"Kevin is right to call Clinton statesmanlike in all this. Good for him. It should be considered a warning to the Democrats who are running to the far-Left because Clinton has better political instincts than all of them put together," writes Mr. Schramm.

A mere month ago, the same Peter Schramm told us "See John Fund on this issue, on the harm he has done to the Democrats, and how it is inevitable that he will continue to be in the limelight. He is still a newsmaker, but standing for no principle, still their best fundraiser, still full of himself, still full of charisma, but still tyrannic in every movement and with every breath. As Shakespeare has Pericles say: "’Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss." Pity the Democratic Party."

Wow. Yesterday’s tyrant is today’s statesman is most likely tomorrow’s occupant of the White House! Which is why Clinton said what he said. How easily he fools even those who actually know who the man is. What charm, what an unbelievably great liar this Clinton is, that he is able to so easily decieve even the elect.

Recently, President Bush, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington Cemetery, said: "The moral force of democracy is mightier than the will and cunning of any tyrant." It would appear, given Clinton’s wiles, that this claim will be severely tested even in my own lifetime. Pity America. :(

Randy Barnett has a fantastic article indicating the strategy of the new left...

Since the 2000 election, however, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world — a world where “truth” is their own construction. In their world:

Al Gore was elected president. Bush was selected. The Supreme Court “decided the election” (rather than reversed a rogue Southern state Supreme Court and restore the rulings of local, mainly democratic, election officials). Bush is in the pocket of the oil companies. Dick Cheney really runs the country. Bush’s energy plan would destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I could go on and on. These are not disagreements about “values” or ends, but disagreements about facts. Once you notice this phenomenon, you see it everywhere. Now the Left is lying about Bush to make him appear to be a liar because they cannot catch him in any actual lies. The question is whether they believe what they are saying. Some do, some may not, but millions certainly believe what they are hearing.

Thanks to Jared at Exultate Justi.

Mr. Lamb’s point is taken. I should have been clearer. I do not think that Clinton is a statesman, but sometimes he speaks (and even acts) as if he were one. And that should be appreciated when he does so even though one can’t fully trust him. That is, even though he may have said all that in the interview for low Machiavellian (i.e., to benefit his Party, or his wife or himself) reasons, it is still the right thing to say. I understand that it is the most useful thing to say, hence my note about not confusing strategy for tactics (and vice versa) which the hard (perhaps unMachiavellian?) left does. They are incapable of learning, even from Clinton. To be "statesmanlike" is not to be a statesman. Sorry to be unclear. I still think him tyrannic to the depths of his soul.

Fair enough.

"They are incapable of learning, even from Clinton."

One must never lose sight of just where the Clinton’s sight are set: returning to the White House. Based upon that axiom is the sole reasoning behind everything they say and do. And with that goal in mind, one should understand that the Clintons cannot permit a Democrat (other than Hillary) to win against Bush next year. To do so would nullify a Hillary run in 2008 (plus Clinton would lose his place as head of the party, fundraising notwithstanding). So it would be foolish for the Democrats to listen to anything he has to say (with regards to presidential politics). Furthermore, I think it safe to say that if Bush looks beatable next summer, Hillary with steal the nomination at the convention.

That is the proper context to parse anything the Clintons do or say in the coming months.

Let me refine that:

Furthermore, I think it safe to say that if Bush looks beatable next spring, Hillary will steal the nomination before, or at the convention.

Bill O’Reilly was praising Clinton tonight for his show of "support for President Bush."

Abject b.s., is what this is. How easily we forget what a crumbag this charmer Clinton really is. Imagine, just as Commander in Chief Bush is about to send American troops into harms way, the former president Clinton has this to say about said Commander:

Former President Bill Clinton double-dissed President Bush last night, saying his successor in the White House has bungled handling the U.S. economy and the crisis over Iraq.

Clinton, who drew standing ovations from a packed auditorium at the 92nd Street Y on the upper East Side, criticized the administration’s economic policies as "wrongheaded" and getting worse.

The U.S. should be strengthening the UN and other "mechanisms of cooperation," Clinton said. "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we’re not the biggest power on the block."

Unprecedented, to say the very least. This Clinton guy is bad news, folks! No matter what he says, it should always be considered that he is lying right through his teeth, and that his motives are as self-centered as a giant blackhole.

Even tyrants, ideologues, and the craven can utter truths from time to time. That was all that was meant by that post (and I’ll affirm Professor Schramm’s reply in Comment 3 -- an occasional, possibly self-serving, statesmanlike action does not a statesman make).

Not to worry, I’ve not had too much Texas sun and I’ve certainly not begun to worship at the altar of the former President. But his comments in this instance are politically informative even if they are, as is suggested in comments here, entirely self-serving.

Bill Clinton would still make a better President than anyone in the current Democratic field, his wife included.

Clinton is not really a tyrant. His moderate "New Democrat" policies were not incredibly different from Bush’s "Compassionate Conservative" ones. The United States has never really had a tyrant for a president. There is no reason to pity America.