New explanation of Obama-fail: it’s Bill Clinton’s fault
Bill Clinton, who was to the 1990s U.S. economy as Jud Buechler was to the Chicago Bulls in the same era (that is, he knew his role was to sit on the bench and stay out of the way), is now being accused by the New York Times of hurting President Obama’s re-election efforts.
The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.
Indeed, that plan may have been a stupid idea (and one that ought to decrease lib’s Clinton nostalgia as well as their undying—and inexplicable—notions of his political brilliance). Why? First, because the plan depended on unending attack ads to depict Romney as someone he isn’t and second, because it’s self-evident that Mitt Romney is not a severe conservative.
Similarly, it was also inept on Weak Willy’s part because after one term of Obama, most of America seems capable of realizing a “severe conservative,” that is, the ideological and policy opposite of the President, might better serve the nation than the whirlwind brought by Barry and crew: unemployment, the unsustainable explosion of the welfare state, an unpayable debt bomb, foreign policy fails, etc.
So maybe there are two lessons here: 1) Bill Clinton isn’t all that and 2) Obama can do bad all by himself.
In the meantime, the left is already starting to explain away the President’s impending defeat. Next, it’ll be the hurricane depressed turnout by liberal voters. Finally, it’ll be that Americans don’t know what’s good for them.