the Obama people have skillfully ridden it for all it's worth for days now...

Man alive, you can say that again. As it happens, I am an Obama supporter who thinks that the story is being overblown, but I am simply delighted to see that the campaign attempted to use this story to get an additional 5000 donations (which seems like a very ambitious goal, for such a small story), and has already received 5747 (according to the Obama website, as of the time of this post) in response. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Shaheen handed the Obama campaign a gift.

Of course she doesn't want it to "go away". That's why she raised the issue in the fist place.

The Sinking Ship Clinton, Swift Boat Billary

Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:34
Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:30

Next month, Democrats and Independents are going to

Vote Different!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

again...reaching.

"there are no surprises"? you're jumping from that to spend 800 words on an issue that won't die because you won't let it.

you're reaching the point where your reading between the lines is as valuable to the dialogue as my looking into a crystal ball and telling you what i saw.

Clinton's statement strikes me as boilerplate.

I think the problem with the post by Greg is that it does not have the context as another similar post by Steve Benen on his site the Carpetbagger Report. If you have not read it I will post it here.

"Clinton warns of oblique ’surprises’ with other Dems
Posted December 14th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

About a month ago, in a now-infamous column, the ethically-challenged Bob Novak reported that Hillary Clinton’s “agents” are gossiping in Democratic circles that the Clinton campaign has “scandalous information” about Barack Obama, which they reportedly will not share. This, you’ll remember, led to an ugly spat between the campaigns, though the Clinton campaign insisted throughout that it had no secret dirt on its rival.

The flap faded eventually, but I couldn’t help but think of Novak’s column now that Clinton is making oblique references to unstated “surprises” associated with her rivals.

Clinton didn’t mention specifics in the taping of an interview on “Iowa Press” this morning, but drew a contrast with unnamed rivals that echoes Bill Shaheen’s now-notorious claim that unexplored elements of Obama’s candidacy will make him an easy Republican target.

“I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted,” she said. “There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?’”

Taken at face value, there’s nothing particularly striking about Clinton’s comments. One can interpret them plainly: the right has combed through her adult life with a fine-tooth comb, and everything that could come out, has come out. That should give primary voters some confidence in her chances.

But there’s a broader context to this, which makes the “no surprises” tack appear less innocuous.

Indeed, it’s not even subtle. Given Billy Sheehan’s comments this week about Obama’s teenaged drug use, Clinton adopting a “no surprises” theme hardly seems coincidental.

TNR’s Michael Crowley was also on hand and said Clinton’s comments threw reporters “into a low-grade frenzy.”

Hillary smiled with the patience of a grandmother stuck babysitting bratty kids as reporters barraged her with breathless questions about whether Obama’s drug history is the sort of surprise she’s talking about and whether she thinks general-election voters might punish him for it.

But Hillary wasn’t biting. “I am only talking about myself,” she insisted, looking unusually resplendent in a dark suit with a red blouse and multicolored necklace. Nor would she bite when asked by MSNBC’s David Shuster whether she would flatly declare that “a candidate’s indiscretions as a teenager should not be an issue for voters.” After what I sensed was a moment of uncertainty she concluded, “It’s certainly not an issue in my campaign.” (emphasis in the original)

Clinton is a sharp and savvy campaigner, and she has to realize that comments like these, given the Shaheen controversy, are going to raise eyebrows.

For a year, practically every speech, ad, and pitch has been about touting her experience. The campaign has been quite disciplined about it. But in the stretch run, her campaign seems to be trying to shift to an electability argument, which apparently includes concerns about “surprises” that may befall unnamed rivals.

The campaign really is playing with fire here.

Hillary is purposefully sustaining this issue. The fact that her line about "surprises" is appended to a heavily scripted talking point explicitly intended to distinguish her from Obama is telling in my opinion. Pushing Obama's past drug use, specifically by insinuating that he hasn't accounted for its margins, is top down strategy from the HRC campaign. Shaheen got the bulletin.

DB,

I'm all against Hillary on this, but as a matter of commenting protocol, your comment above is not good.

Give a link to Steve Benen, excerpt a few paragraphs, and tell people to go read it.

I love all the TPM sites and hit them several times a day, but Greg - come on. Even a cursory review of your posts shows that you have been able to find a pro-Hilary slant in most every story for a year, and if not, then you're screeching defensively here and at Horse's Mouth (which I otherwise enjoy) on her behalf.

Leave the Hilary stories to Eric Kleefeld. I don't know who he's supporting, and I'm thankful for that. I know TPM's a blog and not necessarily impartial, but jeez.

You can't sell this notion that Hilary and her machine are political naifs to anyone who was born before 1985. And why bother? That's supposed to be her big strength, right?

but Shillary can take the heat!

In light of DB's post, this no longer seems like boilerplate to me.

In particular, "There's not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?'" is not the normal way of saying "I've been vetted". And her answer to Shuster's question about teenage indiscretions is really pretty blatant.

Oh, she's taken the heat alright. Any attempt to discredit Obama has blown up in her face and yet she continues the same tactics. Not to mention her acccelerating drop in the polls. Hillary supporters are so myopic. I guess reality will sink in when the primaries get started.

Hillary's argument has gone from "I am strong enough and experienced enough to be president" to "I would be the safest candidate because Republicans already know all my mistakes."

Let's be honest: is this really a justification for electing her president?

Americans want change...Americans want a leader.

Hillary, if we are to buy her new argument, is the best because she is old and vetted.

Sad...

Two things.

First - and pardon me if I've simply missed it - why do people continue to let Hillary claim that she has THIRTY-FIVE years of experience? She says it over and over and no one pushes back. I'd say she's exaggerating by at least twenty years, if not closer to thirty.

Second - if she thinks she's been "vetted" and that the GOP isn't going to resurrect the scandals of the Clinton years, she's not nearly as experienced as she'd have you believe. Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc. - whether they're true or not, the Wingnuts are fanatics about them and they'll be ready to pounce.

It's pretty clear this is an orchestrated effort from day one and Penn's comments on Hardball yesterday, and HRC's comments today reinforce that.

And you know what? It's worked, but will it be successful?

While the HRC camp may think it may help them, it is really just a sign of how bad things are for them and the depths to which they will sink.

It's likely to backfire on her in Iowa, but will it help Obama? HRC hopes it will prop up Edwards at Obama's expense and stall his momentum going into NH. If so, she back into it.

I think this is a major miscalculation on their part and Iowa could send her a strong message that the politics of the past belong there.

And so does she.

If Hillary is allegedly so battle tested and electable, why is she the one who's stumbling so badly? Seems to me Obama has won every skirmish.

Given that Hillary is using the GOP slime machine, Obama's performance against her to date indicates he'll stand up well to whatever the GOP tries to pull. It's Hillary with the electability issues and always has been.

Not voting for Hillary Clinton.
Not voting for Barack Obama.

They both feel sleazy to me.

Nothing in Hillary's past that's not out there yet? What was Hillary doing in college when Bill was smoking pot, but not inhaling? Give me a break. I bet there's plenty from the last 7 years in Bill's past that's not out there yet.

Don't we want to know now than in general election about Obama's drug history or are you all Obama supporters so blinded to the fact that Republicans are going to just forget it and not bring this up if there is something to be brought up. We should know as much as possible about candidates in the primaries so there are no surprises in general election.

I fail to see how it is a "smear" to discuss something that a candidate has actually confessed about himself.

A smear is spreading untrue information about an opponent. But Obama has admitted to drug use. Does his admission mean the subject is therefore off limits?

Because it AIN'T gonna be off limits for the Republican attack machine.

When you travel into the mysterious heart of darknessby nominating Obama, you never know what surprises are lurking for you.

Hillary's campaign is in a big decline. Averarge voters are now getting a good look at her, and they don't like what they see. She and Bill constantly whine about being victims, she can't make a straight consistent statement on any issue, she tried attacking Obama directly and it backfired, she and her attack machine have now tried to attack Obama with a whisper campaign of misinformation and lies about his faith, his kindergarten years, and now drug use in his teen years.

Hillary is dishonest, mean, and desperate. Does she think voters are stupid. She is the queen of calculation. She knows and approves everything her campaign does.

Enough of Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton, already. Let the nation move forward. We don't need them and their sleazy politics.

Sure, I think the continual little digs are deliberate. But are they unexpected, or horribly wrong? This is a contest, a race, with huge consequences at stake. You plant a seed, you water it, you prune it and tend it, and sooner or later somewone will say "Hey look a plant!".

The political pundits and junkies all know about Obama's offhanded "confession" already, but the majority of the voters do not. Those who know about it have already made up their minds one way or the other, and for them the revelation seems redundant and cruel. But for the MAJORITY of Democrats and voters, it is news and newsworthy.

I think a question that's equally appropriate is does Obama's campaign want this to go away? I'd say absiolutely not. They are quietly LOVING this, because the whole drugs story manages to play to Obama's strength (honesty/truth/hope) and shines glaring light one of Hillary's big negatives (conniving, untrustworthy politician who will do anything to be president.)

I'd bet Carville and Begala are just in disbelief right now that Hillary's campaign could be so insanely stupid. They watched Bill Clinton totally botch the drug question beyond belief ("I did not inhale"), then have his numbers GO UP, and then go on to BEAT a WWII hero/sitting President (and then 4 years later beat a WWII hero/Senator Majority Leader.) On top of that, big rumors of Dubya were flying about cocaine too, and obviously none of his voters cared.

Now, 15 years after "did not inhale", does anyone on TPM seriously think that centrist America ain't gonna vote for a guy who did some hard drugs as a young man then went on to graduate Summa Cum Laude from frickin' Harvard Law School and become a sitting US Senator and now talks to kids about how drugs set him back? Seriously?

And Obama and his people aren't crybabies. He can handle anything that Hillary or any Republicans throw at him. Every time she sinks to a lower level and attacks him it just bolsters his campaign and support. The GOP will fine the same result.

God, people always accuse me of being cynical and pessimistic, but you people always fearmongering about Obama's general election chances are pathetic. He is strong, he is intelligent, he is articulate, and he will spank Giuliani or Romney or whoever else he comes up against. I hope to hell none of you people are ever in a position of power because your lack of vision and infantile fear of the unknown is repugnant. If you'd rather hand our party over to the conservatives (whether Hillary wins or not) then go right ahead. I'd rather vote for someone progressive than to sacrifice principles and guarantee we'll be screwed for the next 4-8 years.

Stephen wrote on December 14, 2007 3:56 PM:

Greg,

If the Clinton campaign started using Eric Clapton's "Cocaine" as their theme song, would you say "This is just another rock n' roll song, with broad boomer appeal and a driving beat, that they surely don't mean as a reference to any other candidate?"

Good question. I think that now this has gone beyond ridiculous! No one can now use the word "drug", "cocaine", "vetted and tested" without it turning into an all out scandal regarding Obama's past coke use?!?

This might quickly reach the point of diminishing return for Obama. It will stop being about what the Clinton camp might have said about the potential for the Repubs to use it as a GE issue, and become about Obama's drug use. After all, he did use cocaine, a controlled substance, and the longer this flap persists the higher the chances that people would get curious about just what this drug story is about...

Maybe that is now the Clinton camp's strategy?

Hillary is such a hypocrite. She's quoted above as saying "I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted. There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?’”

Are you kidding me? Does she think she will get by with no new revelations about White Water, her sleazy Rose Law Firm past, what she know about Monica, her Iraq and Iran votes, her own record of marital fidelity. What about her impounded First Lady records, and the secretive Healthcare reform commmission and debacle. What about her sleazy campaign contributions and links between contributors and influence and the Clintons new found wealth? Are the Clintons ready to sit down for a new 60 Minutes interview about the state of their marriage the way they did when Bill firsts ran for president? w

The Clintons have enough personal, financial and political baggage, enough known lies, and new ones every day to keep the press and the tabloids busy for a decade, and sadly to keep the nation distracted from what is important.

dcshungu, you are a dishonest propogandist. Nothing you say on this site has any credibility.

Hillary's dishonest, mean-spirited, verbose attack dogs contribute to her decline.

Please keep posting every 3.5 minutes dcshungu. Hillary loses support and Obama gains it, every time you post.

What some commenters don't get is that Obama raised this in his own damn autobiography and is pretty eloquent on the subject of why he used drugs as a teen and why it was a mistake. This is NOT the kind of charge that the candidate avoids, initially denies, and then grudgingly half-admits as the truth dribbles out. What's below is the best quote from the 1996 _Dreams from my Father_ that I can find in a quick search.

"Junkie. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism. That’s how it seemed to me then, anyway."

I will be the first to say that the whole culture of recovery and redemption can get a little cloying. But what's above strikes me as pretty good writing about both the attractions of drugs when you're a kid, and about the stupidity of drugs. He doesn't try and portray this as innocent youthful experimenting and he's pretty clear that by doing drugs he was risking serious damage. We should all be so good at learning from our mistakes.

robert ethan said: Sure, I think the continual little digs are deliberate. But are they unexpected, or horribly wrong? "

Wrong or appealing as a qualification for leadership? Hillary cannot beat Obama by discussing ideas, vision, policy, how top ay for them, how to unite a deeply divided nation. This would be a debate about leadership and the future. Hillary and her mean machine want to mud wrestle, distract the nation from major questions, and return to the White House to peddle influence for corporate and personal gain. So they mount disinformation attacks about his faith, kindergarten years, youthful mistakes long put behind him.

Hillary has every right, I suppose, to run a sleazy campaign. But should we elect her president because she does it?

it's common courtesy to link to the person who brought something to your attention. And the video does have much of the exchange in any case.

Greg:

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I was a bit hasty in my conclusions.

Between you and me, this campaign can't possibly end soon enough.

i'm not sure mark penn is smart enough to know that it needs to go away. this is backfiring hard would backfire on any republican who attempts it. i was listening to talk radio here in kc today and they had a black preacher on who was mad and said he was going to talk about "is obama a drug dealer?" in his sermon on sunday. that's when i realized how this mega-pissed off the black community.

i bet every republican strategist is watching this one out of the corner of their eye though. my fear for hillary is iowans don't like this kind of crap. she coulda been talking about the glories of ethanol for the last 2 days. i think she loses big in iowa.

Yeah, they want it to go away, and I'm the Queen of Sheba. I think you are being naive here. The top-down Clinton campaign does not have the husband of the former governor and current Senate candidate from New Hampshire just veer off message like that.

I don't know why you assert that Camp Hillary is getting killed on it. It just keeps the story out there and publicizes it more broadly and more widely.

Penn talked about it almost gleefully on Hardball, and you yourself basically admit that he's a slimeball, and once a slimeball, always a slimeball. To be honest, the fact that he's working for her should be reason enough to vote for her.

What I see from Obama is an *over* reaction to anyone saying ANYTHING about something he has already confessed to.

This would be the way that I am naturally inclined to look at it. As I said earlier on this thread, I happen to think that the Obama campaign is making too much of the matter (although I disagree with those who said it should have simply been ignored). That said, the Obama campaign has clearly been making money off of this, and it is hard to argue that the money is a bad thing. My guess is that any negatives that come from what you are describing are offset by the value of the cash raised.

Team Clinton is in the process of dismembering Obama. It's a two pronged approach: ads with her mother, talk of Obama's drug past. No grandmother in Iowa will vote for him now. Go Hillary!!!

Team Clinton is in the process of dismembering Obama. It's a two pronged approach: ads with her mother, talk of Obama's drug past. No grandmother in Iowa will vote for him now.

Well, I guess we will see. Only a few more weeks to wait.

The grandstand act Hillary's mother is to raise the question WHERE IS BARRY MOM?

It might cause B O a little discomfort if she showed up. She is as white as Hillary, and has had serious psychological breakdowns. His biological father also had a breakdown after he left the family and went back to Africa. It led to his death at a young age. "Barry" Obama was raised substantially by his white grandparents.

I think the point of trotting out 3 generations of healthy, sentient, Rodham/Clintons is to point out the INHERENT BIOLOGICAL RISK of the alternative.

How can Hillary say that there are no surprises? Do we really believe that with all the freedom he's had while she's been in the Senate, Bill has been keeping it zipped for the last six years?

to robert ethan:

Barack's mother appearing might cause him a little discomfort not least of all because she's dead. An astute point in regard to the coinciding Mitchell report, not so much for your flawed analysis (baseball players used steroids chronically to unfairly excel at sport, Barack Obama used cocaine experimentally as a very young man, presumedly for the purpose of recreation and escape, and not, for example, to augment his oratory prowess), but as even further evidence of the clear minded machinations of team Clinton.

Reality Check:

Can you say blow back, Boys and Girls?

The Clintons may have set out to destroy the Obama campaign, but look what has happened.

It is the Clintons who are having to fire senior campaign staff left and right.

Tell me again; which camp is actually in disarray and acting desperate!

Ah, the media may have decided to actually do some vetting of Clinton and call her bluff about she herself being 'fully vetted'.

"Clinton Claims Credit for Bill She Didn't Pass" is a story of how her one answer in yesterday's debate has upset some Senate folks:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/clinton-claims.html

I have long thought it shortsighted that most folks think that 'vetting Hillary' refers only to her infamous time with Bill in the White House. There are lots of riches to be gleaned by looking into her elected office behavior. Not only did I spend several days running down the [non]facts behind a lot of her p.r. Senate press release fluff, but I have looked into how she has hidden quid pro quo relationships by hiding her own corporate favors behind Schumer's name......this last area could be explosive if an investigative reporter tracked what she has done on behalf of a whole lot of Chinese importers who are not exactly beloved of the American public nowadays. For anyone who wishes to look into this, try the USITC web site.

Hilliary should want this story to go away. She planted the seed that was to her benefit but now it is turning on her. Time to move on. Also time for Obama to keep it alive where the issue is Hilliry not Obama.

Obambi has received kid glove treatment from the GOP/media. It is due to the GOP/media hatred of Hillary. If Obambi were to become the nominee he would be torn to shreds. He has received no scrutiny. Not his cocaine use. Not his voting record. That would all change. He would lose all a McGovern scale.

Obama cultists are not addressing the real issue here. Obama's cocaine use will be a HUGE issue were he the nominee. The GOP and their handmaidens in the media would make it a huge issue. There is no getting around it. Instead of attacking Hillary they should deal with the blemishes of their Messiah. Obama has not been vetted. Not by the media. Not by the GOP. He has come to this point with help from worshipful media coverage. That worshipful coverage will not be there during the general election. He is simply not ready for the kind of assault that await any Democratic nominee.

Blackhawk down?

Worried Clinton set for Iowa offensive Financial Times Hillary Clinton will on Sunday embark on a “barnstorming” five-day tour of Iowa in a bid to arrest Barack Obama’s surging campaign less than three weeks before the Midwestern state holds America’s first presidential nomination vote. The former First Lady’s once “flawless” campaign has looked increasingly wobbly during the past few weeks following a series of mis-steps by her staff and in the face of a newly energised challenge from Mr Obama, whom opinion polls say is now ahead in the state. Mrs Clinton, who will traverse much of the ice-bound agrarian state in a helicopter – dubbed a “Hill-o-copter” by her staff

gqmartinez wrote on December 14, 2007 4:33 PM:
I guess it doesn't matter that Hillary has been saying this for pretty much the entire campaign.

Gpmartinez - you are exactly right. She has been saying for so long that she is most tested and most vetted. What part of that is not true? Just because Sheehen made a reference to Obama's cocaine past, Hillary should not mention that she has been tested and vetted before? is there a time-out for her not to mention this or she should now forever stop mentioning it?

MikeB,

Well, what was supposedly the best campaign in the business is doing their best to use this against Obama (and Romney took his shots too). Funny thing is, it keeps backfiring.

Maybe, just maybe, it is possible that real live voters actually don't have a problem with someone who tells the truth about teenage drug use, admits it was a mistake, and says what lessons he learned? And maybe, jsut maybe, all that is true no matter how skillful the people using this attack thing they are?

What a concept!

You Obama people are so dumb.

Of course the Clintons want this story out there because it hurts Obama on the issue of electability.

You think he has weathered this and people will just ignore this because it's "dirty tricks."

Wake up and get real people.

Advantage Clinton...and when she wins you can say I told you.

Does anyone NOT know of Mark Penn's representation of Eric Prince of Blackwater (and many other nefarious clients). Not a good choice for Hillary to have him front and center representing the "cleanliness" of her campaign.

Nixon in a pantsuit.

Hillary Accuses Obama of Fathering Black Children

Des Moines, IA -- December 14, 2007 | 10:34 PM (EST)

The increasingly contentious race for the Democratic presidential nomination got a little bit nastier tonight as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) charged that her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill), fathered two black children while living in Chicago in the late 1990's.

Iowans have grown used to displays of testiness on the part of the leading Democratic contenders in recent weeks, but few were prepared for Sen. Clinton's accusation that her surging opponent had fathered two black children.

Moments after her campaign released this latest bombshell, Sen. Clinton went to great lengths to show that the allegation, while occurring before the Illinois senator had taken office, was "relevant" to the current presidential campaign.

At a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Sen. Clinton said that the alleged black children "should not disqualify" Sen. Obama from the White House, but should make Democrats "think long and hard" about voting for him in next month's caucuses.

"Personally, I don't have anything against having a man who fathered black children winning the presidency," Sen. Clinton said. "But you can be sure that the Republican right-wing attack machine will have a field day with this kind of thing."

At a campaign appearance in Davenport, Sen. Obama confirmed that he has two black daughters currently living with his wife Michelle in Chicago," and added an apparent jab at Sen. Clinton: "I was told by former UN Ambassador Andrew Young that there's another recent President who's also fathered multiple black children."

In response to Sen. Obama's remark, Sen. Clinton later released a statement that her spokesperson, "Senator Hillary Clinton, is not officially part of her presidential campaign and does not speak for 'candidate' Hillary Clinton."

Big wet kiss right back to you, Donna :)

H C in Iowa when interviewed with her mother and daughter said something to the effect that she felt "fortunate to be able to have her mother with her as many others could not do that"..also some later mention of being able "to have her mother live with her and Bill". Call me cynical but I saw it as a bit of a dig at Obama.

The campaign has two major ads built on this theme airing shortly. I think they want to establish the sense of generational stability and strong genes. As I recall, in 2004, the Dem candidates prominently trotted out their wives at a time Howard Dean was unable to produce his own on the campaign trail.

It is human nature for people to look for more information on Obama's family background once his main opponent makes such a grand show of her own. Family history is important to older voters especially. I think the average age of voters in the last election was between 50 and 55.

FWIW c, I have mixed race ancestry as well. Not 50/50 like Barack Obama, but close. Calling attention to his mother, who was born of WASP heritage in Kansas, hardly seems to fit a "racist" doctrine.

Obama grew up as "Barry", attended exclusive multi racial private schools, and was substantially parented by his very WASP maternal grandparents, the Dunhams of Hawaii, via Kansas.

The point was the immediate family heritage, and the relatively short, somewhat contentious, lives led by both of Obama's bilogical parents. Whether the Clinton's are focussing on the comfortable, nuclear, generational, aspect of her family to contrast that, I don't know. But it sure doesn't hurt her cause.

Stop and think of the logistics of dragging an 88 year old to bleeping Iowa in the dead of winter. I'm sure Granny is just dying to get out of the NY mansion and get propped up in front of a bunch of toothless farmers in a smelly high school gym in Des Moines.Great fun. Not to mention Chelsea, who can't wait to get to Dubuque in December to taste the breakfast special at Flo and Eddie's Grill, and have grease stained truckers check out her ass. Who needs Manhatten, Sioux City is the place to be!

There has to be an AWFULLY good reason to torture your relatives that way, and I don't think it's because they need the money. The message is, bring all the billionaire T.V. celebrities you want Barack, this is the REAL thing. Family.

I was just thinking yesterday what it means when someone refers to experience. Hillary has not held elected office any longer than Obama if you count his time in the state senate. But, if we are to count his time doing other things in the political realm, such as being a community activist, we must do the same for Hillary. She has most definitely been actively involved in politics since her undergrad days (a time in Obama's life when he seems to have been a lost soul himself). She came to college a Goldwater republican and was turned to a Dem by the Vietnam war. While her classmates smoked pot and lay around philosophizing and whining, she went out and worked to end the war, not through violent, useless protests, but with calculated, strategic action. She has clearly always been a political person and does not appear to have spent a single day of her life indulging herself personally (with drugs, sex, greed, etc.). She is also 60 years old, and with age comes experience, especially if you spent that time actually doing things in the public arena. I know its hard to accept when you are a young, know-it-all idealist, but the passing of time confers experience by definition. I never liked to hear it when I was 20, but it makes a lot more sense at 45, and it also gives me the perspective that those who are 15-20 years older than me often have insights that I have yet to achieve. So, yes, experience also includes merely having lived for a certain amount of time (as long as it was focused, productive time as opposed to trolling in bars the way W apparently spent most of his life.)

Personally I don't care if it's intentional or not. Since she said the fun part starts now either her or her supporters have engaged in one questionable or dirty tactic after another and trying to start a FOX style "some people say" campaign asking if Obama sold drugs strikes me as open racism.

Yes the drugs themselves were an issue but I don't remember selling being an issue for any other candidate with drug use questions, it leaves us to wonder why they assume it should be for him. It was a stupid, stupid move but only the most recent in a string of them.

When she said the fun starts she sent a message to her supporters, no matter if she realized it or not. In the end yes, I think she is responsible no matter how we look at it. Either she is aware of this stuff before hand so is playing dirty or she is unaware but her campaign is out of control and running without her input, neither recommends her for the Presidency.

Since Senator Clinton decided to make her family a campaign issue; what is the latest on her brothers. You know, those two brothers of hers that actually lived with her in the White House, and were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by criminals trying to purchase presidential pardons from Hillary's husband.

How about some vetting on that folks. Hillary's brothers were on the take from criminals who wanted them to obtain pardons .

Perhaps that may be why Hillary has no problem uncovering Obama's Kindergarten papers, but just can not find any way to release any records from her much touted White House years experience. Ask her about her brothers being paid to seek pardons for criminals.

Put that in your, must be vetted, pipe but don't inhale.

I think a huge, unreported gaffe in both this story and Cliton's husband's Charlie Rose interview, is that now the front runner is engaging the idea of Obama as the nominee, any criticism of what kind of a nominee he might be is implicitly getting voters to imagine him as the nominee, which is devastating for Hillary's inevitablity meme and I believe is a huge rhetorical blunder on the part of her campaign. She creates the very thought she means to warn against.