Oh, boy! Obama camp announces 'big role' for Bill Clinton in fall
A campaign spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama today told a reporter that ex-President Bill Clinton would play a "big role" in the upcoming general election campaign.
This could be the usual unity hoo-haa leading up to Friday's joint Obama-Hillary Clinton appearance in, of all places, Unity, N.H. This, after their joint appearance in Washington on Thursday before many of her top fundraisers.
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not reveal to Bloomberg reporter Kristin Jensen how the campaign might use the former president.
"A unified Democratic Party is going to be a powerful force for change this year, and we're confident President Clinton will play a big role in that," Psaki said.
Not that there would be any political conniving among fellow Democrats because the Republicans are so collectively evil and any personal party ambitions must take second place to that or be seen to anyway.
But can you imagine all the conceivable subversive subplots inherent in the husband of the defeated Democratic candidate campaigning for the man who beat her? And if Obama just happens to lose, the door to 2012 is wide open for, oh, look, the Clinton wife again.
Of course, both Clintons want to appear to work hard for ...
... Obama, now that they've stopped suggesting that his South Carolina primary victory was a fluke like Jesse Jackson's and saying, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"
Even during the vicious closing days of the primary season when Sen. Clinton was desperate for Democratic support, as The Ticket noted here, she obviously refrained from attacking her close friend, John McCain, by name, targeting instead the Republicans or the Bush administration.
At times she even praised McCain as well experienced to be president on Day One while Obama "has a speech he gave in 2002."
Bill Clinton has been largely silent since the primaries' end, mentioning Obama only in passing in a recent Miami speech. Hillary Clinton said all the right things in her "I-give-up" speech and has held conference calls urging supporters to switch to the freshman Illinois senator.
But a number of Clinton's longtime supporters like Haim Saban have opted out of the "Now we're helping Obama" effort.
And Bill is gonna have to be a whole lot more disciplined out there on the wild rodeo speaking stumps mouthing the message of his wife's vanquisher than he was speaking on behalf of his own spouse.
Many days from January 2007 until The End, when he wore that funereal black suit to the surrender, he walked all over her intended campaign theme of the day by creating distracting news through yet another angry confrontation over something else.
How much control will the Chicago Obama crowd have if it really does give Bill Clinton a "big role"? Can't wait to watch this. If they show up with a knife, you show up with a gun.
One measure of Hillary's profound appreciation for Bill Clinton's campaign months of "help" was that she left him completely out of her online campaign photo book, 20 double pages of pictures that did include Chelsea but had no room for hubby. Thanks, hon.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Photo: Associated Press

Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the
If the Clintons are playing a big role in Obama's campaign, then he has blatantly lied about "change." Obama WILL lose my vote.
Posted by: anonymous | June 24, 2008 at 03:50 PM
If the Clintons are playing a big role in Obama's campaign, then he has blatantly lied about "change." Obama WILL lose my vote.
Posted by: anonymous | June 24, 2008 at 03:51 PM
The author of this article is an idiot.
Posted by: Mark Tarango | June 24, 2008 at 04:32 PM
I voted for Obama because he was not associated with Clinton (Bill or Hillary). If Bill & Hillary are going to be part of the Obama campaign I guess it's time to take another look at McCain.
rg
Posted by: Rob Garcia | June 24, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Why is this coming up as news in google news? This is meaningless drivel hypothesizing based upon a single sentence followed by some tenuously related details of the preceding 6 months. What happened to investigative journalism? This guff is no replacement for real news (a disappearing art form these days).
Learn how to contribute meaningful analysis rather than forcing "reality" tv style drama into world events.
-WTH
Posted by: wth | June 24, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Oy vey ! Why Hillary does not dump the lousy bum is beyond me . And why did the MSM keep quiet about Bill"s
womanizing on the campaign trail. The man is a sexual
pervert and a compulsory cheater. It burns my a$$ that a
good man like Spitzer had to resign after over-sex Bill goaway with murder.
Posted by: Mindy Cakolovitch | June 24, 2008 at 04:40 PM
That Former President Bill Clinton has a place in this campaign not only makes sense but there's not another way to secure the election for Mr Obama and his running mate unless he doesn't select Mrs. Clinton as his VP Candidate.
One More thing
There's al ot of euphoria going around about Mr Obama's
Campaign and by November this could become even more exciting. But this Election could be America's Last Hope for Survival as a Nation.
Beware the Trojan Horse
Vote for America
Into the Future and Back to the Age of the Pioneers
dePaul Consiglio
the101one
Posted by: dePaul Consiglio Monsey NY USA | June 24, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Wow! Could this article be any more biased? I mean come on, "the Clinton wife", how demeaning!
Posted by: FriendlyKoala | June 24, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Bill. Don't do it!! For the love of all...don't support Obama!
Posted by: Cheryll | June 24, 2008 at 04:52 PM
If HRC were not Bill's wife, she would be just another housewife. The only reason she won the seat in the Senate was because she is Bill's wife. The only reason she was a potential Democrat Party Nominee is because she is Bill's wife. This is how she shows her appreciation for her husband?
Bill should stay away from Obama as Obama will ruin him further.
Posted by: Clyde Nugget | June 24, 2008 at 04:54 PM
I still believe in Hillary... I and my friends will boycott this election if Hillary is not the VP...
Posted by: edith buenaobra | June 24, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Wow, how far back did you have to go to dig up that photo of Bill? That looks like something from SNL! What kind of a column is this anyway? Oh... I get it - I see the author worked for Laura Bush.
Posted by: Benny | June 24, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Why in all of the available photos of Bill Clinton did the Times select this one, or take this tone in the piece?
Posted by: Steve Soto | June 24, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Bill did a great deal of damage to his own image and that of Hilary.... but what lost the campaign was the manager for Hilary who messed everything up, Once the campaign manger was changed she "got on message" and Bill was told to take some Vicodin and Vodka and shut up... suddenly Hillary had a shot.
Either way I'm an independent and interested on fixing problems; not party politics nor dogma.
Posted by: x | June 24, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Bill for VP
cherez les bon temps roll
Posted by: e jones | June 24, 2008 at 05:07 PM
If Obama wants to show some real judgment, he will only give a MINOR role for Pres Bill Clinton. Stop trying to get the Hillary lovers to like you and therefore vote you, Obama.....they're sore losers, and yes, they are bitter, clinging, uneducated, and do I dare say, racial if not racist.....
Posted by: 08vote | June 24, 2008 at 05:09 PM
What do you expect from Slime?
Posted by: Pj Pinol | June 24, 2008 at 05:10 PM
This is garbage news!
It is not even news, it is political commentary of absolutely no value.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2008 at 05:23 PM
The best way that Bill Clinton can help Barack Obama to become president is to stay at home, close the door, turn off the lights, don't answer the telephone and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Posted by: jimsparks | June 24, 2008 at 05:29 PM
This is such a ridiculous dog and pony show. These so called presidential candidates are barely qualified to manage a Taco Bell drive thru restaurant. They're clowns. McCain is senile and crazy and Obama is just a smooth talking schmoozer. Now they're telling us that Bill Clinton is going to play a role. Why? In a nation of 300 miillion people we need to bring back this embarassment of a president. What's next, John McCain will make Dubya his Secretary of Defense.
It's freaking ridiculous cronyism and corruption. What is wrong with you America? This presidential race is nothing but entertainment drivel. These people can not lead the country. They're a joke!
Posted by: TruthIsTreasonComplianceIsPatriotic | June 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM
This whole blog post was more of an unfocused rant than anything else. Get your mind right, old son.
Posted by: Me | June 24, 2008 at 05:33 PM
I hope this is more ficticious wrighting. I really dont wan't to see that loser speak for Obama.
Posted by: Larry Oregon | June 24, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Is Obama outta his ever livin' lovin' mind??? He can't do this without the Clintons??? Keeeryst. I thought we were accomplishing something outside the box. It's beginning to look like the same ol' same ol'. Obama, why? why? why.
Posted by: primarywatcher | June 24, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Bill Clinton can interview all the future White House interns.
Possibly he could be a bell clerk for the Lincoln bedroom.
He also has experience in developing outgoing administration presidential pardon lists.
This man has much to offer.
Posted by: N.E. BodybutHillary | June 24, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Politics is a practical business where enemies can be useful
for common interests. For the Clintons, it was the debt relief that makes the difference, plus the Clintons have the connections, but for Obama, there is a grave danger for getting sucked into Bill and Hillary baggage.
One wonders who was the deal maker. Hope not the Diane Finestien. However, the forced marriage may lead to a disaster.
Posted by: Winemaster2 | June 24, 2008 at 05:47 PM
I would never vote for Obama, however, how can he even begin to trust the Clintons? They are vultures waiting for the road kill.
Posted by: Laney Daigle | June 24, 2008 at 05:58 PM
This is starting to get weird. It seems that we are being forced to pay attention to everything. Is this some kind of government mind control experiment. They are giving us no time to process the information. We are bombarded with constant chatter. I guess this is the first time I actually paid attention to this political circus and I am regretting it. With all of these old white men dying around us, I'm reminding of an old saying "It comes in 3's" (I'm sure I'm paraphrasing). With all of the hype and lights, I'm reminded of the phrase "Pride cometh before the fall". The Republicans are putting a Senior citizen against the first Black Presidential nominee. Do you think they are trying to lose? Maybe by putting someone with a much smaller amount of experience in control. Have you ever seen a child drive a car for the first time? Things have a very high chance of ending badly. An unsuccessful term will be humiliating for Black people. Then they will use that to scare people away from ever supporting another Black candidate and will keep it white for the rest of time. I'm not saying that's the plan................................ but it's possible.
OBAMA '08!!??
Yours Truly,
Area 52 - invisiblebystanders.blogspot.com
Posted by: Invisible Voter | June 24, 2008 at 06:05 PM
all you suckes who thought 'yes we can' change something just re-discovered the truth about the democratic party elite
nothing ever really changes, it's all run by the ACLU and Move-on.org and the mob, err, the unions rather.
welcome to reality losers
Posted by: laughing at the dems | June 24, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Quote: "If the Clintons are playing a big role in Obama's campaign, then he has blatantly lied about "change." Obama WILL lose my vote."
Make that two of us. So much for "change". It's politics as usual. Senator Obama, you have just lost a supporter. How is he going to explain all those anti-Obama remarks made by Clinton?
Posted by: willy | June 24, 2008 at 06:12 PM
Any body that votes for Mccain is just downright stupid.
So what, he had an affair, which man hasn't, wives just fool themselves about faithful husband. You guys pretending to be Mr. perfect, and don't have affairs pplleaase!! Don't throw stones. Anything is better than
Mcbush,OPS, sorry McCain. So if you continue to lose your homes and jobs I aint' sorry for you all, you voted Bush in and he is the worse of the
worse. Clinton was good for this counrty, a lot of you all got rich and had a good life when he was president. Be GRATEFUL, I would give him 50 more women
to have a good life instead of eight years of depression and the worse lie of all WAR.
Posted by: JAMES | June 24, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Quote: "Clinton was good for this counrty, a lot of you all got rich and had a good life when he was president. Be GRATEFUL, I would give him 50 more women
to have a good life instead of eight years of depression and the worse lie of all WAR."
Hilarious, the president has nothing to do with the outcome of the economy. The executive branch does not make the laws. He proposes the budget and it is up to the legislative branch to make the laws that carry it out. The Republicans were in charge of the congress during the Clinton administration. They came into power shortly after he was elected and were still in charge when he left. Where has the economy gone under a democratic congress?? Straight down the drain.
Posted by: willy | June 24, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Was this piece wrtitten by Rona Barett? I know it wasn't Perez Hilton because he's as biased in the Clintons' favor as this writer is against them.
Posted by: tim | June 24, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Obama is a mass manipulator.
Bill won't play his game.
Posted by: yael | June 24, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Bill Clinton could not get anyone elected besides himself. If you remember, he had no "coattails" and lost both Houses of Congress. He had no ability to get any Democrats to either the House or the Senate. By general consensus, his incredibly inept efforts and even bizarre performances on his wife's behalf, lost Hillary the nomination. Why on earth would Obama (or anyone for that matter) want Bill Clinton to "help" them campaign?
"Slick Willy," like most con artists, are egoists and can only draw on personal charisma towards themselves. He cannot promote anyone else. Al Gore wisely did not give Bill Clinton any role in his campaign. Gore would have lost not only the electoral vote but the popular vote as well, if Bill "helped" him.
Posted by: lorax | June 24, 2008 at 07:01 PM
the clintons are extremely bright and very necessary in this administration (remember surpluses) they are well liked by world leaders (yes, that helps).
Obama is smart enought to know exactly that, then he picks John Edwards or Jim Webb as vp, and stop the onslaught of extremist judges and we may still have some hope. These people know what they are doing. With the exception of nafta, Clinton was a very excellent leader.. we need as much real intelligence as we can for a change. let's stop the ugliness and leave that for the rightwinger. I voted for Hillary, and now will support Obama 100% .... she is!
Posted by: sah hesh | June 24, 2008 at 07:11 PM
quit the ugliness and leave that to the righties.... the clintons are bright people, well liked by world leaders (yes, it matters) we need all the help in changing this country that we can get. Now if Obama appoints john edwards or jim webb as vp. There just may be hope. Most nasty comments i see about the clintons are completely unfounded and mean, with ;no substance.
Posted by: sah hesh | June 24, 2008 at 07:19 PM
The Clintons are being ased no deanded upon to ensure BOS success
Why should they?
BO has done nothing but undermind and trash them for months
I say they should let him do it alone
but either way they will be blamed for his demise as his supporters blame him for nothing
Posted by: betty | June 24, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Wow, some amazing journalism here. Did they really just start a headline with "Oh boy"?
Not to mention the fact that the entire article could have been summed up in two sentences:
A campaign spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama today told a reporter that ex-President Bill Clinton would play a "big role" in the upcoming general election campaign.. Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not reveal to Bloomberg reporter Kristin Jensen how the campaign might use the former president.
Am I hired?
Posted by: joe bob | June 24, 2008 at 07:36 PM
We all know the saying: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." That's all Obama's trying to do by saying Bill will play a "big role." In fact, announcing they'll be a "big role" for Clinton is probably the most intelligent thing I've heard from the Obama camp. Unfortunately, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE LYING, MANIPULATING OBAMA IS UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT AN INTERNSHIP POSITION.
Posted by: Bob S | June 24, 2008 at 07:37 PM
The only way I will vote for Obama is if Hillary is given Vice-President, but I still don't feel comfortable with him. How far do they want to go in groveling before this guy because he paid off their debts? The whole thing is scary. Everyone bow down to Obama and GOD DAMN AMERICA! When do people finally say no to this guy?
Posted by: Lynn | June 24, 2008 at 07:45 PM
To those of you complaining of bias and poor journalism: this is a BLOG POST, not an investigative article. It is written in a lighthearted, witty, irreverent manner, just like everything else Don Frederick and Andrew Malcolm have done since they started writing this blog. It is a piece of commentary that employs satirical humor, much of which pokes fun at the sometimes flawed media perceptions surrounding the candidates as much as it skewers the candidates themselves.
There are traditional, neutral, serious-in-tone articles covering the presidential race elsewhere on this site. I'd encourage you to seek them out if that's what you came here looking for. If Google or another news aggregator presented this post as news, it is *their* fault for not reading the post closely enough and assuming it to be a traditional news article just because they saw "Los Angeles Times" at the top of the page. By all means, give your opinion of the quality of the writing presented here, but for heaven's sake, don't blame the author for providing irreverent commentary when that's the whole point of his job.
Posted by: Niall | June 24, 2008 at 08:41 PM
This is the exact reason why DEMOCRATS will lose again.
Pathetic.
How to rule a country or make a decision with that kind of indecisive behavior?
They can't even beat someone like Bush. They had their chance. How do they hope to beat McCain?
McCain is so much better than Bush.
If Dems lose this election. It's because of their bickering. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Posted by: Vincent | June 24, 2008 at 08:53 PM
More garbage from malcolm. I've come to realize that this blog's only meaningful comments come from Don Frederick. LA Times, time to dump malcolm.
(Agreed. Malcolm should go. But then who would approve your pro-Clinton whining over all these months? And your hilarious defense of Larry Craig last summer? Thanks for being such a steady customer.)
Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Your artical is nothing but garbage and shamefull.Peresident Clinton was the best president of our generation and you know it. He may not be as perfect as some of you idiots but the sum of your IQ's will not reach his . Stop being so bitter and hatefull and maybe then you'll be able to deal with your own weaknesses.HRL is a bright and capable woman that like all human beings made a few misstakes and with a great deal of help from our stupid media lost to Mr. Obama with a narrow margin and that is the end of that story. So get a life and for the betterment of humanity vote for Obama.
Posted by: mahvash | June 25, 2008 at 02:47 AM
I believe Mr Obama must keep his distant from the Clintons. Obama must remind himself that Bill Hillary And Chelsea could in many ways represent or refresh the idea of old politics. I saw a diffrent Bill during the Dem Primaries, which i consider unsporty.
Posted by: Adolfo Aguirre | June 25, 2008 at 06:37 AM
Bill Clinton was only the third worst president our country has had. The worst was Nixon followed closely by George W. bush.
Bill is the kind of man that you keep an eye on whenever he is around your money or your children.
Posted by: N.E. BodybutHillary | June 25, 2008 at 01:36 PM
There's your change for you.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Obama has spoken and his message is cronyism. Pure and simple. No qualifiers. Wake up America!
Posted by: Brock Lesnar | June 27, 2008 at 01:14 AM
i fail to understand why she is still holding on and sapping funds that could otherwise be used for his campaign. she is enforcing a double standard because BHO certainly wouldn't be granted the politicol clout do 'hang around' after he was vanquishe and further more ... she simply wouldn't because he can undrerstand normal thinking ... keep clawing hilary ... you know like the dignified woman you've been up to this point!
Posted by: aaron | June 30, 2008 at 05:34 PM