Blaming Bill Clinton for the Bush Years? Really?

I don't usually respond to articles I read online, but his one kind of pissed me off, so I wrote this. Turns out the Huffington Post doesn't let you post more than 250 words. Probably for the best, some people (ahem) can go on and on.

Here's the story from Paul Slansky at the HP about how Bill Clinton is to blame for the Bush years and how it will "be on" him if Obama loses. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?

And here's my (extended) response (I can't even find my truncated version in the comment section of the article. Shows how much I do this. If anyone finds it--under dluke--let me know what page it's on.):

I'm assuming someone already would have mentioned all of this, but I it's important enough to state again. First, it's not Bill's job to do anything for Obama. It's just not. Second, blaming Bill Clinton and the blowjobs he received while in office for the Bush years is absolutely absurd. I, as a Democrat, am offended by such an accusation. Let's not lose sight of who is actually to blame for the Bush year, namely, Bush and his cronies. To suggest it was in some way Clinton's fault is a joke. If you want to look to some Democrats for blame, why not look at the complete ineptitude of both the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns. But certainly not Bill Clinton. If a campaign needs one person to put them over the top (as Mr. Slansky is suggesting for the Obama campaign, and I'm sure would be his explanation for the Gore "loss.") then some serious retooling of that campaign needs to be done. Third, having Bill campaign as rigorously as Mr. Slansky is calling for could easily do as much damage as good. I know many independent voters who can't stand Hillary or Bill and their praise for Obama does nothing for these voters if not make them think twice about voting for him. So, if you want to be as black and white as this piece is, one could say that if, for the last month of this campaign Bill does what Mr. Slansky is suggesting and campaigns so rigorously, and Obama loses one of the states where, had Bill not been such a strong supporter, Obama would have won that state, then Mr. Slansky and this whole article is to blame for the WarFest that would be McCain/Palin. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Of course it does. As does blaming Bill Clinton for any of the past eight years or the next four. Lastly, "We forgave you for Monica, Bill..."? Who's "We"? You are definitely not talking about me. I have never felt a need to "forgive" Bill for anything he did with Monica. His response to the issue can be called into question, but that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested here is that "we" need to forgive Bill for the unholy act of an extramarital affair. As though "we" are in some righteous place to do so. That kind of speak sounds far too similar to things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth, and I for one don't associate with the "we" referred to here.