Apr 19, 2007 10:08pm

Former President Bill Clinton Talks ’08 Politics’

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller Reports: Former President Bill Clinton appeared on CNN’s "Larry King Live" Thursday evening in his first television appearance since his wife announced her candidacy for president.

Clinton commented on the strong democratic field of candidates vying for the nomination, "We have got a good field. No one has to vote against anybody. And that means that people are free to vote for the person who is most likely to be the best president."

When asked what host Larry King dubbed as the "Obama threat," Clinton said he’s not surprised by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, "he is a very gifted man politically."

Analyzing the Republican side, Clinton pointed out that it is still so early and he does not know which Republican candidate he fears most.

"I still think Senator McCain is a very durable character. He is a very admirable man," and speaking abut the former governor Mitt Romney R-Mass., "(he) raised a lot of money and has done some important things in his life."

Speaking about the other New Yorker in the race, Republican and former mayor Rudy Giuliani, Clinton said, "…he is sort of frozen in time in a very good way for himself on 9/11, whereby comparison to others he looked very good. I mean, he had served well. But all of the other issues that might be brought into play are only now beginning to creep into the public consciousness."

On his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton’s D-N.Y., run for presidency, the former president commented, "I think it would be best for the country if she were elected president. But if voters make another choice, she is a great senator and she loves her job and we will have a good life."

Clinton went on to defend his wife’s 2002 vote for the Iraq war which has turned into a sticky campaign issue for her, "She has had some difficulty because of the insistence of some people in characterizing the vote on the Iraq War Resolution back in 2002, saying that everybody who voted for that voted for the war."

Clinton explains framing it this way is factually inaccurate, "…if you read the resolution, it says that the president is authorized to attack Saddam Hussein if the diplomatic efforts, that is, the inspections, fail," and went on to insist, "I think the reason she hasn’t apologized is she believes that some future president, even if it is not her, some future president may need coercive inspections, the U.N. may need it in the future."

When asked by King how much he would be campaigning for his wife, Clinton responded, "I don’t think it’s helpful, really, for me to be out there too much now. I try to do some of Hillary’s fundraising here in New York because they will accept me…" but said he would be helpful with whatever he is asked to do.

Looking ahead, Clinton also spoke to his role if Senator Clinton were to win the White House, Clinton debunked the myth by saying it would be illegal if he’d be allowed to be secretary of state, but kept the door open to any involvement his wife would allow, " if she asks me to do something, whatever it was, I would probably do it."

User Comments

Clinton (Bill) sounds very logical for a change. He may find himself back in the White House. He certainly will have no difficulty finding his way around.

Posted by: Kottaras | April 20, 2007, 2:57 am 2:57 am

They are well versed in the art of lying, and very convincing, which takes years to perfect, and they have it down. Don’t be fooled by the deception, that’s how it all happened before.

Posted by: Mike | April 20, 2007, 8:19 am 8:19 am

This is like so many other things in life, you do not fully realize their value until they are no longer there. As an independent, I have come to the conclusion that at this point in our history, and nothwithstanding the freak show of politics, the country would be well served with the Clintons in the White House.

Posted by: bill | April 20, 2007, 9:53 am 9:53 am

Will the Clintons be bringing back the carpet the took up from the Whitehouse floor if she wins the election? I am all for a woman as president…..just not Hillary Clinton. One Clinton was enough! Please NOT Hillary for president!

Posted by: David | April 20, 2007, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm

When the second term of George Bush Senior, ex-head of the CIA, was “snatched” away by Bill Clinton all hell broke loose. This interupted the “Bush Dynasty” and the right-wing political machine kicked into full gear on an agenda to smear. Remember “Whitewater,” and the myriad of “scandals” fed to the panting press? Anything to discredit and recapture the presidency for the neo-con new world order; Supreme Court appointees, tax relief to the ultra rich, and Iraqi oil to name a few. So this next election is pivotal. Now it’s down to a few questions; Is America more Racist or Sexist? That’s a hard call. Is America smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors of the months leading up to the next election? Has the dumbing down of America actually worked? Who is America more afraid of a black man or a strong woman? Holy Moly! Who needs a soap opera when you have American politics? The only fly in the ointment is that people are dying in a misguided manipulated War. I can see Karl Rove sniffling while writing “Dear Diary, gee, the email erasing went o.k. but gosh darnit I’m having a tough time with this next election. I’ll have to have some coco and go to bed.”

Posted by: sandra l | April 20, 2007, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm

The carpet they took may be worn out by then David.

Posted by: Kottaras | April 20, 2007, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm

At least there was nothing under the carpet David.

Posted by: sandra l | April 21, 2007, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm

He is a master at back tracking and making excuses, not only for himself but now for his wife. He could lie his way out of just about anything.
Here is an idea for the Clinton’s; how about “take responsibility”? Ever heard of it?
For once …take responsibility for something you have done? How about …be honest? How about quit thinking you can snow the American People each and every time you open your mouths??
You haven’t fooled me one bit.

Posted by: Ann B | April 22, 2007, 10:45 am 10:45 am

I would really like to know the yardstick by which honesty is measured. Is this the same one you use on the G.W. Bush Administration? So let me see here now War or oral sex, that’s a tough one. People dying, or consenual sex? Hum..? As far as “taking responsibility” there is such a vast array of issues to choose from that G.W. Bush is in denial of much less even in the realm of responsible action. However the “hate” machine seems to be effective. A conqueror worm in the apple of the American Pie.

Posted by: sandra l | April 23, 2007, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.