Posted on 09/15/2009 4:48:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
Bill Clinton Supports Gavin Newsom For California Governor
September 15, 2009
Seventeen years after Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown clashed in the 1992 race for the White House, the former president made clear today that bygones will not be bygones in the 2010 campaign for California governor: Clinton signed on to support Brown rival Gavin Newsom in the Democratic primary.
It is highly unusual – perhaps unprecedented, according to the San Francisco mayor’s campaign – for a former president to take sides in a California gubernatorial primary. But the bad blood between Clinton and Brown, now state attorney general, runs deep, much as Newsom would like Californians to believe that Clinton’s choice is based on merit alone.
“This is not some kind of payback on Bill Clinton’s part,” Newsom strategist Garry South said. “He doesn’t think that way.”
Tensions in the 1992 race for the Democratic presidential nomination peaked at a debate in Chicago, where Brown accused Clinton of “funneling money to his wife’s law firm for state business.”
“I don’t care what you say about me, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife,” Clinton snapped, shaking his finger at Brown. “You’re not worth being on the same platform as my wife.”
Clinton plans two stops with Newsom on Oct. 5 – a public event in East L.A. and a fundraiser in Los Angeles -- with details still to be worked out, South said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Gee, who is the most loathsome? Jerry Brown or the charming Gavin?
No , this is about the Clinton’s moving left as they Hillary’s comeback down the road. They will camp for every liberal nut out there.
If it’s a liberal, it’s just more of the same, no matter what name is attached to it.
Bill’s just on board for the tail Newsom will send his way
But he does need to retire though. He's been in public office way too long.
Between the two I would take Brown.
Jerry Brown, when he was running against Clinton in ‘92, made one of his best cracks ever during one debate. It was in this neighborhood.
Jerry came at Clinton, saying Hillary Clinton’s dealings might be a little shady. Bill responded: “She is the most honest person I know.” To which Moonbeam replied: “That’s the problem, you don’t know anybody who is honest.”
Me, too. I don’t think Gay-wad Newsome will win CA.
Calif. has term limits for governor. Jerry Brown already has served two terms as governor. I don’t understand why he can run for governor again. Even if it’s apparently legal for him to do so, it certainly violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter, since he has already served two terms.
Has he ever addressed this issue? Does he just dare anyone to bring it up?
I would back Brown too.
He’s an odd duck (and some of this will come out in interesting ways I’m sure), but he has a good reputation as a conservative, pro-business, pro-development mayor of Oakland.
Odd but true.
Newsom also has a similar reputation strangely enough, but is less inclined to be a maverick, and in office in SF he pretty much coasted. Which is better than the other, plainly disastrous options in SF, but still.
Neither is very liberal in fact. But who knows how either would do in office.
Well, neither is loathsome.
Neither has a reputation for corruption, and both have proven to be very pragmatic in executive office. Brown was quite a good mayor actually.
Neither is Villaraigosa for instance. California could do a lot worse. Small consolation, but its something.
We could certainly use a Republican governor of course.
Neither one will have my vote. So far, I don’t see much on the horizon.
That honor would have to go to Gavin.
The 2 terms limit law went into affect after Brown was governor. Thus is does not apply to him.
This is FreeRepublic. I hope you meant to say;
"We could certainly use a conservative governor, of course".
Neither is very liberal? Depends on the issue of course. But Newsom took the most extreme liberal position on homosexual marriage. His is the most extreme because he misued the powers of his office in what he thought of as civil disobedience. It’s one thing to have a position on an issue, it’s another to abuse your powers and misuse your office in a crusade to fix society.
Exactly, but the people of CA will never figure that out.
They will keep experimently with one liberal after another until they cease to exist.
Newsom was playing to the San Francisco crowd. That was pure politics. He is no crusader, for anything. That bit of rather empty grand-standing is his only really liberal episode.
He isn’t very liberal in any other sense in his administration of San Francisco. He has pretty consistently opposed tax increases, has opposed all the lefty anti-development efforts, has been pro law&order, etc.
There is only so much a somewhat-conservative mayor can do in working against the grain of SF politics, and he has been a rather hands-off administrator, but he has tried, I have to give him that.
We are very, very unlikely to get a conservative governor, this is California. Thats blue moons and flying pigs unlikely.
We could get a Republican at least, with luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.