Awesomely awesome: Clinton asks crowd, why vote for a guy you agree with if he can't get things done?

Just an innocent hypothetical, totally unrelated to anything in the news about a disgruntled bloc trying to decide between an ineffectual neophyte with whose policies they agree and an effective veteran with crossover appeal.

And to think, Politico accused him this morning of not being over the primary.

Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: “Suppose you’re a voter, and you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?”

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: “This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”

Quoth a panicky Paul Begala when questioned by The Hill, repeating his point as if trying to convince himself, “He’s totally for Barack. He’s totally for Barack.” Exit question: What does the media do with this ahead of tonight’s speech? Bill’s gaffes earned instant saturation coverage during the primary, but that was back when covering them helped Obama. This one hurts him as a juicy subplot undermining the sincerity of Her Majesty’s speech tonight, which is precisely why, I’m guessing, it’ll be downplayed. Drudge has it buried in a crowd of other teasers at the top of the Report right now, making it safely ignorable by the press. Will he go nuclear by fronting it and force their hand? Or will he remain safely hip-deep in the tank? Stay tuned!

Allahpundit Aug 03, 2021 8:01 PM ET