Bill Clinton Touts "The 1990s" In New South Carolina Radio Ad For Hillary

Comments (99)

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:05 PM:

Bill should zip his pants -
I mean lips

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

If only Bill had stuck to positive stuff like this, Hillary would be winning South Carolina now. But he didn't and it's unlikely that he will in the future.

He's all well and good with a script. It's when he goes off that script on his own that the trouble starts.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

P.S. If you put the Clinton dynasty back in office, I promise I will keep it in my pants this time.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

Now this ad totally sounds like he is running for a third term. WTF. By the way, I am not interested in reliving the 90's with the real estate crash in the early 90's and then the dot com bubble bursting at the end of the 90's. Also, what about the huge sucking sound from NAFTA. 22 million jobs at mcdonalds, while the rest went over seas. Good economy my a**.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President!

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

I think a positive ad is going to be more effective than a negative one.

That being said, I'm tired of Bill, big-time. I'm not excited about a Clinton co-presidency. I'll vote for her, but I'll be holding my nose while I do.

And I'm not alone in this.

nisleib wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

Wow! Awesome! Hillary is going to bring the dot com bubble back? We are going to have a second tech boom?

Why didn't Bush think of that?

This is truly great news!

Of course that probably means they are going to bring back chubby interns as well. At least Fox news and Rush Limbaugh will have something to bloviate about.

Gnopple wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

Hillary can. I’ve known her for 36 years.

Year One: I met Bill Clinton and we kinda goofed off.

Years 2-36: "35 Years of Experience" for Being President

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:10 PM:

Who's running for office here again? I keep forgetting. Are we sure it isn't Bill running for a third term? It really feels like it is.

Damn, New Hampshire. You really screwed the country over.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 5:10 PM:

I think that Obama should immediately counter with a positive ad of his own, describing his considerable accomplishment in being one among a number of State Senators who voted to fund a child welfare center in Chicago. Yes, he pressed the wrong button, but that shouldn't count.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:10 PM:

Can you even start to imagine the
Hill Billy's
in the White house again.

I can allready see the Monicas lineing up for internships to the new first lady,
which would really makes sence as Hillary will be able to hide behind his skirt - when it ain't hiked up over his hips.

The Clintons are disgusting

America can do better

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:11 PM:

Being married to Bill Clinton for that long results in a lot of "experience," Gnopple, if you know what I mean! Winky, winky.

marcos wrote on January 24, 2008 5:12 PM:

Probably the best indication yet that he is the one actually running for president here. Also one of the best indications that they are less interested in change than in putting us back 20 years and starting over again (oh, and Bill, you really idealize your own presidency a little too much, it wasn't that amazing for a lot of people, and you won't get another dot com bubble to boost the economy for you next time).

And generally, I don't have my daddy or mommy or husband or whoever write my letters of recommendation for jobs, or serve as references, because word on the street is they will say anything to help you out. I mean really. Coattails much?

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:12 PM:

Has Hillary ever admitted to smoking pot.

I don't recall anyone ever asking her if she inhaled

Hatch wrote on January 24, 2008 5:13 PM:

Isn't this pretty much exactly what they did in Nevada? Go as negative as possible and drive up Obama's--and their own--negatives until a day or two before the election, and then try to make people forget how nasty they had been earlier in the week? If it works again this time, I'm seriously going to cry.

sarah wrote on January 24, 2008 5:15 PM:

Wow...this is a great day for feminism......

just huge...

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:16 PM:

Shorter marcos:

Bill? We're just not into you, dude.

DeLassus for President 2012 wrote on January 24, 2008 5:20 PM:

Well, as long as we are discussing ads, I think I will include my own plug in here:

My fellow Americans, I have heard your call and I will answer. I assure you that while I may not be old enough to meet the constitutional requirements right now, I promise to be over 35 years of age by 2012. As such, I promise to meet all of the requirements set by the constitution for the office of the President. Moreover, as the only declared candidate, I can confidently assert that I am by far the best qualified candidate in the race, on either side! My 35+ years of experience (by 2012) stand as testament to this truth.

I promise, if elected, to withdraw our troops from Pres McCain's ill-considered invasions of Iran, North Korea, Libya and Venezuela. I further promise to smile with good-natured indulgence when the news-media mispronounce my name, and also to change the national anthem from the totally unsingable "Star Spangled Banner" to the much more melodious and overtly patriotic "America the Beautiful." Finally, a vote for me is a vote against George P Bush, Pierce Bush and Chelsea Clinton.

With your support, my fellow Americans, I promise to lead this nation into a warmer, brighter, more francophilic future! Will you join me in helping to make this hope-filled dream a reality?

pkoso wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

did i hear that the democratic presidential debate in florida had extended an invitation to bill? he and hillary opposite the competition. two presidents for the price of a new 8-year headache.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

sarah

ya get what ya desearve,
shoul have hooked your line to a woman with integrity,
instead of someone who hides behind her husband.

I'm all for a woman,

Just not her.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or him!

Captain Obvious wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

Advice for Obama: Elections are about the FUTURE.

pkoso wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

where can i find a delassus button?

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

Bill just crossed the bridge back to the 20th century!

lestatdelc wrote on January 24, 2008 5:26 PM:

Say no to third terms.

Mike Pridmore wrote on January 24, 2008 5:26 PM:

There seem to be a lot of people who have selective amnesia about every positive thing that happened during Bill's presidency. Suffice to say that at the end of his second term he had a 67% approval rating, higher than any other modern era president, including Ronald Reagan and JFK. And they tend to give credit to Republicans for beating Democrats in the 1994 elections with the Contract for America. But that contract came way too late in the campaign season for that claim to be believable. The real driving force in the 1994 election was the economy, not the Contract with America. And if Gore had been given the election he actually won, instead of having it stolen by the Supreme Court, we would be naming buildings after Bill Clinton already instead of rewriting history to unfairly minimize his legacy.

link)

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:26 PM:

DeLassus has my vote! He is, by far, the absolutely bestcandidate in the race right now...

Aren't you forgetting Jenna, Barbara, Neil, and some of the other potential candidates?

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 5:27 PM:

"Yes, he pressed the wrong button, but that shouldn't count."

Contrast that with Hillary, who knew what she was doing when she authorized the war in Iraq.

Frank wrote on January 24, 2008 5:27 PM:

This is from the Onion, right? I mean, the Clintons can't be serious with this crap, right?

Like I want to take any advice from a guy who pissed away his presidency for a bj from a fat chick.

I'll tell you what...the more I keep hearing from Bill, the less I want to vote for Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:28 PM:

can we say, now, definitively, that Bill Clinton is running for a third term?

I mean, this has ceased to be hillary's campaign and has become Bills.

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:29 PM:

There seem to be a lot of people who have selective amnesia about every positive thing that happened during Bill's presidency

I haven't. I thank Mr. Clinton for his service. He managed to still govern when many people would have been completely distracted. And some good was accomplished.

I thank him, and wish him a healthy, happy and satisfying retirement, somewhere far from the White House.

MKyleM wrote on January 24, 2008 5:30 PM:

You Obama supporters are losing your cool!

I admit, it must be very frustrating for Obama that his first real political fight happens to be against the best alive.

Having said that, it would do well to remind Obama supporters: this IS a very real campaign. What the Republican machine will throw at Obama, if he gets the nomination, will make Bill and Hillary look like cup cakes.

I think it is to their credit that Rezko entered the debate a full year into the campaign. If Obama gets the nomination, the GOP will make sure Rezko is a household name in a matter of hours and I'm sure they will succeed.

Also, please, Obama supporters, don't act as if your candidate has been as above-it-all as he likes to claim. Obama's wife accused Hillary of being unfit for the presidency because her husband cheated on her - as if that was her fault and that it matters anyway. Obama's campaign noted that Hillary was a Democrat from Punjab. Obama's campaign blasted Edwards for benefiting from labor unions, then turning around and doing the same, but worse, in Nevada (running an ad for Obama, claiming Hillary was anti-Latino - after the truce in race baiting). There wasn't even a whisper of disapproval from the Obama people.

So, please! Obama supporters, cool it. Making jokes, denouncing the Clintons for the Lewinsky afair is only to your candidate's detriment. Not only do you sound like Republican blow-hards when you bring it up, but the scandal only served to humanize the Clintons. It may have actually saved his presidency from the absolutely repulsive GOP attempt to remove him from office.

So again, take a deep breath, and chill. I'm a Clinton supporter but I will gladly and passionately get behind Obama if he's the nominee. I hope you all will agree to do the same if its Hillary.

vena wrote on January 24, 2008 5:33 PM:

Guess who's givin' Ron Paul ammunition? Slick Willie. Boy is he walkin' all over the constitution tryin' to run for a third term. If people didn't think so before, this is proof. Tryin' to elect Hill, by having her run on his record. Tsk. tsk.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 5:34 PM:

Bill did not change the Reagan trajectory. (It's just a fact: welfare reform, NAFTA, "the era of big government is over", etc. He failed to bring about a change in our health care system. He failed to bring reform that made DC more democratic and less corrupt and lobbyist controlled. He failed to make advances on stopping climate change. He did not change the trajectory. That is not to denounce his presidency entirely. There were modest advances on some progressive issues. There were balanced budgets. There was effectively run bureaucracies, like FEMA. However, he did not change the trajectory and the "Reagan revolution" lived on after his presidency, much to the detriment of the country. Obama argues that he can change the trajectory. I think he can. I also think that Edwards can, though I am not as impressed with Edwards' track record as with Obama's. Can Hillary? Or does she think that the Reagan trajectory was already changed by Bill?

The reason they are pulling this ad is that they're coming to realize that this is not a debate they want to have. They thought all good democrats would just snap into "we hate Reagan" mode and ignore Obama's actual point and the historical facts.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:34 PM:

Mike Pridmore

Name me one thing besides Bosnia (belatedly) that Bill accomplished.

And no, the .com surplus bubble does not count.

I use to support Bill, but over the last few years I have come to realize that with all the power a president has got with that bully pulpit -
He really did nothing -
he was lazy to be honest -
and I've come to see it was because of his ego
and that is a shame.

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:34 PM:

MKyleM:

Imagine what's going to happen to Senator Clinton if she's the nominee?

So, Senator Clinton, how did you feel when your husband whas stripped of his law license as a result of his behavior while President?

Let's not kid ourselves. Senator Clinton may think that she's tough enough to withstand the Republicans, and I tend to think she is. The problem isn't her toughness. It's the willingness of the American public to relive all that crap, and to agree to that crap continuing if she's elected.

That's the problem.

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 5:35 PM:

MKM-

Thanks for lumping me into a category I do not belong, just because we happen to support the same candidate.

For the record, can you explain for me just who this Rezko character is and what Obama did to be tarred and feathered by his relationship with this character?

CTV and Greg D- Y'all forgot about Jeb.

Frank wrote on January 24, 2008 5:35 PM:

the scandal only served to humanize the Clintons.

LOL. So ridiculous that it has to be a talking point.

Frank wrote on January 24, 2008 5:40 PM:

I'll tell you what...I voted for Bill twice. I supported him and fought for him through the whole Lewinsky thing.

Like Tapper said above....I've looked back and realized what a wasted presidency it was. He could have really been an agent of change, but he spent so much time fighting the pubs because he couldn't stop banging the help. How utterly stupid.

What Hillary sees as her ace...Bill...I see as her albatross.

pkoso wrote on January 24, 2008 5:41 PM:

CTVoter...great point.

It would be silly to argue that Clinton can't handle the GOP attacks, etc. Obviously she can. And yes...she'll fight back. But you're right, is the American public willing to listen to/participate in all that for another 4 or 8 years.

Perhaps Obama should make that point. It's not about Hillary (any more than it's about Obama), it's about the American people.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 5:41 PM:

MKyleM. So far Obama is beating Hillary both in total votes and in delegates. I think he's doing pretty good for a "rookie". From what I've seen, it's Bill and Hillary that need to chill out. The lying and spazzing out is really starting to backfire. Obama has been consistently chipping away at the HUGE early lead she had and just may be able to pull off the stunning upset. Even if he doesn't, Hillary needs to keep in mind that she doesn't have the luxury of a big cushion in the GE and should really think about a complete retool of her campaign advisers and strategy.

DRinOH wrote on January 24, 2008 5:42 PM:

Jesus Hillary, are you going to even bother trying to pretend you're running your own campaign? This is disgraceful and sets back the feminist cause 30-40 years. And here I thought we had our first chance to see a woman win a presidential election.

pkoso wrote on January 24, 2008 5:45 PM:

and anticipating all you Hillovers who'll argue that whoever is elected will have to deal with partisan warfare...tell me if you honestly think there is NO difference between the animosity driven by Clintons and that of any other Democrat.

of course there will be name calling, etc. but i'd wager that obama is disarming.

DancingBear wrote on January 24, 2008 5:46 PM:

Just for the record, I'm an Obama supporter and I have no problem with this ad.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:47 PM:

MKyleM

Chill, Chill
Get on board the integrity engine that is the Obama campaign,

You gotta smile dude and get out from behind Hillary's skirt and greet the new day.

The old politics is over brother.
Smile man and let go of Bill's hand and walk tall and mature.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 5:47 PM:

Let's not kid ourselves. Senator Clinton may think that she's tough enough to withstand the Republicans, and I tend to think she is. The problem isn't her toughness. It's the willingness of the American public to relive all that crap, and to agree to that crap continuing if she's elected.

Indeed, well said. Those confidently predicting a Clinton victory in the GE are, in my humble opinion, basing this on the mood of the electorate now. How will the electorate feel, however, at the end of another four or five months of Pres Clinton front-and-center, red in the face? One discounts the idea of Clinton-fatigue at one's own peril.

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 5:49 PM:

animosity driven by Clintons and that of any other Democrat.

Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, the animosity elicited by the Clintons is a special super strength kind of animosity...not the garden variety animosity engendered by opposite-party presidents...think super-glue compared to elmer's glue. It's animosity that is irrational, based on very little, and with a half life of plutonium. It's really sad and unfortunate in a way for Senator Clinton. But it doesn't have to be sad and unfortunate for the rest of us, does it?

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 5:49 PM:

I'll betcha this is next:

"Let me be the bridge to an America than only the unknowing call myth. Let me be the bridge to a time of tranquility, faith and confidence in action.

And to those who say it was never so, that America's not been better, I say you're wrong. And I know because I was there. And I have seen it. And I remember."

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:56 PM:

NCSteve

What are you talking about?
Seriously!

timbnyc wrote on January 24, 2008 5:57 PM:

Bill's running now? So he really does see this a referendum on his presidency. Obviously, everything is administration did is now fair game. Let's talk about the Defense of Marriage Act and welfare reform first, shall we?

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 5:59 PM:

NCS is suggesting that Bill Clinton is running as Bob Dole. Or that Bill is providing surrogate advice to HRC in order for her to run as Bob Dole.

His quote is from Bob Dole's RNC acceptance speech in 1996. I googled it.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:00 PM:

"We created more than 22 million new jobs, moved eight million people out of poverty, and turned our economy around."

Id like to know what role hillary played in creating those jobs.

I mean, she is clearly running on Bill's record now. Despite her claims that shes wants to be judged on her own merits, this ad disproves that.

Bill Clinton is not entitled to a third term. Which is exactly what electing Hillary will result in.

M.H. wrote on January 24, 2008 6:05 PM:

I am so dissapointed in team Bill Clinton

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 6:12 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote:

"Those confidently predicting a Clinton victory in the GE..."

And who might that be? Among the strongly outnumbered Clinton supporters here, I don't recall reading anyone confidently predicting a Clinton victory in the GE.

What we Clinton supporters are confident about is that Obama will almost certainly suffer a decisive loss in the GE.

An Obama supporter asked recently what Red states Clinton might take. I could offer an opinion on that question, but I'll ask another instead. If Obama is the nominee, which Blue states will he lose?

A new Survey USA poll shows him losing Massachusetts by 5% to McCain. Now, I know that polls have to be taken with a grain of salt at this time but for any leading Democratic presidential candidate to be losing Massachusetts in ANY poll is very, very disturbing. Clinton wins that matchup by 4% in the same poll.

I could see the same thing happening in other Blue states if he is nominated. Losing Pennsylvania? Highly possible. And, if he loses PA, Ohio is out of the question.

I could tolerate a close loss and a McCain presidency. What I really don't want to see is a huge loss where the Democrats are labeled as an unserious party of liberal dreamers.

Yeah, I know the Obama supporters' fantasy of him attracting Independents and Republicans and riding a wave of big-time electoral approval to the White House. Trouble is, I've never seen Independents and Republicans indicating that choice when they are polled. That utopian electoral scenario seems mostly the work of the Obama publicists.

to wrote on January 24, 2008 6:16 PM:

Is this ad "pulling out a stop"?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 6:21 PM:

And who might that be? Among the strongly outnumbered Clinton supporters here, I don't recall reading anyone confidently predicting a Clinton victory in the GE.

Specifically, my post was formulated with DCShungu in mind. S/he was insisting just this afternoon that Clinton would win handily while Obama would lose in a landslide. You can look on the Pulling out all the stops thread if you think that I am misrepresenting his/her remarks.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 6:23 PM:

Incidentally, dear Lombard, I do not think that you Clinton types are especially "outnumbered" here. There are not really that many Obama supporters here. There are just a few of us, including one or two who delight in changing their names so that they can appear more numerous as they inform us that neither of them will ever, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton. ;-)

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 6:26 PM:

Greg DeLassus,

I noticed you had no comment on the rest of my post.

Uncivil.Libertarian wrote on January 24, 2008 6:30 PM:

I will admit it. I was a Republican back in the 1990s, but I have since seen the errors of my ways. Frankly, though, I attribute most of the prosperity of the 1990s to the fact that Bill Clinton was kept too busy putting out the fires he started to really do too much damage, well, if you ignore NAFTA and other cf's for which he took credit at the time. I hated him at the time, and I still detest him. That's not because he's a Democrat, because I do respect Senator Reid of Nevada, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, and a few others on the Democratic Party side of the aisle in Congress. I detest him for his dishonesty and the fact that he's shown he will do anything to win, no matter how dishonorable. In 1992, I believe he said, "It's the economy, stupid!" As an Obama supporter, I say in response, "It's about integrity, stupid!"

Oh, and Tapper, on the GOP side, I support Romney because I'm a Mormon and we all vote in lock step, right? WRONG! I think he's a schmuck and certainly not the type of people I've known at church for the last three decades, and the evidence supports the assertion that you're a bigot. Now excuse me while I get some green Jello and make some funeral potatoes. F***!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 6:36 PM:

I noticed you had no comment on the rest of my post.

Indeed I had not. Still don't, come to that. :-)

Mike Pridmore wrote on January 24, 2008 6:36 PM:

For Tapper, some accomplishments of the Clinton White House that are directly tied to Hillary's work with the Children's Defense Fund (link):

The Clinton administration enabled the most powerful successes of CDF to date. A deep commitment to children's issues was shared by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a college friend of Edelman's. This political backing yielded improvements such as an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided more support to working parents. Other legislation enacted during this time period included the Childhood Hunger Prevention Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Funding was also increased for the Head Start program and for child immunization.

The president promoted several of the CDF's positions in his legislative goals: he signed family leave legislation into law and stepped up enforcement of child support payments with the help of the Internal Revenue Service. He also proposed budgets that would fully fund or expand Head Start and WIC, advocated a comprehensive federal immunization program for children, and supported health care reform that would ensure care for children and pregnant women. Although not all these initiatives succeeded in Congress, the effort reflected the growing influence of the CDF on national policy.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:39 PM:

MKyleM:

If Obama gets the nomination, the GOP will make sure Rezko is a household name in a matter of hours and I'm sure they will succeed.

I'm sure they will. But, Christ man, do you really think one single Rezko is worse than the veritable parade of rogues, incompetents and slimeballs they'll be pinning on Hillary? Do you need a list? Where to start? How about Web Hubble, Marc Rich, Norman Hsu, Johnny Chiang, Peter Paul, Barbara Striesand, Craig Livingston . . . and on and on and on it will go. And those are just the ones that are more or less legitimate targets. They're practically sprouting wood at the thought of explainging once again how her lesbian affair with Vince Foster led to his tragic murder.(Yeah, okay, I mostly threw in Barb for laughs, but Republicans really do seem to have a thing about her too).

Also, please, Obama supporters, don't act as if your candidate has been as above-it-all as he likes to claim. Obama's wife accused Hillary of being unfit for the presidency because her husband cheated on her - as if that was her fault and that it matters anyway.

Absolutely, positively false. Michelle's comment did not mention Hillary and, in context, cannot be considered as directed at Hillary. Her comment was clearly intended as a preempetive shot against people who were murmering that they wer neglecting the kids by running for President. Hillary's campaign never indicated, officially or unofficially, that it took offense or felt that the "own house in order" comment was directed at her (Hillary). Instead, a bunch of hysterical Hillary supporters in blog comment sections got their panties in a bunch over it and refused to believe it was anything other than a swipe at Hillary because, well, that's how Hillarites could be in those days, back when they thought she was ordained by Goddess to be president and all criticism was off limits.

Obama's campaign noted that Hillary was a Democrat from Punjab.

And Obama was livid about it and chewed ass. As opposed to your candidate who thinks sending out lie-filled mailers to millions of women the night before an election is "the fun."

Obama was furious with his staff. "Some of my roommates in college were Indian and Pakistani," he told NEWSWEEK. "I had to call some of my best friends and explain that my campaign wasn't engaged in xenophobia." Obama held a come-to-Jesus meeting with his senior aides at his Chicago headquarters and vented his anger. "If you're even going close to the line, you better ask me first," he recalled saying. "That was the most angry I've been in this campaign."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/84581/page/1

Obama's campaign blasted Edwards for benefiting from labor unions, then turning around and doing the same, but worse, in Nevada (running an ad for Obama, claiming Hillary was anti-Latino - after the truce in race baiting). There wasn't even a whisper of disapproval from the Obama people.

True as to the charge on hypocrisy vis a vis Edwards. It's a fair rap. Contrary to popular opinion, we acknowldge he isn't perfect. I will note, however, that there was a teensy difference in scale. Edwards and Hillary's union and 527 supporters poured millions into Iowa where the the Nevada commercials cost about thiry grand. But absolutely false as to the content of the union's commercial. Full text:

"Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters went to court to prevent working people to vote this Saturday — that is an embarrassment. Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless.

As far as I'm concerned, that's 100% accurate. What part do you think isn't true?

So, please! Obama supporters, cool it. Making jokes, denouncing the Clintons for the Lewinsky afair is only to your candidate's detriment. Not only do you sound like Republican blow-hards when you bring it up, but the scandal only served to humanize the Clintons. It may have actually saved his presidency from the absolutely repulsive GOP attempt to remove him from office.

Dude, what were were you smoking in those days? I stood up for the big lug, argued with Republicans on his behalf and he let me down. Stood there and lied to my face and yours too. His humiliation spilled onto every person in the country who took his side in that fight. I say we're damned well entitled to make a few jokes at his expense for doing that to us. We earned that right for sitting through that giant multi-course crow banquet he served up to us by the millions.

Saved his Presidency? It was the impeachment that saved his presidency. That's what caused people to forgive him, say "damn, those loons are going to impeach him for a blowjob? WTF?"

And "humanized them?" In my view, that whole experience scarred them, made them harder and more ruthless than ever. The sixty-something Bill and Hillary I'm seeing in this decade are sure as hell aren't the same people they used to be. They've done stuff in this campaign they never would have done to a fellow Democrat in '92 or '96.

interloper wrote on January 24, 2008 6:50 PM:

Anonymous: great post.

MKyleM wrote on January 24, 2008 6:52 PM:

Several of the responses to my posting above further demonstrate how intense passion can warp and muddle the debate.

The point of my posting was to remind Obama supporters that this a very real, tough race. I think both campaigns have waged very vigorous efforts and have put up a good fight. This what a real intraparty fight looks like.

I like Obama. I really do. I think its fantastic to see such energy in the support for all three of our top candidates and I'm absolutely thrilled to see how all three campaigns have produced record-breaking turnout for our party at the primaries and caucuses.

At the same time, there seems to be a breakdown on the part of Obama supporters that may be approaching, perhaps for a vocal minority, full blown panic.

I'm supporting Clinton but I do not think the world will end if Obama is the nominee. I think Obama is a rookie, but I also think there is some truth to the claim by Clyburn (sp?) that Clinton's tough campaign will only serve to strengthen Obama's. I think he is right: if he wins, he'll be a much better candidate in the general election, and if he doesn't win, then he wouldn't in the end anyway. Perhaps that can be said for Clinton in her fight with Obama.

I just find it stunning to see so many comments (and it is much worse at DailyKos than here) with jokes and seriously argued charges that involve the Lewinsky affair. I'll say it again: it makes you look like Republican blow-hards, it only serves to undermine your candidate, and makes it seem as if you have no legitimate argument for your candidate left. And you all know that last one is simply not the case; you have plenty of real arguments to make the case for your candidate.

There is no doubt, in any reasonalbe person's mind, that the Lewinsky matter served to humanize the Clintons. Many people ridiculed Chris Matthews for saying it, but I think there is some truth to his claim that this humanizing factor aided Clinton's run for Senate. Sure, she could have done it without it and I'm sure she would have perfered it that way, but it certainly didn't hurt her chances. The minute the GOP started talking about impeachment, both Bill and Hillary's approval ratings skyrocketed. The public rallied around his presidency and, no doubt, made it much easier for Democrats in Congress to stick with him -which they had a hard time doing throughout his presidency, if you remember. Thus, this humanizing factor, it can be argued, saved his presidency.

Sure, CT Voter, Bill Clinton was punished and certainly perjured himself. That is a very bad thing, to lie under oath. However, (perhaps because of our country's tabloid culture or perhaps because they have more common sense than we sometimes like to give them credit for) for Americans, lying to save your marriage is simply something different - understandable, human - than, say, the Attorney General of the US lying under oath about his involvement in the firing of US prosecutors.

As for Angry Vet, if you are unfamiliar with the Rezko scandal, I'd recomment a Google News search: Obama, Rezko. I'm sure Obama could survive this, but the fight will be bloody. My only point was that, to the Clintons' credit, in light of their being rabidly accused by many Obama supporters of deplorable campaign tactics, it took a full year of campaigning and that Wal-Mart body-blow for Clinton to bring up Rezko. This is old news, but the media has, for the most part, been silent on the matter. I was arguing that, from the very minute Obama secures the nomination to the time his rein as president is over, the GOP will make sure Rezko is on everyone's lips and serves as a drag on Obama's effort.

Anyway, peace to all. Lets all, no matter who you are supporting, try to keep reminding ourselves that this is about the Democratic Party and, most importantly, about the country. The Clintons are street fighters, but they are NOT going to destroy the Democratic Party with their tactics and neither will Obama, who is just beginning to know how to fight. I think its great he will learn from the best because, whether its 2008 or twenty years from now, he will make a fantastic president.

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 6:56 PM:

Dammit, Anon at 6:39 was me, too. Crap, I keep doing that today.

DBH wrote on January 24, 2008 6:57 PM:

@anon: ditto!

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:59 PM:

I defended Bill at the time by saying you don't blame the rat when your cat drags a dead rat into the house.

However, it's become pretty clear since then we have a huge rat problem.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:11 PM:

This is very interesting. It seems that Hillary has decided that Bill being unleashed in her campaign outweighs the possible criticism that she is riding into the nomination on Bill's coattails. Is Hillary a feminist? It doesn't seem that she is.

Americans sure rejected an unelected First Lady having any role in policy. And the "co presidency" and "two for the price of one" was dropped quickly. Have we progressed only to the point where our first serious candidate for the presidency comes into it clutched to a husband's coattails?

What do you think? Will this work?

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 7:12 PM:

Gregg D. has my vote.

Also, lombard the clinton cult people have been spouting off that she already won back in august, including marc penn by the way. They all have including calling her madame president, not marc penn in public, before one primary vote was cast. Where have you been?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:14 PM:

I thought people in New Hampshire had helped her find her own voice.

Guess not.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 7:20 PM:

Obama's campaign noted that Hillary was a Democrat from Punjab.

For the record. Punjab is a region in India, not a slur. Furthermore, the joke came from Hillary herself who first said she could get elected there. Pretty lightweight stuff, and STILL Obama denounced it trying to run a clean campaign. Now he's having to respond to Hillary's lies. Those lies cost him in NH where Hillary lied to women about Obama's record on choice. There will be blowback though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQVt8krY7SU&feature=user

roo_P wrote on January 24, 2008 7:48 PM:

I would like to request that my fellow Obama-leaning posters read and consider the following on their part. If you are a Clinton supporter, the end may or may not be helpful to you as well.

For the remainder of the primaries:

My profound apologies. I have been tempted to get down and fight it out and I have not resisted on all occasions. That type of emotional response, even when just doing combat in words, is often accompanied by a bunker mentality, and it is time to shrug it off.

From now on, I will not engage anyone of the Clinton side and I will not be baited. Any lie, misrepresentation or other falsehood will be summarily dismissed with the truth, presented neutrally and links/proof is attached. Any genuine request for information will be answered.

I will fully critically examine my own candidate as well as the others. I will point out deficiencies in mine as I see them. I will point out the good in the others and I will voice opposition to any claim by any party that is not truthful regardless of whether it works in my advantage or not. I will always strive, above all, for complete intellectual honesty.

By way of disclaimer:

I have personally concluded that Obama is the person that should be nominated. As I stated back in November, in Presidential elections I generally will go for the Democrat (since for some reason, the CPUSA candidate never gains "traction", go figure) and I was open to supporting any of the others as well if Obama should not succeed and tried to gather information to that end (my list at that time, in order of preference if not viability was: Kuchinich, Obama, Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, Richardson, Gravel.)

My impetus is a cultural change and a change of guard. I will not work to slightly improve the status quo and I am willing to pay the price.

Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporters have a choice to make.

During this primary, Hillary Clinton has lost my respect. Not because I do not trust her judgement, not because she voted for the war, or because I feel she is a bit more of a follower than a leader, not even because I feel Bill's role would be contrary to the spirit of the 22nd amendment. None of those are disqualifying reasons to me in an important election like this.

But, agree or disagree, in my opinion Clinton has run a fundamentally dishonest campaign. While at this point it would be pure hyperbole to compare hers to a Rove campaign (unless the race issues have been intentional, instead of just gross incompetence as it seems to me) she has clearly internalised the Republicans' framing of elections as a slugfest, a winner-takes-all contest of last candidate standing. It would be disingenuous to pretend that any candidate would never try to present issues their way but there are two lines that should not be crossed: from omission to misrepresentation and from there to outright lying. These have both been crossed.

To me, Clinton seems to have resigned to a cold, miserable and prolonged death like a soldier in a trench at Somme. She does not seem interested in building coalitions nor forgetting about past grudges. One character fault of hers is overarching in this: the inability to truly learn from the past. She has mastered emulating the past, but she does not seem to be able to understand it, deconstruct it and use the knowledge. I do not in any way dispute that Clinton is the best to take the Republicans on in their own game; she is. But that is not what I am looking for.

For this reason, I will not vote for Clinton in this election should she get the nomination (I will obviously not be helping the Republicans, either, though.) I fully understand the ramifications of this, and I am willing to pay the price if that is what it takes for this country to finally come to its senses.

The reason I invited the Clinton supporters to read this is because I am not alone. Ultimately, you are free to do how you please and how you see best. But each of you knows that Clinton has limited support outside the base and she is more dependent on a strong Democratic turnout than (in my opinion) any of the other candidates would have been. Her and her campaign's dishonesty and lack of honour, though, are turning away people like me who would otherwise be willing to overlook policy- and personal differences. In my estimate, this may be a considerable threat to her (she is not "unelectable," though, as some like to posit.) At this point, I am a lost cause (any changes she makes now are not out of a change of heart but for political expediency) but you may be able to influence others still.

*phew*

Happy posting, all.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 8:26 PM:

roo_P,

As Rocky Balboa would say, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

CalD wrote on January 24, 2008 8:43 PM:

Wow. Sucks to be roo_P, I guess.

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 11:05 PM:

While I was relieved to see the Clintons get back on a positive message, I kinda stopped short when I saw the part that specifically addresses African Americans. Yeeks! WTF?

carol wrote on January 24, 2008 11:11 PM:

IS BILL CLINTON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN???? SURE SOUNDS LIKE IT

GO OBAMA!!!!...JUMP ON THIS ONE FOR SURE

I WILL CROSS LINES BEFORE I VOTE FOR A WOMAN WHO CO-SIGNED HER HUSBANDS BAD BEHAVIOR AND CALLED IT A RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

Elizabeth wrote on January 24, 2008 11:50 PM:

>>>>The reason they are pulling this ad is that they're coming to realize that this is not a debate they want to have. They thought all good democrats would just snap into "we hate Reagan" mode and ignore Obama's actual point and the historical facts.

The reason they are pulling the ad is that they got hit with a counterpunch from Obama that scared them!! Bullies are cowards and they are certainly being bullies. Bravo, Obama!

Re: Lewinsky. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter and no, I'm not saying he - or any Democrat - should bring all that up. BUT ..... we voters should think of it, esp if we want a Democrat elected.

The first of many, many, many references from the other side was made tonight, by Mitt Romney in the Rep. debate. "I just can't imagine anything worse than Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do......!!" -- Forget Rezko or Whitewater or any of that. The drumbeat is going to be constant and voters in the GE, of both parties and indenpendents, are going to start remembering the cringing and queasy stomachs that our whole nation had for months and months.

Even at the time (and it was before 9/11, when such things became real in our minds), I remember thinking "Dear heaven, I hope no one decides to attack us -- our government is paralyzed!" And that's truly a more terrifying thought now.

Do we REALLY think there's going to be a general election campaign, esp. with Bill playing such a prominent role, without his, er, non-governmental activities being brought front and center and occupying everyone's attention? -- It's simply going to happen if she's the nominee.

Tony wrote on January 25, 2008 1:21 AM:

I support Hillary because her bashers are so utterly stupid. Monica jokes? Did you all get reincarnated as David Letterman circa 1998?

jacksmith wrote on January 25, 2008 5:56 AM:

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

DancingBear wrote on January 25, 2008 6:50 AM:

I'll join Roo's anti-animosity pledge.

Further to my comment above that I'm an Obama supporter who has no problem with this ad, I note this from Michelle Obama's e-mail to supporters yesterday:

"We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face."

Steve Jennette wrote on January 25, 2008 7:09 AM:

The "return to the 90's" of Mr Clinton has to include his destruction of the hopes of Mr Gore through the semen-stained blue dress. Impeachment. Disgrace. Mr Clinton should have resigned and not left the country in the hands of W. Who is to blame for the war in Iraq? The deficit? The Red/Blue morale-sucking divide in this country? Mr Clinton and his selfish sexual conduct, and then his lying under oath about it. Without the Clinton "legacy", we would have attacked global warming, and intelligently responded to 9/11. Mr Clinton is a selfish egotist who is more responsible for the problems of this country than anyone since Herbert Hoover. Hillary will lose to McCain, and we will again have our party hopes dashed by Mr Clinton's ego and selfishness.

marcos wrote on January 25, 2008 8:03 AM:

Yea, the 90s were great, just ask the over half a million Iraqi children who died because of the sanctions that Bill supported.

Oh yeah, you can't, because they are all dead.

Thanks Bill!

But hey, it is good that the sanctions were there, because they hurt the civilians and bolstered Saddam's control over them, all the while making Arabs hate us even more for our cruelty.

Thanks again Bill!

markg8 wrote on January 25, 2008 9:05 AM:

Here's what some of the legislation we got during the 1990s under the Clintons.

NAFTA, welfare reform, Dont Ask, Don’t Tell, The Communications Decency Act, easing media ownership laws, Defense of Marriage Act. And of course the disastrous failure of Hillary's heatlhcare plan that cost us congress.

Obama is right, Clinton didn't shift the American debate to progressive values. The Clintons just triangulated their way through the decade doing their best to ameliorate the worst aspects of Republican legislation.

In the end the man who told us if we worked hard and played by the rules broke the rules, got caught and allowed the Republicans to stifle any gains he could have made for us. We lost congress and he couldn't even help Al Gore become his successor.

If we nominate Hillary and she gets elected you can expect more of the same small bore efforts. These two won't build the huge mandate we need for the great changes that have to be made. They're not even trying.

lisp wrote on January 25, 2008 9:06 AM:

Hypocrites.

"I have tried to make it clear that this election has to be about the future," Clinton said. "It is perfectly legitimate to draw comparisons and contrasts. I think both Senator Obama and I have made it clear we do want to focus on what we each would do for our country. It has been obviously an incredibly intense campaign. ... But I do want to make it clear that our campaigns have to stay focused on what you know the legitimate differences are so we can give voters information."

Julie wrote on January 25, 2008 9:26 AM:

THanks for reminding us what this election is really about, Bill: You. Anyone who thinks electing Hillary does anything for the cause of feminism is out of their mind or lying to themselves. This is the exact opposite of feminism and it's disgusting.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 9:38 AM:

"We turned the economy around"?

Right, Bill. It wasn't the billions of individual actions of business people and workers around the globe that made the 1990s economy. It was all you making it happen from your position in the oval office, you fat tubby lying ball of rube spit.

Frankie wrote on January 25, 2008 9:42 AM:

Spectacular! On Drudge there's a pic of Hillary with none other than that slimeball slum lord Rezko.

Nice call, Hillary.

Do y'all understand yet why Hillary is a liability, and not an asset, at this point?

dave wrote on January 25, 2008 9:51 AM:

I might get a perverse thrill out of watching the bloodletting if the presidential campaign is between two establishment candidates like Hillary and XXX(R). I can't wait to see a republican rip into every unsavory Clinton story there is out there. Obama has too much class to do it, plus there are certain things intra-party candidates can't say about each other.
Anyways, i still have faith dems will see the light. Apparently these "muslim" emails are gaining traction in the less educated and Jewish segments of our society. I'm glad Obama is trying to handle up on those, but it is despicable that her even has to spend time referencing them.
All in all, this country has further to go than i even ever imagined.

Bupalos wrote on January 25, 2008 10:08 AM:

I think it's sad that Hillary is going to run this way. She got a little scare from Obama, and immediately it's all "big dog." I think it seriously compromises the idea that she is running to be the first female president. They are running to be the first (well, second I guess. Or first again...) co-gendered co-presidency. And it's Bill that's doing the heavy lifting. After all, he is a man. I find this borderline offensive.

Every presidency has it's positives and negatives, but the truth of the matter for the democratic party is that Bill achieved his "success" by paralyzing government when he wasn't moving us to the right. For most of the time he was president during an unparralleled expansion that turned out to be quite unstable, including a bubble that had nothing to do with him at all, positive or negative. But that was the basic source of the "surplus," which was gone before Bush ever got around to trying to plunder it for the weathy.

He also not only signed but personally pushed for the banking "reform" that cut us loose from Glass-Stegall and is the basic source of the housing and financial sector trouble now. Can any progressive explain that? How ever much Bush would have done the same thing, he didn't. Because he didn't have to. Because Clinton did. And despite moving us to the right, Bill somehow (I think we know how) created a right wing backlash that pushed us further right and brought in Bush. So let's be honest about the legacy. It's very very mixed, even if everyone was having a better time in the 90's. Toss in the pardons and the terrorism document theft at the end and after, and many of us Clinton supporters were embarrassed and glad to see the big dog leave off his grip on our party.

Now Bill is coming on to say please elect Hillary for another-not-another term because times were so great when we I us were in office making our my decisions. It's bound to work, tying these two together where they have a positive image, divorcing them where they have a negative image. But it's sad. It insults my intelligence, and I think it's a complete abdication of Hillary's responsibility as the potential first female nominee to show us an independent spirit. I'm sad for her.

Cyn2Maine wrote on January 25, 2008 10:24 AM:

Ya' know, as a good liberal, I wasn't really supposed to feel this way. I was told that Bill Clinton's antics in the oval office should be overlooked, that they were a private matter. And, I agree. But I was disgusted with his behavior and I don't want him back in the white house. It's just a hang-up I've got.

C

Bupalos wrote on January 25, 2008 10:33 AM:

I think the thing that no one can dispute, is that when the Clintons show up, people line up on one side or the other and start shouting. All the oxygen is sucked out of every other issue. When the Clintons are running, in a primary or a general, the issue is the Clintons. It isn't healthcare, or housing, or the war, or foreign policy. It's the Clintons. I don't know how that happens. But it couldn't be a worse situation for Obama or, IMO, for the democratic party. They simply bring out the worst in everyone. Just check out these threads. And frankly, Bill seems to delight in this role of polarizer in chief.

If I thought they were politically anything more than DLC triangulators, I might be able to hold my nose and line up behind Bill's cult of personality. And frankly, when you look at what the Clintons run on and what they deliver, you have to ask why we even pay attention to the policy initiatives at all.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 25, 2008 11:08 AM:

'I think it's sad that Hillary is going to run this way. She got a little scare from Obama, and immediately it's all "big dog." I think it seriously compromises the idea that she is running to be the first female president.'

A whole heap of over analyzing going on in this post...

You got all that, from this simple ad?

LOL

eyeonthestreet wrote on January 25, 2008 11:38 AM:

After reading the new article on Clinton and Obama in the most recent New Yorker, I realized why Hillary should not be President- go read:

http://www.newyorker.com/

"The Choice," by George Packer

She wants to control everything- and has no vision. Sounds like Nixon.

TEP wrote on January 25, 2008 12:40 PM:

As a Republican who feels his party has been hi-jacked by fundamentalists Christians and the military/industrial complex, I support Obama, who is the only candidate that offers a different kind of real change in the way Washington conducts it's business.

I fear, however, that Clinton loyalists in the Democratic Party will make the Clintons their candidates for the general election. Republicans and many independents who feel as I do will either be driven back to the Republican candidate or will stay at home. The result may well be another Republican President and more of the same old way of doing things or doing nothing.

Sad in OH wrote on January 25, 2008 1:27 PM:

Bupalos-

OMG -"Glass Steagall" should a term that is shouted far and wide by everyone.

Republicans , Democrats, & Indies that
Repeal is about to ruin Millions of Americans lives. He/she should be made to answer for it.-

Fact: The Clintons do NOT Care about Americans they only Care about themselves.
Fact: If elected they would throw us to the wolves again!

Sad in OH wrote on January 25, 2008 1:33 PM:

TEP

The Clintons are apart of the "military -industrial complex" it is their bread & butter, that is why most of the MSM (CNN) shills for then. Heck you know Something is amiss when Murdoch is their fundraiser!

PENN SAID WHAT! wrote on January 25, 2008 2:07 PM:

Unquestionably, the Clintons were gaming due to the emergence of Obama; the gap between them was reduced to zero in four months. Race? What else is new! If Obama was not prepared for the so called race card narrative, he would not be a viable candidate. Stupidity is the choice word here! The stupidity to believe one can expand by lessening another with cheap visible child like tricks. In short Clinton is galloping to the past with tools of the past to find tomorrow, and is mad as hell as Obama with the wisdom of the past gallops into tomorrow . As I said, Stupid! And yes, in South Carolina!

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 2:12 PM:

MKyleM wrote: "I just find it stunning to see so many comments (and it is much worse at DailyKos than here) with jokes and seriously argued charges that involve the Lewinsky affair."

What do you think it will be like if the Clintons run in the general election? This is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do.

Like it or not, Monica Lewinsky bjs are as much a legacy of the Bill Clinton adminstration as NAFTA, welfare reform, and DOMA. The Republicans won't forget that (or the impeachment) and neither will thousands of Dems who defended Bill Clinton only to learn he was lying when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Clinton didn't just humiliate the country with that lie; he humiliated hundreds of supporters who actually believed him and defended him.

You may desperately wish for Hillary Clinton's sake that none of this ever happened. But it did. If Hillary Clinton is running on Bill's record, she's running as much on the Lewinsky bjs as she's running on the dot.com boom and good economic times.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 2:24 PM:

Wait a minute--I'm confused. Is he running for president again? I thought two terms was the limit.

It's really sad to know that the Clintons know that Americans are stupid and gullible enough to fall for this obvious bullshit. That's the thing with running a dirty campaign: the reason it's dirty is because it's scraping the bottom for the stupidest possible voters. Bush went dumpster-diving for the trailer park evilangelicals. The Clintons are going for the white vote and people who are so clueless that they can't get it into their thick heads that Bill isn't going to be president if Hillary gets elected.

twirling fartknocker wrote on January 25, 2008 2:59 PM:

ClintonCo: Don't stop thinkin' 'bout yesterday

(...and completely forget all the f*$@d up stuff that Bill signed off on)

I only hope that after Hillary wins (she won't) another Bush runs and then perhaps Chelsea, and so on for 100 years. whoopee!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)