if the writer of the letter is not connected to the Obama campaign, why post it? you're grasping at straws here to level the "campaign-staffer-says-something-ridiculous" playing field. but this wasn't a campaign staffer!

hey...i think someone wrote a letter to the editor in my newspaper calling Mitt a host of names for his Mormon beliefs, arguing that Huckabee's the man for the job because of his conservative Christian credentials...should you run that, too! you know, tell readers that the writer isn't a Huckabee staffer, so it's all good, but oh boy what a storm we can brew!

zzzzzzzzzzz

I think this is fair enough considering her desire to use her past fiascos with Bill to claim that she was weather the Republican muck machine. It is good to have someone point out the obvious fact that she didn’t actually come out of those unharmed, she in fact carries a lot of dead baggage from not only Bill’s adultery (and the years of comedy skits devoted to making fun of them), but also everything else she did in the 90s while in the national spotlight. If she wants to talk electability I think it is great that people are actually talking about it in terms of reality, instead of just trying to plant fear in the minds of Democratic primary voters. Her whole campaign has been built on this supposed “inevitability”, and now that that myth is starting to shatter for a lot more Democratic voters she is trying to make up for it in fear.

Oh well, on the bright side, if she gets elected the writers strike won’t matter since the networks will be able to just rerun all of their comedy bits from the 90s. Oh wait, that’s not a bright side. Support the writers! Don’t vote for Hillary!

Haha, like how I spun that?

When a state chair says something like this, it IS newsworthy. He is a public figure. Not some random campaign staffer.

Also his argument is wrong, Clinton leads Giuliani today in a general election poll from SOUTH CAROLINA!

Total non-story and an attempt to stir up a controversy. Why not dredge up the stuff about travelgate or the rose lawfirm stuff, or how about vincent foster???? I agree with DTM on the monica thing.

Here's the text of the actual letter:

Wyoming's Hillary Dilemma

Democrats in Wyoming are in position to make huge gains in this election cycle.
We have a democratic governor who won by a 40% margin in the 2006 election. We also have a congressional candidate who lost in '06 by about 1,000 votes and who has already scared the republican incumbent out of the '08 election. We have funding at historical levels and for the first time have hired regional field staff and are actively recruiting candidates to run in every corner of the state. While we are lagging behind the
democratic parties in some of our neighboring states, we are following their lead and will join the resurgence of the Democratic Party in the Rocky Mountain West.

All of this progress will be completely reversed if Hillary Clinton is our party's presidential nominee. For reasons I don't agree with and don't completely understand, most voters in Wyoming seem to hate Hillary Clinton. This is in part due to the perception of her as being someone who supports big government, most notably through a federal government takeover of the health care system. She is also paying a heavy price for the sins of her husband.

If Barack Obama is the democratic presidential nominee, we will be the party of new ideas that understands that a united America will be much better able to address the serious problems facing our country than a divided America. If Hillary Clinton is ourparty's nominee, every democratic candidate in Wyoming will be painted with that same liberal, big government brush. We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton.

Some people feel that the basis of this argument is really that we can’t support
Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman. This is simply not true. Wyoming has a long history of supporting women in government and politics. Wyoming was the first government in the history of the world to grant equal voting rights to women. We had the first woman public elected official (Esther Hobart Morris) and the first woman elected governor in the country (Nellie Tayloe Ross). Our opposition to Hillary Clinton is not based on her being a woman, it is based on the fact that her nomination will kill the chances of many democratic candidates around the state.

While I don’t agree with this view of Mrs. Clinton, I have to accept that this is the truth. It has become the dirty little secret in the Democratic Party. My fears for the Wyoming Democratic Party are shared by some party leaders throughout the Rocky
Mountain West. This region is vitally important to the growth of the national party. While we continue to lose ground in the south, democrats have made huge gains in the west. Not long ago, republicans held the governors offices in all eight Rocky Mountain states. Democrats now hold five out of eight. Westerners have an independent, libertarian spirit and democrats here can make republicans pay a heavy price for years of pandering to the social conservatives. None of this will happen if Hillary wins the nomination.

John A. Millin, M.D., Chair
Wyoming Democratic Party
December 2, 2007

The chairman of the Wyoming Democratic Party, an Obama backer, has taken a shot at Bill Clinton, saying that the Lewinsky mess should lead us to question Hillary's electability

That's odd; I find no mention whatsoever of Monica Lewinsky in Millin's letter.

You might want to correct that, Greg.

-- from The New York Times, December 11, 2007:

"The [New York Times/CBS News] poll confirmed that former President Bill Clinton was an EFFECTIVE campaign weapon for his wife. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters say Mr. Clinton's involvement will make them MORE likely to support her. In fact, about as many of Mrs. Clinton's backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience."

[emphasis added]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/politics/11poll.html

Anyone who approves of attacking Bill Clinton in this personal way has no right to call themselves Democrats! This makes me mad! If Obama and his supporters stoop this low, then they might as well go run in the Republican primary!

@ poetry

That study only confirms that way too many Dems support her because of Bill, and not because she is the best candidate. I think that is its own problem, however the survey is also talking about likely Democratic primary voters, not the general electorate. What this is all about is the general election, and surveys of general election voters show her negative ratings to be almost 50%. That is the scary part.

On the other hand, Obama actually has huge appeal with independents, and even some people who consider themselves Republicans (which hardly makes sense, but it has been shown to be true). These people are who will determine the general election, not people who are already supporting Hillary because of Bill.

Actually, it seemed a fairly sober analysis from a Democrat from such a Red state. He even said, "For reasons I don't agree with and don't completely understand..."

The simple fact is Democrats in Red states (mostly for US Senate, US House, and Governor) are quietly nervous as hell about Hillary possibly being at the TOP of the ticket, because they know they are gonna pay the price, rightly or wrongly, of being associated with her.

They are nervous for three reasons:

First, their Republican challenger is going to attempt to tie them to Hillary for their own fundraising purposes. Rudy 9-11 9-11 has been doing it for months.

Second, direct mail and advertising is going to put their picture next to Hillary's. Don't believe me? It just happened last week in Virginia:
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_071209_mailerfront.pdf

Third, Republican get out the vote AGAINST Hillary is gonna be EPIC, which will hurt all down-ticket Dems.

That said, I think Obama's going to win the Democratic nomination anyway, so hopefully his post will be irrelevant until 2016.

Another TOTALLY inaccurate headline. No where in there is CLINTON'S electability questioned in any way. Show me where it is Greg.

Waiting. Waiting. How about you read it again and try again.

Why do you make these kind of mistakes?

The point of the letter is that Hillary will hurt other candidate's chances. Please, this time don't just correct the headline...explain how you made this mistake.

Wow Sargent, where does he say anything about Lewinski? You are really extrapolating here. Are you trying to equivocate this with the drug dealer smear? If so, it fails miserably.

From someone in the mountain west, what this guy is saying is true. Hillary has no crossover appeal in these parts, but my republican friends do think about voting for Obama.

So, I'm not supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because Barack Obama will win Wyoming in the general?

Yeah, right.

I agree Greg should probably have stuck with the words Millin used, but I do think those were deliberate references to Bill Clinton's infidelities. Indeed, I think he was probably trying to be polite about it by being less than specific. So, I don't necessarily think Millin is a bad guy for raising this concern. Again, I just think he is wrong about this particular issue (although not necessarily the rest).

TPS wrote on December 14, 2007 1:11 PM:

Anyone who approves of attacking Bill Clinton in this personal way has no right to call themselves Democrats! This makes me mad! If Obama and his supporters stoop this low, then they might as well go run in the Republican primary!

Are you serious? That sounds like about the most hypocritical thing I have heard today. Hillary, not Obama, is playing dirty. This person has nothing to do with Obama's campaign, which cannot be said for Hillary's Obama the Muslim or Obama the CrackheadDrugDealer "oopses". Give me a break. Not to mention the fact the article wasn't anything radical or even offensive.

I'm going to agree with the others who say that the headline has got to go, it totally distorts what his whole letter was about. I mean seriously. This really does sound like someone is trying to make the Clinton campaign's muck look equal.

@ CornBred

Yes, that flier is EXACTLY what this guy and many others are worried about. Great example of what we are going to see all over the place if Hillary gets the nod. It isn't fear mongering or insinuation, it is obvious and already starting!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Larry Drake, a Denver volunteer for Clinton and a Vietnam War combat veteran, characterized Obama as a onetime advocate of handgun bans. "We believe in gun rights in the West,""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Are there significant differences between them on this issue?

THE GUY IS IN NO WAY AFFILIATED WITH OBAMA

Non-story, IMO. He hits right on the legitimate fears a number of us have -- that, rightly or wrongly, Hillary gets conservatives fired up and provides lots to talk about in a general election, neither of which will allow the Dems to take advantage of the general anti-Republican sentiment. The GOP is beat down and resigned to their fate, but if Hill gets the nod, they're going to be all up in arms again...

Right on DTM, lots of dem leadership and dem people running have voiced there concerns publically and privately about clinton II being at the top of the ticket. That is a genuine concern for down ticket dems and should definitely be a factor for dems considering voting for clinton II. She will invigorate the republicans who can't stand her to come out and vote against her and dems down ticket. That is a huge problem.

Somebody had to say it. Good for him.
The Democratic Pary could have the wind at its back with Obama or the wind in its sails with Hillary. It amazes me that we're seriously considering nominating her.

Sorry - I meant to say "wind in its face" with Hillary. Point still stands.

First let me say that Bill Clinton's ilicit relationships with young women I find pretty foul, and I don't respect the women or men who enable and defend it. I'd prefer this kind of behavior get it's ugly ass out of my party and over into redland where it belongs.

Next let me say this entire discussion minus one or two posts is completely talking past this letter. The headline is inaccurate and obviously stilted to make it a "pox on both houses" response to the Clinton campaign drug dealer shenanigans. The party chair (not campaign chair, party chair) in question is saying running Hillary is going to hurt other candidates in the party in his state and the mountain west. He takes it as a given, as we all do, that there is no way in hell Clinton can win in Wyoming, but he isn't bothering to say that nor is he questioning her national electability. That isn't the story. Why is it being reported this way? Why is Obama's name even in this headline?

For this to have the kind of equivalency TPM is trying to create, the story would have to be that Obama's campaign chair in Florida said that Bill Clinton's history is going to make Hillary answer some uncomfortable Republican questions about whether she agrees with exposing genitalia and sticking cigars in vaginas, and whether her husband has ever exposed himself to a minor or had forcible sex with her or other women.

By the way, I don't know what significance people are attaching to the fact Millin is a superdelegate, but the whole idea behind superdelegates is that you become one in virtue of your official position within the party, and then you can support whomever you choose.

So it is not like he supported Obama and then Obama made him into a superdelegate. He is a superdelegate who has decided to support Obama.

John Millin is not just a casual commenter; he has pledged to be an Obama superdelegate to the Democratic Convention.

Stop saying he is not an Obama backer.

He most certainly is.

http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/December2007/14/Wyoming_Democratic_Chair__Obama_Delegate_Savages_Hillary_Clinton.html

I agree with DBrunner, please change the headline to read "Wyoming Democratic Party Chair (not Obama backer) Questions Hillary's Electability." That's the story here!

---Unless of course, you can win an election with less than "most voters". Can you explain how that is possible? Waiting. Waiting.

The stupid answer is that we just had a president that did exactly that. The smart answer is that saying that Clinton is not going to win Wyoming is like saying Oprah is not going to be invited to the Clinton Family picnic. We all know that. And the dude isn't saying that, because that isn't a point of contention on anyone's part. And he isn't saying that she can't win without Wyoming, because again, that ain't in contention either. If any Dem needed Wyoming to win, we could pack it up now.

What he is saying is she will reverse democratic gains in the state because she is wildly unpopular with some of those western independents, and that is going to hurt the party in more local Wyoming politics if she is the nominee. I'll give you the point that he perhaps needlessly spiced it up with the vague scandal references. But at least he is refering in a toned down way to actual abuses of power as a full grown man, not some cooked up Republican racist trash spat upon someone's adolescence. And again, the guy has no connection to the campaign. So the way this is being pushed is once again calling TPM's credibility into question.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Hi loki, I would like to refer you to one of my favorite polls. It's gallup and its several weeks old, but it speaks volumes. 78% of republicans are against clinton II and would never vote for her. 43% of republicans are against obama and 39% are for obama. 18% are undecided. That's nearly a 50/50 split of republicans in favor of obama. I think they know that he is african-american by now. Kind of hard to hide that one and they know his name as well. Care to try another slur?

I find it very depressing that the clinton II people have been throwing out the racist card lately as a reason not to vote for obama. Throw in trying to prevent students from participating in the political process. What has become of the democratic party? I don't think clinton II represents the party that I know.

i agree with DTM. poetry, no one is saying Millin doesn't support Obama. that's not the point. the point is he's not a member of the Senator's staff. his opinion is significant primiarly because of his role as a party chair.....maybe secondarily, because he supports obama. the headline should identify him as wyoming party chair, not obama supporter.

poetry,

But Millin isn't speaking for Americans in general, or suggesting Bill was a bad President. He is talking about the effect of a Hillary Clinton nomination on downticket races in just his one state in 2008.

That said, I agree that people tying Hillary to Bill is not something he really needs to worry about. Public perceptions of Hillary herself, however, are worth considering.

fillphil,

Where did Obama say he should not have put that in his book?

So much for the blogosphere representing a "different kind of media coverage." The tit-for-tat approach only works when you're dealing with equivalencies to begin with.

I mean, in its current form, this headline could just as readily apply to some lame-brainer like me posting on TPM. Pointing out that nearly half of this country wouldn't even contemplate casting a vote for HRC is not some sort of personal attack or Repub-style smearing. It's the truth. Don't blame us for dividing when pointing out that your candidate of choice is divisive. Especially with the embarrassment of riches still on the table for Dems at this point.

You don't get to play the "inevitable electability" card and then start crying when others subject the electability claim to honest scrutiny.

yeah, this is really shotty journalism... i hope josh is reading it and that he's aware of the impact it's having both on his readers and on their opinions of his site

No one has thrown out the racist card to prevent people from voting for him Michael.

It is a fair comparison.

Besides, someone like you with your not too subtle sexist take on Hillary shouldn't be throwing stones.

DTM,

You can continue to delude yourself if you like. But really, the polls? I believe even you know in your heart of hearts what types the Republican Party represents. When you have Joe Scarborough making the claims he makes, a man fairly in the know, I think you know what to do with those polls.

But if it makes you feel better.

Truth is, Obama will win over a Republican without the help of Republicans. Oh, and so will Hillary...or Edwards. Surprises me that you don't get that.

poetry,

Again, who said Millin is not backing Obama? All people are pointing out, correctly, is that Millin is not a member of Obama's campaign staff.

loki,

Believe it or not, I don't think every Republican in the country is a mindless racist. In fact, I even count some Republicans among my friends and family. And I have heard them talk positively about Obama, and I believe them. And I have seen other such stories about Republicans who like Obama. And I have seen the polls, even polls like the University of Iowa poll where they allowed Republicans to simply state who they supported for President in the primaries without giving them a list to choose from, and 6% actually spontaneously named Obama.

But hey, you got Joe "Work the Poll" Scarborough on your side. So I guess it is even.

loki wrote on December 14, 2007 2:13 PM:

dbrunner said: Okay, a little harsh what I said before...

Don't sweat it dbrunner. You are, after all, an Obama supporter. We've come to expect that from you guys.

I expect harshness from Edwards' supports too. Y'all are a little scary...

poetry,

Generally it is fine for people to make use their titles for identification purposes, as long as they otherwise make clear they are speaking in a personal capacity.

Loki, screw you. I have never made a sexist statement about clinton II. Not once. I stopped the mrs. bill mantra even though I don't believe it is sexist based on protests from you clinton II bozos. I have never said gee republicans won't vote for clinton II because she is a woman or men won't vote for her because she is a woman. Your candidate is so going to lose because of supporters like you.

DTM wrote: "All people are pointing out, correctly, is that Millin is not a member of Obama's campaign staff."

No, that is not what posters are writing. They do not want the fact to be emphasized that John Millin, an Obama backer, is using his position as the Wyoming state Democratic Party Chairman to cast aspersions on Hillary Clinton's candidacy. They also seem to slide over the fact that Millin is not only a backer of Obama; Millin is a committed Obama superdelegate to the Democratic Nominating Convention.

There is nothing incorrect in stating that Millin is an Obama backer -- Millin is a powerful Obama backer.

~ ~ ~
dbrunner wrote:

but the headline should read: Wyoming Democratic Party Chair (not Obama backer).

Anonymous wrote :

I agree with DBrunner, please change the headline to read "Wyoming Democratic Party Chair (not Obama backer) Questions Hillary's Electability."

NYer wrote on December 14, 2007 2:24 PM:
So let me get this straight - this man thinks Hillary is too liberal/progressive for the people of Wyoming and will lose candidates votes in his state. Everyone here thinks she is too centrist. Obama is the preferred candidate around here and he is not too progressive/liberal for the voters of Wyoming - get me a compass PLEASE.

It is not really that difficult. Hillary has worked very hard to emphasize her progressive, liberal credentials. Republicans and many independents bought it, because they don't pay much attention to the details. Music to their ears.

Progressive democrats---who are more aware of her Iraq votes, and her husband's lack of coattails, and general disregard for others on the ticket, mindful of the factors leading to Gore's loss in 2000---are more aware of her centrism, and there is a lot about it which they do not trust.

It would be an exaggeration to say by trying to be all things to all people, she ends up being nothing to anyone---but there is a troubling drift in that direction.

not accurate. not even close

DTM wrote: "Generally it is fine for people to make use their titles for identification purposes, as long as they otherwise make clear they are speaking in a personal capacity."

I do NOT see any place in Millin's letter where he says he is writing ONLY for himself and that his comments are NOT the official stance of the Wyoming Democratic Party.

Unless the Wyoming Democratic Party took a vote to send this letter, Millin is MIS-using his position to make it seem he is expressing the official position of the Wyoming Democratic Party.

how about the side and personal conversations start a seperate thread elsewhere?

do readers, having read the letter feel that it is being fairly and honestly represented by the headline?

nope....off my blog roll

The problem with Millin's letter is the same problem that Shaheen presented. It cast negatives on Democratic candidates.
Have we forgotten who the real competitor is? The Repubs are sitting back and recording all these instances for their upcoming campaign. Let's don't feed them their lines. As Democrats, we should feel luckly that we have the candidates we have. Any of which is better than we've had in the last 7 yrs and certainly better than whay they offer for '08. We just have stop cutting ourselves up and speak to their failures.

loki,

Yes I do, in fact (have black friends).

But my point was not that I am somehow qualified to speak for my Republican (or black) friends, or that having such friends says anything in particular about me. My point is just that you have presented no evidence to back up your claims other than to make blanket assertions about Republicans, and I know from personal experience that your blanket assertions are false. And until you can come up with something a bit more convincing than Joe Scarborough's opinion to back up your claims, that is the way things will stand.

poetry,

Usually an explicit disclaimer is not necessary if the text makes it clear it is a personal opinion. And I don't see anyone being confused on this score (did anyone actually think he was speaking on behalf of the entire Wyoming Democratic Party?).

not accurate

My assertions are dead on and even you know it. But as usual you are incapable of conceding anything so yes that is how it will stand.

Nevertheless...I still state firmly: Obama will win without the need for Republican votes. As will Clinton or Edwards.

Actually clinton II lover loki none of your assertions are ever dead on. That's what happens when you are so in love with someone. It must be hard having fallen so far in love with clinton II. The blindness and vindictiveness against anyone who questions your true love is readily apparent. Well, you just keep on being blind in your undying and loving support of your idol clinton II.

The rest of us want to win and not pander to the egos of the clintons. The only dem that has a shot of losing is clinton II. Obama has the opportunity to unite the country. Clinton II merely wants to feed her ego, refight the political wars of the 90's and further divide us.

I don't think the Repubs want anything to do with the Clinton Machine. They remember the "ass whupping" they got.

This is, of course, obviously born out by the Hillary Clinton Spend-o-meter prominantly positioned on the main GOP web page. Evidently they greatly fear the prospect of taking her on...

Millin had pledged to be an Obama superdelegate to the Democratic Convention.

This is an odd way of describing him. He is a superdelegate who is supporting Obama. Does that make him an "Obama superdelegate"? Maybe, but only in the same sense that the guy who buys corn-flakes at the grocery store is a "corn-flakes shopper." It is an odd turn of phrase.

As I said before, the headline "Obama backer questions Hillary's electability" leaves one with precisely the wrong impression. He is not questioning Hillary's electability because he supports Obama; he supports Obama because he questions Hillary's electability.

John Millin had NO ethical right to sign his letter as "Chair, Wyoming Democratic Party."

He is the chair of the WY democratic party. I dare say that he is the only man in America who does have the ethical right to sign his letter that way. Indeed, it would be hard to understand why he would not. Is Cheri Zeman ethically compromised if she did not poll all the members of the Human Services Commission of Northern VA before writing a letter to the WaPo? Your argument here is rather hard to swallow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301627.html

The 68% approval rating President Clinton had when he left the White House had to have included Independents and/or Republicans, since the story is that America is divided thus:

30% are Democrats
30% are Republicans
40% are unaffiliated with either party

That being the case, Bill Clinton had high approval ratings among more than just Democrats.

I think any politician today would be thrilled to have President Clinton's 68% approval rating (which was the highest of any departing president since polling began more than seventy years earlier).

In fact, at the height of the Republican-led impeachment proceedings, President Clinton's approval number rocketed to 73%.

Had to have included Independents and/or Republicans.

Greg DeLassus:

John Millin has PLEDGED himself to be a superdelegate for Barack Obama. That is MORE than casual support; that is serious support that any candidate hopes to have.

On the topic of superdelegates, one fact that may interest you is that "as of December 3, 2007, the number of 'Superdelegates' committed to Hillary Clinton were 72 and to Barack Obama 27. These "superdelegates" are about 14 percent of the 2,182 delegates a candidate will need to secure the party's presidential nomination."
http://tinyurl.com/2t876g

superdelegate update ...

As of Dec. 2007,

"Clinton has the endorsement of 169 superdelegates. She is followed by Obama, 63; John Edwards, 34; Bill Richardson, 25; Chris Dodd, 17; Joe Biden, 8, and Dennis Kucinich, 2."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-02-superdelegates_N.htm

Indeed, I had seen those figures about percentage totals of committed superdelegates, but I do thank you nonetheless for passing them along. Of course, once again your way of presenting the data strikes me as somewhat odd. The most interesting thing, to my mind, about the numbers is that the majority of delegates are not committed to anyone, rather than the fact that Hillary Clinton's tiny fraction of them is larger than Barack Obama's tiny fraction.

poetry,

Again, I don't see anyone being misled.

I also just don't get the superdelegate thing. Millin would be a superdelegate no matter who he supported, in virtue of his official position, which is the whole point. So since he supports Obama, he is in fact a superdelegate who is supporting Obama. But again, he didn't have to do anything for Obama before becoming a superdelegate--he was one already.

I strongly suspect people are deliberately or mistakenly trying to emphasize this because ordinary delegates are chosen by the campaigns, so to call someone a delegate ordinarily implies a kind of agency relationship with the campaign. But again, that is simply not true of superdelegates.

Will Mr. Millan now recuse himself from his chairmanship or his superdelegate-hood?(somehow I doubt it)

Well, his chairmanship is his superdelegate-hood (that is, he is a superdelegate by virtue of his standing as party chair in WY), so to recuse himself from one would necessarily be to recuse himself from the other. That said, why would he recuse himself? For what purpose and towards what end? He is voter who is voting for Obama, not a staff member working for him. He is not "going off the reservation" in making his claim any more than I would be if I were to have said the same thing. Surely it is not so hard to understand the distinction between a supporter unconnected with the Obama campaign criticizing Clinton and a campaign staffer for Clinton criticizing Obama?

All eyes are on Iowa/NH they really believe they are voting for Oprah! That will certainly change how the rest of the country views them from now on.

It’s a shame how Oprah and obama has divided the country on race! oprah supporters are afraid to research obama because then they will look foolish, its easy to jump on the anithillary band wagon, its all you will read or see from all these men owned and operated media and the ones oprah pays. Its called "INTIMADATION" We know these tricks ladies, look through history…ALL WOMAN RISE ABOVE
IT IS OUR TIME TOO, pay no attention to phoney tv talkshow host behind the curtain…

STEADMAN IS FOR CLINTON AS IS MYA ANGELO, what’s that tell you about oprahs support and why she supports obie the junkie

To looking beyond Oprah:

People of your ilk never seem to tire of exhibiting your ignorance, bias and gullibility.

Taking the gullibility first. Obama swore on a Bible -- if he hadn't it would have been big news at the time. It wasn't.

ever heard of Google?

As to bias: a Muslim is as capable of being a good leader in America as anyone else.

Ignorance: Indonesia is not Wahabi. The school that Obama attended after his fist two years at a Catholic school in Indonesia was the public school for Indonesia's elite. It was Muslim only in the same sense that American public schools are Christian. CNN went and checked the school out.

ever heard of Google -- or do I repeat myself?

So presumably the Obama campaign has by now made all appropriate prostrations to put as much daylight as possible between themselves and any possible association with Millin's inflammatory remarks. One also presumes that Millin has steeped down as Wyoming's party chair by now. It is extremely inappropriate for a state party chairperson to publicly endorse any primary candidate and obviously Millin has effectively done just that.

Al Gore was roundly criticized for not using Bill Clinton more in his campaign because they conclude it cost Gore the election.

Now we hear that Hillary cannot win the election for using Bill Clinton in her campaign because it will cost her the election.

We all know it can't be both. So, which is it? I think the Gore opinion resulted from a post-election analysis. While that doesn't mean for sure that it is right I would put more stock in that than some charge coming from an Obama supporter making a political point to further his candidates chances.

The reason most voters in Wyoming hate Hillary is because most voters in Wyoming are Republicans and Republicans are misogynistic.

If a Republican woman were running for president, you can guarantee that Democratic citizens would not be spewing their hatred of her, calling her bitch on national TV and talking about using violence against her, on the internet.

The hatred of women (and gays, remember Matthew Shepherd, Wyoming?) is still acceptable in this rotten society of ours.

He's right. Everything about Hillary's political career, and her law career, came on Bill's coat tails, and there's a lot of dirty laundry there too.

Had they never met, perhaps things would have been different.

But, it's undeniable she benefited by his office, which questions her independence and individual merits. For example, she was offered a position at Rose, after Clinton took office as AG and then Governor. Of course they wanted Hillary on staff. She's been on the board of WALMART because of access to Bill and power. It's GW Bush all over again. This is exactly why nepotism is bad.

The nepotism would be bad enough if it was all good outcomes. But factor in Lewinsky,the failed health care reform of the 90's, NAFTA and such, Iraq war vote, vote on Iran's military as a "terrorist" org, and it's pretty hard to portray her as someone on top of things or a great leader.

Bill's "3rd way" Democratic policies are now pretty despised because it turned out to be the worst of corporate Democratic backers with corporate Republican backers. The worst of both worlds. It produced NAFTA from a Democrat instead of a Republican, and people like Joe Lieberman, who basically is a Republican.

I have fond memories of Bill, relative to what came after. But in truth, many of his policies were pretty lousy triangulation and pandering to powerful interests, and Hillary is the same. We could do worse than hillary, but we could do a lot better too.

Obama has shown far better judgment on Iraq and other issues, he's truly of the people and done a lot of community work, he's a centrist in the good sense, combining the best of both parties, not the worst, and he came up on his own merits and intellect.

We wouldn't even know who Hillary is if not for Bill.

We know who Obama is because Obama has made himself known on merits.

The only reason Hillary could possibly win is also her husband.

Bill McD:
You are absolutely right. You state clearly why Dr. Millin is concerned and other Democrats ought to pay some attention to the Wyoming case, for a change. Ten percent of the US Senate is up for election in Wyoming this year. Enzi is seeking re-election and John Barrasso is trying to keep the remainder of Craig Thomas' term, a seat to which he was appointed earlier this year. Not many states have two senators--both Republicans--up this year. And Wyoming Democrats do stand a chance to win one of them, but not with Hillary leading the ticket. (By the way, Helen, Wyoming was the first state to elect a woman governor--and she was a Democrat. This has nothing to do with gender. It is a combination of tin-ear for Western issues and the Clinton record of no (or negative) coat-tails.