TV viewers just love those TV blowhards.

Cable TV is wall-to-wall with these red-faced, know-it-all, loudmouth, full-of-themselves blowhards.

Why is this so ? Are they appealing ? It is easily proved they are not knowledgeable or illuminating.

Is it the testosterone ? Is that what appeals, that they are bullies ? That they can shout louder than anyone else ?

And the female bullies, the bully-women, that have also appeared : are they the thing ? Are they compelling too, for the same reasons ?

Heaven help us ...

asdfjkl - What you seem to overlook is that if, as you say, "the public is weary of hearing the Coulter-type right-wing Clinton-bashing," then that's a huge plus for Obama because that's exactly what the public will get if HRC gets the nomination.

I agree with Qwerty. Matthews is no Clinton fan and I can see him and others running with that quote for the next couple of days.

Isn't it interesting that Mitt Romney says he is TOTALLY AGAINST POLYGAMY - yet he lives his life looking forward to an afterlife where he'll be a SUPER POLYGAMIST with his own planet and his own Goddess Wives.

Mormon men are taught that after death (and if they are righteous) they will live forever as GODS over THEIR OWN PLANET - having unlimited sexual relations with MULTIPLE GODDESS WIVES so as to populate their own planet.

How can Mitt Romney say he is against something he believes is one of the greatest rewards in the afterlife. DO YOU really want a PRESIDENT who disavows something in his earthly life that he covets and aspires to in the afterlife?

Are you aware that Mitt Romney has performed death oath rituals hundreds of times in which he has drawn his thumb across his throat from side to side as if he were slitting his own throat and another where he has drawn his thumb across his abdomen as if he were disemboweling himself?

I am a former Mormon. I graduated from BYU. I was married in the Wash, DC temple.

I vehemently believe in freedom of religion. However, I am concerned that someone who professes questionable beliefs and who has participated in cult-like rituals involving grisly death-oath might become our President.

This information is not widely available to the general public. Mormons profess - what goes on in the temple is "sacred, not secret." Well if they are so sacred and "not secret" then why was I asked to make death oaths swearing I would not divulge what I had seen and experienced in the temple?

Visit my blog at http://justicefreedom4all.blogspot.com/ to see video re-enactments of the actual temple rituals and interviews with other individuals who also experienced the Mormon Temple rituals.

After participating in these rituals myself, I could no longer hold the Mormon faith in my heart and in my mind. As I exited the Wash, DC Mormon temple after going through the rituals for the first time I was asked by other Mormon's who accompanied me what I thought about what I had seen and experienced.

My response was that if those ceremonies/teaching were indeed of God, then I would rather go to hell with non-Mormons.

I feel that this information needs to be disseminated immediately. Voters must have this "sacred, not secret" information so they can make their own decisions about whether a practicing Mormon would be their choice under all
circumstances of national security.

How meaningful will an oath of office be for someone who makes death oaths to their God in the name of their religion?

And what I find even more frightening - why is mainstream media treating these Mormon issues like the naked Emperor is marching by?

I can longer live in fear of the millions of Mormons who have taken the death oaths. Citizens of America have a right to the facts.

Dianne Pearce
Phone: 636-675-5232
Email: dpearce@erols.com

deeply weird? i'm sorry, but i agree with Qwerty on this one. the only thing deeply weird is that you didn't see this as a defining point in the debate. the zeal on mitt's face before he delivered that line was real...and i think it wasn't so much his own as the GOP's. they cannot wait to lay all manner of insinuation at the feet of GE voters. will it work? i don't know. but they want hillary...because they can trash bill. and enough people will be turned off by the prospect of another 8 years of that chaos that the election becomes very much within reach for the GOP.

Dianne Pearce:

Why is it that you talk about the Mormons as having inane ideas of the afterlife when, in fact, all religions have inane ideas about the afterlife?

Do you think getting wings and a halo and harp after you die makes any more sense?

You have an ax to grind with the Mormons personally, and for that, I'm sorry. But it has no place here. I no more care about Romney's religion than I do about the fact that Reagan was *gasp* divorced before he became president. Neither decision affects the execution of duties.

In other words, I found much better reasons to vote against Reagan than the fact that he broke the sanctity of his marriage.

(Having said that, Huckabee scares me for wanting to bring religion *into* his duties -- and there lies the difference.)

Real politics is about the show of religion to the common folk. Reagan was hardly religious at all -- yet he made a good show of it by attending services regularly for the cameras.

Bush supposedly talked to Jesus in the White House. For advice. For real! That's worse in my book than Nixon talking to the paintings, but people swallow Bush's talking because the majority of the country believes that Jesus is the son of God.

Which is a fairy tale to the rest of the world who is non-Christian.

To me, the best religiousness expressed by the Chief Executive was Lincoln -- and yet it's difficult to even describe him as a Christian. So much of what he said embraced all of humanity and was totally inclusive.

Impressive for a mere 19th century guy.

That was the happiest I've ever seen Mitt Romney. He and the other Republicans are salivating at the idea of running against the Clintons. All the better if it's both of them. And I truly believe the country will not allow another 8 year Clinton/Bush dishonesty-deception-doubletalk-fest. If you had told me a year ago, that I'd vote for a Republican President in my lifetime I would be shocked. If you had told me I'd vote for a Republican to follow Bush, I'd have laughed in your face or maybe told you that I would pray for you. But now, if it's Clinton, I will definitely vote for a Republican. It's the least I can do for our democracy.

I don't find anything "deeply weird" about it, first of all, because I don't associate the concept "deep" with Chris Matthews in any permutation.

Secondly, I posted a comment very much related to the concern on the NYT Caucus blog to the effect that:

Do we really want a President worrying where in the White House Bill Clinton has absconded to with the latest 'intern' or whatever, instead of concentrating on the problems of America and Americans?

On another topic: Hillary said in her Tyra Banks interview that she never doubted Bill's love for her during the Lewinsky matter. Really? Is she delusional or just lying? I've been married for over a decade, and I think I know my husband pretty well. I'm also pretty sure that he's never cheated on me, but, I have to say, finding out that he had cheated on me in my home would make me doubt his love for me for some time. She's telling me that a husband who's continually cheated on her, whose affairs she'd taken it upon herself to douse in the past, has a new and perhaps career-ending affair, and she doesn't believe there's a reason to think, "Maybe he doesn't love me?" That simply can't be humanly true except in the Stockholm syndrome sense. So, she must have just made a calculation that the political partnership took precedence over her feelings. That's fine, and I don't really expect her to admit that. But, to say in a what she did is so unbelievable that it invites ridiculing her as either a liar or a rube.

Dear Michael's Mom:

Surely you aren't expecting HRC (or Bill) to talk about the Lewinsky affair in any type of real candor, right?

Even if the Clinton's were the biggest straight shooters on the planet (and I don't think they are), it's hard to believe that *any* politician would talk openly (and honestly) about something that is both (a) deeply personal and painful and (b) a huge liability.

The Lewinsky thing (and all the attendant business including the blatant lying, the "vast right wing conspiracy", and the impeachment) are huge albatrosses around the necks of the Clintons just as Chappaquiddick is for Ted Kennedy. (And, no, I'm not comparing philandering to negligent homocide as equivalent criminal acts.)

I expect that the Clinton's are hoping that if anyone brings up Lewinsky it will look like they are "victims" and so they are hoping it will go away.

It won't.

Not because marital infidelity should prevent someone from office. But because it shows serious flaws of judgement and character in Bill Clinton and makes HRC look particularly scheming or worse, an enabler of Bill. At the time of the incident, with Bill about 1 year from becoming a lame duck anyway, I was upset that the GOP couldn't just move on, particularly since Lewinsky wasn't underaged and wasn't a foreign citizen (both of which would make the hanky panky more serious to executing the duties of the presidency). However, this time around, it will be a festering sore right from the start of a Clinton administration and hamper effective governing (it becomes their soft underbelly and will prevent them from effectively dealing politicking with Congress).

I will do anything to encourage people to stop the dynasty-rule mentality that has gripped the country, and if people decide not to vote for HRC because of the whole Lewinsky affair, well, that's just more grist for the mill.

It's the surname, stupid: "I will do anything to encourage people to stop the dynasty-rule mentality that has gripped the country ..."

Well, I have to admit, it sure sounds like it's grasped you by the throat. I'll leave it at that.

Sometimes Greg....that is what it is like in here.....in here is like the inside of Tweety's mind.

Hillary will lose for the Democrats. Barack can win. Enough said.

Greg, enough with the fascination with Chris Matthews. I understand Chris Matthews sucks, but does TPM have to have a reference to Matthews every single day. TPM, Kos, Eschaton- you're all obsessed with the dude. It's pretty weird.

jaind wrote on January 25, 2008 7:29 AM:
Sorry to say Billy-boy, if you two are going up against McCain, you aren't going to get the chance to whore around the White House again because he will kick your ass.

... Right, the Americans will vote for an old dude who will commit U.S. force for 100 years in Iraq and a man flips on Bush taxes, see no need to stimulate teh economy, flips on immigration, and called a fellow republican .... It is temperment, stupid.

I'm beginning to realize that the divide between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is how you see the Clinton years.

I'm a Clinton supporter.
I never dwell on Bill Clinton's sex life. I dwell on smart government.

Those of you who believe the "Clinton scandals" were bad for the Clintons, just don't realize how FEW you are in number, albeit loud and annoying in voice.

The "Clinton scandals" divided America into The Clinton Haters and the rest of us.

Clinton's approval numbers went UP, HIllary's approval numbers went UP, Democrats won historic seats in the 1998 election, and 70% of the nation thought America was going in the right direction when Clinton left office.

Dwell on Bill Clinton's sex life all you want, Clinton Haters. All it does it continue to marginalize the Clinton Haters from among the rest of the serious adults in America.

Anyone who thinks this classless line of attack will do any harm to Clinton must have slept through the 90s.

When it comes to the Clintons, the media and the Republicans are clueless. They don't understand the constituencies the Clintons appeal to, and they don't understand the issues that are important to them. They don't understand the Clintons strengths as listeners, their attitudes toward public service, or their respect for the voters (a respect the elite media definitely does not share) and consequently they don't understand the real, positive strengths the Clintons bring to their campaigns. And it drives them -- the Republicans and the media -- crazy. They are perpetually pissed off that, when it comes to the Clintons, the voters have never cared much about the pointless and purile things they obsess over.

Which is why everything the media ever predicts about the Clintons always proves wrong.

Correction: In my earlier post I should have said, "When it comes to the Clintons, the media and the Republicans and the elite Left are clueless."

Greg,

i don't like it when you play naive. its unbecoming. you know exactly what the context of the statement was. I think matthews is ridiculous, too, but if the Clintons are going to throw around the kind of arguments they have recently about Obama, then they have to accept these. There is so much psychobabble about the clintons because there is so much 'psycho-drama' there.

at this point, its a valid concern that i don't think people have thought about over these seven years of Bush. If they decide it doesn't matter to them, fine, but its as legitimate to bring up the nastiness of the 90s as it is to run on Bill's record.

its a story.

tz,

they mention Hillary because she riles up the base that votes in the primary.

that's why.

Can any one really stand the idea of "The circus is back in town"?! The Clinton era does indeed only look good compared to the Bush years, but Bill is doing his best to bring back all those offensive memories. The use of the Rove/Goldwater tactics WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY is really enough to drive a life-long dem. like me to look at a Romney, who scares me less than "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain - I'm afraid his talisman is not strong enough to help us then....

I hope the republicans keep trashing the clintons and the media keep reporting it. We need this fight now to pick the best candidate for the general. What Bill will do in the white house is a very relevant question? I think there is much untapped clinton fatigue out there and we should bring it out now, before we are stuck with Hillary as the nominee.

It's not the sex life that drives me away from Clinton, not in the least. Remember that Bill Clinton was labeled slick Willie well before there was any evidence of his sexual peccadilloes. It's because he is a serial misleader. He and Hillary do drive Republicans and many independents up the wall, and WILL increase their turn out numbers, not because of the sex but because of the disingenuousness.

"... Right, the Americans will vote for an old dude who will commit U.S. force for 100 years in Iraq "

And old war hero who "refuses to surrender," refuses to "run away from our responsibility to the Iraqi people," versus a lady who voted to go in to win, but now wants to get out, if it's stable enough, and we're safe enough..but isn't sure when....but definitely wants to start soon...and would like to have all the troops out at some point if it's feasible...but certainly not 100 years...

McCain will make Hillary's position look like an unprincipled version of the exact same thing he is talking about. And the reason is because that it what it is.

Look, in retrospect, you Clintonite can say it doesn't matter to you all you want. It does matter.

The bottom line is that Bill put his own personal interests ahead of the country's, with catastrophic consequences for the future. (Just like Hillary did when she voted for the AUMFAI, incidentally. But, I know, that doesn't matter to you either.)

Yes, what he did, and who he did it with, would never have been an issue in a country with sane politics and sane attitudes about sex. But if he, or anyone else, was or is under the illusion that those words describe, or have ever described, the United States of America, they're delusional. No one knew that better than Bill. Yes, the Paula Jones lawsuit was a disgraceful travesty of justice on multiple levels and the way her lawyers abused that pathetic woman in pursuit of their pathological political agenda should have gotten all of them, most especially including Ann Coulter, disbarred.

But Bill knew all that too, didn't he? He's a brilliant politician and was a damn smart lawyer. As an attorney, he knew full well that they have evidence in hand behind those questions. He knew he was being set up for a perjury trap and knew full well where it would end. But when the time came to choose between postponing his personal embarassment and dragging the whole country into a Constitutional crisis, he chose to cover his own ass. He had thirty days to change his testimony in that deposition. Thirty days to mull all of this over and still he chose postponing the embarassment--even knowing that doing so ensured it would orders of magnitude worse when the truth did come out.

So you guys don't think the affair was a big deal? Have any of you considered the subsequent consequences of that impeachment and his cowardly mendacity? How about the fact that he contributed to an environment where an election that should have been an out of the park homerun based on the economy ended up being close enought to steal? How about the fact that his impeachment ensured that the next president would be impeachment-proof no matter what he did? How's that all worked out for us?

But, hey, I guess its all okay, and all forgiven, since the Clintons were the innocent victims here.

Bill will have plenty to do. He is going on the world tour with Daddy Bush to "restore America's image" around the world remember?

Of course that would be hard for the Clinton Administration to actually do justice when Dubya is convicted of war crimes. I guess you can't uphold justice against your BFF's son now can you?

If you thought the marc rich pardons were on the fence. Just wait till the clintons pardon the "worst criminal leader in American History"

I'm not so sure it is weird. It is highly inappropriate for a former President to be as involved in this campaign as he is, not to mention the zealous negative campaign he is waging. It is unbefitting a former President of the United States to be behaving in this manner. Regardless of whether Hillary is the ideal candidate or not, the campaign she and the former President are running, is detrimental to this country, and will ultimately polarize it among party lines, race lines, and class lines. That could prove to much worse than the last eight years. If she is to win this election without dividing the nation, Bill Clinton needs to remove himself from campaigning.

mabini,

you seem to be cutting and pasting that same post on several blogs.

tsk tsk