Former U.S. President Bill Clinton Campaigning for Hillary in Ewing on Friday (Updated)

Bill ClintonFormer U.S. President Bill Clinton will travel to Mercer County this Friday, May 13, to stump for Hillary Clinton. He will hold a public event in Ewing and another event in Passaic County.

The former president will be holding the “get out the vote” event at 3:30 p.m. at the Brower Student Center at the College of New Jersey, Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Thursday night. Doors open at 2:30 p.m.

Clinton won New Jersey in both general elections when he was a presidential candidate.

According to the Clinton campaign, he will lay out his wife’s plans for raising wages.

The Clinton campaign is gearing up for the New Jersey primary, which is Tuesday, June 7.

Chelsea Clinton visited Princeton last month to raise money for her mother’s campaign. The cost to attend a private reception with her at the event was $2,500 per person.




      1. it is a free event. I heard that everybody will get a hat and a bumper sticker (all made in USA)

    1. if by “war on on women”, you mean an economic policy that created millions of jobs and helped women raise families and escape poverty, yes, it’s coming to NJ.

      1. I didn’t view President Clinton as waging a war on women. Completely inappropriate behavior with Ms. L in the White House- yes.

        None-the-less this is what we were left to deal with:

        William Jefferson Clinton’s legacy associations – NAFTA, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (which put an end to the Glass Steagall Banking Act of 1933), The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconsolidation Act of 1996, Tax Code 162(m)- Deductibility of Executive Compensation, and Operation Infinite Reach – all of which, due to lack of foresight, contributed to the Great Recession and to further subjugation of communities of color.

        1. Seems pretty good, considering the legacies of other recent Presidents. Also set the stage for the health care overhaul.

          no one is perfect. he balanced the budget, started no new wars, stopped the Republican attack on the working class.

        2. You forgot granting China “Most Favored Nation” trading status. Closed hundred of American factories. Incredibly disrubtive to thousands of men and women in the manufacturing sector. Oh but he and his wife are champions of the little guy. Please!

          1. You are absolute correct. I forgot to mention Most Favored Trading Status granted to China. Thanks!

          2. Compared to the other and past contenders, they are champions of the common man. Maybe Bernie is even better. Health care is a big issue for the common man.

            1. Perhaps. But when one compares the Clinton’s rhetoric with their performance vis-a-vi the common man, it makes it worse. Hypocracy in the extreme.

              And I guess you never had a friend or relative incarcerated for a disproportional amount of time for a petty drug offense under the Clinton crime bill.

              Finally, aside from the fact that Clinton did nothing on health care, many common men and women are working pretty hard to subsudize able bodied folks – not the truly needy – who take advantage of Obamacare.

              Try again.

              1. I don’t see hypocrisy. I see an ability to get something done in the face of incredible odds. Remember that Bill Clinton never received 50% of the popular vote. He could have done more if he had more support.

                Like with health care. Nothing was passed but that’s not the Clintons’ fault. They certainly worked hard enough for it. Without them setting the foundation for the national debate, Obamacare would never have passed.

                With respect to Obamacare, it is a flawed situation, but the only one on which enough people could agree to pass. So far, no one has been able to propose an improvement that has a chance of passing. I hope someone can. Certainly, able-bodied folks shouldn’t be subsidized by others. But that requires an ability of people from different political parties to work together.

                1. The things Clinton got done hurt the little guy and even led to the death of our countrymen.

                  Free trade, NAFTA, MFN for China – all that was for the banks and the business elite. (Do you see how Hillary got paid off by those obscene speaking fees from Goldman?)

                  When the blind sheik tried to topple the WTC, Clinton put measures in place to make it difficult to catch those lunatics. It led to 1000s of American killed 9 years later.

                  And his crime bill destroyed many African American families, which had already been reeling for generations from slavery, Jim Crow, etc. People criticize these families for having no fathers, men at home. That’s because the federal government jailed many of them.

                  Commercial banks engaging in risky investment bank activity, which led to the crash? Clinton did that. Again he was cozy with Wall Street.

                  Your apologies and excuses for the Clintons are misplaced. They only care about enriching themselves and those already rich.

                  Try again.

                  1. Free trade and MFN are complicated issues. Does greater economic interdependence lead to greater worldwide prosperity? That’s the big issue.

                    On WTC, what measures are you referring to? It’s hard to conceive that anyone did anything with the purpose in mind that you describe.

                    The crime bill was a product of a time when there was significant crime in this country 20 years later, it’s time to revisit it. It sounds like you would have kept criminals on the streets. What good would that have done?

                    The great recession was caused primarily by fraud and the zero-interest rates of the Fed that led to the housing bubble. The fraud should have been detected but for the slashing of government regulation by the Bush crowd. And there’s no sin in accepting large speaking fees. it’s what you get with notoriety. See Sarah Palin.

                    1. No sin indeed. But when one Hillary Clinton repeatedly and annoyingly styles herself as someone who is going to fight for the common person, it’s a little incongrous to learn that she repeatedly took hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking engagement from the Goldmans and its ilk.

                      Many of the people Bill Clinton took off the streets – for very long prison terms – were only drug users. Hardly criminals or harmful to anyone other than themselves. (You or your family must not have suffered from this action.) He did that because he was threatened by the results of the 1994 mid-terms and the ascendancy of Gingrich et al. Clinton craved the maintenance of his power over helping common folks. He pivoted.

                      As far as your economic theorizing goes, the US never got back from China what was anticipated from the MFN deal; e.g., unfettered access to its market, commitment to honor our intellectual property rights. Instead we don’t get to sell much of our stuff there because Chinese company’s knock us off. It’s been a lose, lose situation for America, especially if you are a former factory worker, which I would guess you are not.

                      Criticizing a Bush or a Pallin to support your position is a false dichotomy. One need not chose one over the other. They can both be bad.

                    2. I often do business with people whose opinions I don’t share. I think that is one of the strengths of this country. I don’t see anything wrong or incongruous about it.

                      I think your Clinton criticisms have some solid foundations — he made many mistakes — but miss the overall picture. He was able to be elected and was better than the Republican alternatives.

                      Your WTC references seem off-base. The Jamie Gorelick testimony has been disputed (in that the “wall” had existed for two decades) and there are good reasons why it existed. Also, the “wall” didn’t legally prevent the sharing that was needed.

                    3. Having lived through the run-up to the Great Recession, I tend to blame ever-worsening standards for home mortgage lending, and the rise of home equity loans. Folks a the central bank ginned the economy granting easy mortgages–they did this in the 1950s too. Unlike in the 1950s, the banks developed a bond was backed by pools of mortgage payments. Suddenly one day–the housing market bubble burst, and the bonds were in default.

                  1. None did. That’s the problem with the state of the Republican party. They unanimously opposed the bill (similar to bills which Republicans like Mitt Romney and Richard Nixon had supported in the past), but had no workable alternatives. 6 years later, it’s still true.

                    1. How many Democrats lost their seats because of Obamacare? How many waivers did Obama issue to keep it running? Why are a huge number of insurance companies pulling the plug on Obamacare? People now have enforced insurance but they still don’t have healthcare.

                    2. How many people supported Obamacare based upon the President’s material misrepresentation as to the ability to keep one’s doctors and plan – the one for which he was awarded a Pinocchio Award by the WAPO. (His first of two consecutive such awards.)

                      While I’m at it, how many people supported the Iran Deal based on the blatant misrepresentation – promulgated by the Obama Administration and republished without question by the mainstream media – that Iran is no longer run by a bunch of blood thirsty lunatics but by ‘moderates’?

                      How many people are thoroughly disgusted by the fact that the relevant point men in the Obama Administration for Obamacare & the Iran Deal are now on record as gloating over the two aforementioned blatant lies?

                    3. These are some interesting points you make. Do you share the same outrage for misrepresentations and lies committed by the Bush, Bush, and Reagan administrations? The Iraq war and Iran/Contra seem to be lies of an entirely different scale than those above.

                    4. Thanks. And I didn’t even add the lie about Benghazi being caused by some dumb movie or the one about Bowe Bergdahl being a hero.

                      I try to look at things objectively no matter the source. You should hear me on Trump.

                      Iran-Contra – a clear falsehood.

                      Iraq? Although a horrible, dreadful, stupid mistake, I haven’t been convinced the WMD matra was a lie. All western intelligence agencies thought Saddam had them. Tenet famously told Bush it was a “slam dunk.”

                      Big mistake though. Not even Beyoncé could make lemonade out of that one.

                      But the troublesome part of Obama’s lies are the refusal of the left and the MSM to look at those objectively. They are so invested in the success of an African American President.

                      I find that patronizing. A President no matter what his/her race or gender should be judged objectively. Obama’s whole tenure has been “affirmative actioned” by the New York Times. The man could commit a triple homicide by blunt instrument and it would marvel at his technique.

                      How about you unnamed Princeton Resident?

                    5. Hillary voted for the Iraq war as did many Democrats. More Democrats voted for the Iraq war than Republicans voted for Obamacare and that was a tougher vote. I blame the inadequacy of the UN on the Iraq war and thankfully Trump is highlighting the UN’s inadequacy.

                    6. 15 million people are estimated to now have health insurance and health care who didn’t have it before.
                      There are problems with the Affordable Health Care Act. It would be great if the Republicans were willing to help work on fixing these problems. The only known Republican plan is to defund it and force those 15 million Americans to lose their insurance.

                    7. Remember the comment about civil discourse and republicans not having manners?

                      These numbers come from the federal government, not from a political campaign. They are facts.

      2. Not agreeing with your ideology does not mean they have lost their manners. Have you ever listened to Wasserman Schultz!!

          1. Mrs. Clinton would be the definition of obfuscation. I didn’t realize Planet Princeton censored open debate.

        1. The original post, which was deleted and which I think was yours, was rude and lacked any pretense of a civil discussion. It was lacking in manners. It had nothing to do with a disagreement in ideology but how that disagreement was expressed.

    1. Wife said that Bill’s speech was amazing, he dealt with the hecklers well, and reminded the crowd of the many good reasons to vote for Hilary. Old guy has still got it.

Comments are closed.