Your rant here started off by setting up the equivalency of a politician using a private charitable organization as a political stage prop, to politicians making politically… charged…slanted…controversial….(add your own descriptor) public statements.

For anyone who may be interested, here’s a link to a local Arkansas station’s report. I’m not sure what an appearance by Bill Clinton would’ve served and in it, nor the intro paragraph to the (paid) Democrat-Gazette article or the thing on Huffington Post do I see mention of Mr. Olbermann.

The gist of Christopher’s case is that govt financed health care will help people and that’s all she wrote. When you put something on this sort of standing, all arenas are fair game for the fray, and pity the poor fool of an ex-president who intentionally or unintentionally finds himself doing the right thing by refraining from using the laudable private actions of others as his own political stage prop.

It’s the personal is the political to the innth degree; when it’s gotten to the point where you can’t tell the difference between politicians and partisans from volunteers at a private charity.

The best you can hope for in a discussion with this sort of dynamic is that eventually the Christophers of the world tire of the hall of mirrors and come out for a look around.

Apparently Tommy thought a third-hand report of a paraphrased conversation was a “slam” against some television personality, so he put together a big long post as payback. And yes, he subjectively thinks that Mr. Olbermann is doing something noble, but instead of putting a post on this site congratulating him for his efforts, Mr Christopher wrote a big long thing attempting to tear down a former President for following tradition.

I’m sure in some Congressional districts, the two Bushs are still popular, I wonder how Tommy would feel if suddenly they started making political appearances in opposition to Mr Olbermann’s agenda. I know that back during Bush Sr, I was wicked happy that Ronald Reagan wasn’t targeting specific Congresspeople to thwart my party’s efforts.

I’d tell you to put down the glue, and come back when you are able to comprehend simple sentence, but I don’t believe in reincarnation.

Oh, and in your answer, do you think you could be a just a tad more self-referential of what are your subjective viewpoints?…

We wouldn’t you to slip up and give in to temptation of treating your own opinions as though they might not be tantamount to irrefutable truth.

Oh…THAT makes sense…

And I’m sure you’d have been just as critical of Bill Clinton had he refused to use free clinics for photo-ops, if Sean Hannity had used the C.A.R.E. organization as emblem (and bludgeon against ideological opponents) of what can happen in health care if private volunteerism and charity became a part of community health care incentives.

As for the health care bill, I think a point a lot of people miss .. including the media ..is if you look at the electoral map, it is easy to see that the democratic party power base is in the cities, which happens to be where all the hospitals are located.

Like the so called stimululs bill, which in my opinion was nothing more than an 800 billion dollar tax payer gift the the teacher unions .. healtcare unions .. civil servants and other govt unions. The healtcare bill is another 800 billion dollar tax payer gift to the democratic strongholds that are the big, medium and small cities of america.

President Clinton was asked a simple question about his possible attendance at a life saving event, and went out of his way to defend his fellow conservadem and attack those who are “sick” of DINOs undermining progressive policies.

President Clinton’s administration succeeded wildly (especially compared to the last eight years and the twelve that preceded him), despite his incessant compromising of progressive principles.

The disastrous era of corporate deregulation, demonizing government, and rolling over for failed conservative policies are over, Bill; go home or go raise money for worthy causes.

Clinton responded that Olbermann was politicizing the clinic, and that it wasn’t helpful for Olbermann to do that. He said he did not feel he could show up now, because the event had turned political.

Clinton replied that the event was becoming political, and that it was clear what was happening: a primary of Blanche Lincoln.

I still don’t know anything about this event, except what I’ve learned via the posts on this site. Maybe it was a good thing, but the quote from Olbermann and your response is purely political. Bill Clinton has publicly spoken about health care reform; He has privately lobbied; He has helped with the strategy; He just didn’t think it proper to attend an event, to which there’s no evidence he was ever formally invited because one of the public faces (and some of his followers) have made it political.

(I mean seriously, you say that it wasn’t important for Clinton to attend the event and you wrote a long vitriolic rant, all because he truthfully gave his reasons and because you thought the three paraphrased sentences were somehow disrespectful to a television personality?)

Staying out of one-on-one politics is a tradition that started with George Washington
Perhaps you don’t like it, but you’re not a former President and you weren’t the one, the blogger invited.

We could subsidize free clinics and give intensives to hospitals to have said clinics on their property to better support the overflow of people that do not need to be in the emergency rooms. These are just a couple of things, but what we need to realize is the true reasons costs are high and to work with our ‘partners’ in the industry to make the system stronger so that people, business, doctors and facilities can all benefit.

Spoken like a true Olbermann fan.

If you don’t agree with me… shut up.
If you want to criticize me… shut up.
If you vote against me… shut up.
If you criticize someone I support… shut up.

Now sure, we could expect that there is a level of respect for Presidents, or former Presidents (remember how much the left cries anytime a whacky right-winger says something rude about Obama or another Democrat)… but when it comes to the left’s criticisms… “shut up,” or even “STFU” is acceptable.

Let’s not forget it was Olbermann who said that Bush should “shut the hell up” (only because, in his works, he couldn’t say “F**k” on television)… and now Tommy runs with it, and tells Bill Clinton to “STFU.” I’m no fan of Clinton’s… but respect for elected officials, even when you don’t agree, is important. That is… unless you’re an angry Liberal, in which case, say whatever you want. A sad state of affairs to be sure.

Do you interpret Sen Graham’s comment to be a “smack” against Beck? If a blogger invited Sen Graham to a Beck event and if he gave the same answer as President Clinton would that be a “slam”? And if so, how would you have felt about that “slam” and would it have merited a post?

If we wanted true policy debate, then the news organizations like MSNBC, FOX and CNN would get to the details of these proposals that are going in for a vote. Instead, all they talk about is the partisan divide, what one side says about the other and so on.

The “news” organizations have yet to fact check, digest, or delve into the actual bills since this debate became part of the mainstay of the everyday coverage. Whet we need is a true debate, and what I understood this site to be (and why I enjoy being an avid everyday reader of the site) is to call out the media to do their job and hold them accountable. It is certainly sad that this country has limited their thinking to idealistic partisanship, rather than true and informative debating of the FACTS.