wait, that's right, the Clinton's have no ideals, nor any spines.
  • TecK415, on 03/01/2008, -1/+16They should put this on TV as an add for Obama!
    • Silv23, on 03/01/2008, -1/+3Hope Bill meant was he said there, because they seriously could spin that as an endorsement.
  • stophatecrimes, on 03/01/2008, -7/+1Get into the http://www.obamazone.com

    Brand New territory
  • yelnatz, on 03/01/2008, -4/+4This is more epic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk
  • bradcrc, on 03/01/2008, -2/+9of course, this speech didn't exactly prove that people will vote for hope instead of out of fear.

    they didn't in 2004 when he was making this speech.
    • oldgal, on 03/01/2008, -1/+4Well done!
    • HellDonut, on 03/02/2008, -0/+3The speech isn't meant to "prove" anything about people. It does, however, show how Bill Clinton will change his "laws of politics" to fit into whatever he wants you to believe. Before it was "hope == good"; now it's "hope == fairytale".
    • NonServium, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1"they didn't in 2004"

      How the hell do you know who the people voted for in 2004? All you know is that the rigged election machines said they voted in Bush/Cheney again.
  • chrisaug18, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, that was alot suites in the background
  • wrathofg0d, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1lol i love this, i hope it gets alot of attention
  • crazywarthog, on 03/01/2008, -6/+7ABC = Anybody But Clinton
    • powerfullogic, on 03/01/2008, -3/+1I agree I would vote for Fidel Castro before I voted for HillBill
  • rmeddy, on 03/01/2008, -2/+5Is Bill secretly sabotage Hillary?Think about it, if he kept quiet he would served her campaign a lot better than opening his mouth.





    P.S. I know this is from years ago so don't bury me but you may bury for this P.S.
  • GhostyBoy, on 03/01/2008, -3/+2Flip-flop number six-thousand-five-hundred-and-who-knows-I-lost-count for the Clintons.
  • kingUssop, on 03/01/2008, -7/+1Bill Clinton was the best politician of our generation. Obama's ok, but he doesn't have as much charisma to be perfectly honest. He looks and sounds angry a lot more than Bill Clinton ever has.
    • whalt, on 03/02/2008, -1/+3I don't know what you've been smoking but Obama rarely if ever gets angry in front of the cameras while Bill has spent the last several years in red-faced finger-wagging mode. I miss the old Bill too but he hasn't been around for a while.
  • detales, on 03/01/2008, -1/+7Just words. HA.
  • partrow, on 03/01/2008, -6/+1bury all of the politics threads.
    • iammii, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Oh, there are too many of those. How about we bury you instead? :)
  • iammii, on 03/01/2008, -6/+0I'm confused. I see John Kerry in the clip. Does that mean Hillary's flipflop on the issue is warranted?

    /sarcasm
  • chrisutley, on 03/01/2008, -4/+2This would be a powerful sound byte for Hilary, if there was a shred of truth to it.
  • dddavid, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1If only BILL Clinton was eligible to serve as VP for Obama. I bet he would endorse Obama/Bill over Hillary in a NY minute.
  • skinturtle, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=G-fkoctaB18
    (not Rick Roll)

    Perfect, but they should have added in a segment of Obama saying about people trying to scare up votes.

    This really needs to get out there.
  • twinhats63, on 03/01/2008, -4/+1Billery and Hillery are what Evil looks and sounds like.they are mostly to blame for the moral decline in america.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2No, an ignorant electorate fully accepting of government corruption as long as there's an R in front of its name is the cause of the moral degradation in our country. Gutted funding for schools is the cause of the moral degradation in our country. Greed is the cause of the moral degradation in our country. Bigotry is the cause of the moral degradation in our country.
  • RRJackson, on 03/02/2008, -9/+1Thursday, Feb. 07, 2008
    Inspiration vs. Substance
    By Joe Klein

    "We are the ones we've been waiting for," Barack Obama said in yet another memorable election-night speech on Super-Confusing Tuesday. "We are the change that we seek." Waiting to hear what Obama has to say — win, lose or tie — has become the most anticipated event of any given primary night. The man's use of pronouns (never I), of inspirational language and of poetic meter — "WE are the CHANGE that we SEEK" — is unprecedented in recent memory. Yes, Ronald Reagan could give great set-piece speeches on grand occasions, and so could John F. Kennedy, but Obama's ability to toss one off, different each week, is simply breathtaking. His New Hampshire concession speech, with the refrain "Yes, We Can," was turned into a brilliant music video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities. The video, stark in black-and-white, raised an existential question for Democrats: How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?

    And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

    That is not unprecedented. It has echoes of Howard Dean's 2004 primary effort, although in Dean's case the propellant was substance, not rhetoric — the candidate's early courageous voice against the war. But Dean soon found that wasn't enough. In June 2003 he told me he needed to broaden his movement, reach out past the young and the academic and find a greater array of issues that could inspire working people. He never quite found that second act, and his campaign became about process, not substance: the hundreds of thousands of supporters signing up on the Internet, the millions of dollars raised. He lost track of the rest of the world; his campaign was about ... his campaign.

    Obama would never be so tone-deaf, but he is facing a similar ceiling, a similar inability to speak to the working people of the Democratic Party (at least, those who are not African American) or find an issue, a specific issue, that distinguishes him from his opponent. And his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has proved herself tough, specific and reliable — qualities that become increasingly important as the economy teeters and as worries about the future gather in the land.

    This has become an odd campaign for Democrats. There is good news ... and fear. The good news is that this time the people seem far more interested in their party than in the Republicans. On Super Tuesday, at least 15,417,521 voted Democratic, and 9,181,297 voted Republican. And more good news: both Obama and Clinton are very good candidates who hold similar positions on most issues, moderates who intend to reach out to Republicans after they are elected — although, given Clinton's undeserved reputation as a partisan operative, that may be a tougher sell for her than for Obama. But this is not a struggle for the ideological soul of the party. It may, however, be a struggle for the party's demographic soul — older voters vs. younger, information-age workers vs. industrial and service workers, wine vs. beer. There is also — and I will try to tread lightly here — the classic high school girl/boy differential: the note-taking, front-row girl grind vs. the charismatic, last-minute-cramming, preening male finesse artist. Both Clinton and Obama have difficulties reaching across those divides, and that is where the fear resides: neither candidate may prove strong or broad enough. As this campaign progresses, their weaknesses — the reasons for their inability to put away this nomination — are going to become more apparent than their strengths.

    Clinton's strengths are most apparent in debates, which is why she is pressing to have one each week. She simply knows more than Obama does. In recent weeks, she has been far more likely to take questions from the press and public than Obama is. That appeals to voters more interested in results than in inspiration; it especially appeals to the middle-class women, juggling job and family, who are the demographic heart of the Democratic Party. Clinton's weaknesses are intractable. They are wrapped up in her husband, who nearly ruined her campaign in the two weeks after Iowa but seems to have been relegated to the back of the bus in recent days. And they are wrapped up in her age. She is a baby boomer, of a generation that has been notably obnoxious and unsuccessful in the public arena. Perhaps the most dreadful baby-boom political legacy has been the overconsulted, fanatically tactical, poll-driven campaign — and Clinton has suffered whenever she has emphasized tactics over substance. Her lame attempts to "go negative" on Obama have been almost entirely counterproductive. Her husband's attempts to paint Obama as a "race" candidate — his resort to the most toxic sort of old-fashioned politics — only reinforced the strangely desperate nature of their campaign. It was the very opposite of "Yes, We Can" politics.

    Obama's strength is inspiration, and it's also his weakness. In the recent past, Democrats have favored candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions — usually to the party's detriment — and that is not Obama's game. After his Iowa victory, his stump speech had become a soufflé untroubled by much substance of any sort. He has rectified that, to some extent. He now spends some time talking about the laments of average Americans he has met along the way; then he dives into a litany of solutions he has proposed to address the laments. But those are not nearly so convincing as Clinton's versions of the same; of course, Clinton has a tragic deficit when it comes to inspiration.

    There is an odd, anachronistic formality to Obama's stump speech: it is always the same. It sets his audiences afire, but it does not reach very far beyond them. It is no accident that Obama is nearly invincible in caucus states, where the ability to mobilize a hard core of activists is key — but not so strong in primaries, where more diverse masses of people are involved. He should be very worried that this nomination is likely to be decided in the big working-class primary states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

    Then again, one of Obama's most effective lines is about the "craziness" of trying the same old thing in Washington "over and over and over again, and somehow expecting a different result." The first politician I ever heard use that line — weirdly attributed to everyone from Benjamin Franklin to Albert Einstein — was Bill Clinton. It is a sad but inescapable fact of this election that Bill and Hillary Clinton have now become "the same old thing" they once railed against. In a country where freshness is fetishized — and where a staggering 70% of the public is upset with the way things are today — the "same old thing" is not the place to be. Unless, of course, the next new thing turns out to be a mirage.
    • Siraf, on 03/02/2008, -2/+1tl;dr (well, not the whole thing)
    • ZenMojo, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2And then Obama won 11 states in a row. And Joe Klein shut his ***** mouth.
  • RhodesSkolar, on 03/02/2008, -1/+0Hillary Diane Rotten Clinton & William Jefferson Blythe Clinton are public menaces. Lie to my face. DON'T try to twist the truth and shove it in my face as though it were indeed not a lie. These two bozos are totally out of touch.
  • mattmollysdad, on 03/02/2008, -1/+3Bill Clinton was a master player. He could light up a room like no other candidate ever. He left behind a wonderful playbook but unfortunately Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary all hired political operatives like Terry McAuliffe who have never won.... unless they were selling Bill. Barack on the other hand has surrounded himself with a group of individuals who actually care about the candidate first... and they are copying the best of Clinton, best of Edwards, best of Dean and yes if the best of Hillary... and Barack is going to win.
  • dlayphoto, on 03/02/2008, -2/+0http://www.dlayphoto.com/behindthelens/2008/03/01/ ...
  • mikebritton, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Bill Is the new Jimmy Carter.
    'BAMA.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1The old Jimmy Carter was a badass ***** who never got credit for ***** and undeservedly got blamed for Nixon's stagflation and skyrocketing oil prices.
  • soulkitchen, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Great find!
    Its like this video was custom made to bite him in the ass at this exact moment.
  • kristov, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2This is exactly why BILL was such a great president - and his wife is not bill.
  • gangafreak, on 03/02/2008, -0/+0Great article and very wise words. I added you as a friend mostly because of this and I hope you will add me back. P.S. I promise not to spam you with anything lol
  • Chip53, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1"Hope" doesn't cut it. I want experience and knowledge. That means McCain.
  • libtec12, on 03/03/2008, -0/+0well bill was a good president, and had plenty of intelligent things to say...until he got caught with his ***** in another broads mouth cause he couldn't stand his crazy ***** wife..

    ever since hes had to not only live with the woman and support her conniving ways, but support her throughout her pathetic candidacy.
  • caponumen, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1If you people only knew the true width and depth of Clinton's deceit and deception.
    BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED !
  • eugene70, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0http://www.genericsmed.com
    http://www.generics.ws
  • portos12, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1This is sooo weird.
    http://www.e-uuu.com
    http://www.zzzn.org
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.