Of course, no one has questioned Bill's "right to campaign". That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

The questions have arisen from the multiple instances of Bill distorting Obama's record and other issues.
Elizabeth has not done that.

No one is asking that Bill go home and sit this one out. What many people would like to see, though, is Bill conducting himself with a little more dignity, and treating his wife's opponents honestly.

Instead, we get a series of stupid statements, misstatements, and fudgings of the truth. And all it's done, for me, is raise the question that Bob Herbert so eloquently wrote about today: What kind of people are the Clintons, and what can we expect from Bill in the White House?

And this statement of Edwards doesn't help. Again, no one is telling Bill to go home and shut up. For Edwards to imply otherwise is really disappointing.

whither SC wrote on January 26, 2008 1:49 PM:

"I haven't seen anything today on this site (or some others that I frequently check) about today's South Carolina primary. It is today, isn't it?"

Yes, but you are just going to have to be patient and wait until it is over (or close to being over).

lombard,

I obviously can't prove a negative to you, but you apparently don't have any evidence that Elizabeth has made any such statements. We've heard about instances when she was hostile to other candidates, but never where she was being dishonest.

I have got the utmost respect for John Edwards, a principled man who I would undoubtedly vote for if he becomes the nominee. That being said, he's starting to piss me off this week - beginning with the "I'm the only adult" rhetoric based on the debate dust-up. Does anyone remember the "angry John Edwards" a few weeks ago? - I just find it convenient that all of a sudden he's the voice of reason when he's behind in the polls. Now this. Come on John.

Look folks,
Driven both by campaign reality, twisted and magnified by the media...
It is Clinton/Obama...
We are all aware that this is the first time a spouse happens to be a former President.
We are all aware that to many former President Clinton by his very presence
is bringing home the "two-for-one" aspect.
We should be aware that Obama is trying to deflect and answer to both.

Is JRE playing politics with this?
Duh...of course. He has made it clear that his druthers would be an Obama/Edwards issue coming to Denver.
The bigger the role a former President plays the more it can easily be perceived more as a Bill thing than a Hillery thing. This is unfortunate as HRC has much to offer. However,; the more Bill plays the "Big Dog" the stronger the blowback. Edwards can afford to sit back.
Not just because he trails, but because both campaigns have been forced to take positions and issue plans if he were not
still there...

note...It appears Elizabeth is getting some rest..that is a good thing.
(((((Elizabeth))))))

Will you please cover something else occasionally? Like, find footage of the candidates actually campaigning? This is becoming Note-esque.

Umm, no one has said Bill shouldn't be able to campaign, to each their own. The issue is of course whether or not spouses should lie to voters, or more significantly, should a former president lie to voters, again.

The only people hurt by Bill's "advocacy" are Bill and Hillary. Bill is crapping all over his reputation and making a joke out of the Democratic party, and Hillary, if she wins the presidency (which she cannot do against McCain I might add), will be the one who goes down in history as the woman who road on her husband's coattails all the way to the White House, and couldn't even campaign on her own, she had to get her husband to go out and fight her fights on her behalf. Fair or not (I think it is fair), that is what she is going to go down in history as, and the Clintons, and politics in this country, will be a giant joke once again, just like in the 90s, but worse.

Edwards is just trying to fight out of insignificance, but it isn't doing him any good.

Also in today's LAT

Is the right right on the Clintons? - Jonathan Chait

Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

vena is right in my opinion.

Bill is an original DLCer and has consecutive Presidential terms--there is no way he is not connected to everybody and is commonly called the "senior" Democrat. (His only rival in that department is Al Gore.) So he isn't "just a spouse". I don't think he should be disqualified from speaking or helping Hillary, but he does walk a finer line by virtue of his position in the party hierarchy and party history. I think they know that and are prepared to take the hits. Obama seems to take it for granted too.

Now that John has disagreed with the Mind of Obama is he now in League with Axis of Evil????? That's what will be said next.

TPMemobama.

Jon Chait is a freaking liberal elitist loser. He is just pissed off that he prediction of Hillary's demise did not materize. Shameful for him to do this kind of hit piece. let the people decide!

What is interesting is that on the talk talk shows today Obama staff are fanning out to push the new party line:
no, the clintons did not inject race into the campaign, and no, it is perfectly great having Bill campaign for HRC, no sweat of Barak's beak, and no race is not an issue in today's primary.
So was The One Who Does No Wrong lying over the last week or is he lying now?
And what about having the rug yanked out from under you Oba fans?
Really, the Obama campaign is beginning to resemble Maoist China where the Official Line changed overnight and regularly...
Come to think of it, Obama is sorta a wannabe Mao isn't he? Does he write poetry too?

Because of Bill Clinton's status as the former president, everything he says gets greater attention than that of other campaign supporters. Barak Obama has people, his wife included, who are not above speaking about Clinton in a similar fashion. The big difference is the way Bill Clinton attracts the attention of the media. It's his right, as her husband, to speak out on her behalf.

Obama has voted Aye on every Bush war appropriation.
And he voted Aye on the Patriot Act.
At the risk of being labeled a racist, his story of antiwar activism is a fairytale.

I hope Bill Clinton keeps on doing us

Reminds America of a couple of things

1. How utterly unprincipled the Clintons are
2. How utterly superfluous to his insufferable ego his wife's candidacy ever was

Take back our party Democrats
It doesn't belong to the Clintons

i dont think anyone thinks bill shouldnt campaugn FOR hillary. the problem is, he hasn't been doing that. he's been campaigning AGAINST Obama.

You don't see elizabeth edwards or michelle obama going after hillary. No, instead they make cases FOR their husbands and not AGAINST anyone.

Hillary Clinton triangulated the deaths of 4000 US troops, the maiming of 40,000 more, the slaughter of 500,000 Iraqis, the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars of your children's money, and the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History

She thought her nice little war would be over with before she'd be running for Bill's Third Term

Now she wants a judgment in her favor based on experience.

Give it to her

I like Edwards..But I don't like the fact that if Obama/Clinton don't reach the number of delegates they need Edwards than becomes king maker...Don't think it fair...than the majority of the votes don't count..I think this is the reason he is staying in the race.

NoBoy, you are a dishonest, mean-spirited defender of the dispicable Clintons. Your posts are calculated propoganda, an absolute waste of words and space. I'm delighted that the dirty corporate dollars that contribute to your Hillary for President paycheck are going down the drain.

This is grrrreat!
Obama is now saying that people in his campaign may have said Bill was playing the race card BUT he never said it! So he's good to go! Clean as a whistle!
(Oops, is whistle a racist slur now?)
Geez, his own campaign staff! Is there anyone that Obama will not throw under the bus?

The LA TIMES has an opinion piece that tells it like it is: Liberals are turning against Hillary because of her dishonest, disruptive campaign tactics.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

john mccutchen wrote on January 26, 2008 3:32 PM:

ive been voting since 1960.....primarys are rough but general elections are much more brutal....obama dosnt have the campaign experience to fight the GOP...who will get real nasty

John Edwards is rigt and MSM, including all the over the top pieces in the LAT are wrong:

First, presidents past, current and future are required to comport themselves with decorum -- the more so when others don't. Former President Clinton demeans his considerable legacy by serving as his wife's attack dog in chief. - LAT

Recycling from something I had posted a few days ago at TNR:

This whole debate baffles me. While there is clear evidence that Bill is helping HIS wife's winning chances (she has won the two contests in which he was actively engaged in campaigning for her, including pulling a rabbit out the hat in NH), the clearest evidence that Bill is helping is that the media have now gone on over-drive about Bill's involvement, with their verdict already rendered: Bill is hurting himself, his wife, and the Dem party. However, when the media's consensus on anything involving Hillary is Y, you can bet that the truth is anything but Y. The only thing that is hurting Hillary regarding Bill's involvement in her campaign is the media's frenzied rant that he is hurting her, but that is really their whole purpose, isn't Marty? Hillary has the biggest gun of them all in her husband, which the media see as an unfair advantage that she must be deprived of. But if Bill is hurting Hillary and he sinks her chances for the nomination, why is that the media's concern? That is why I have no illusions about the media's motive in obsessing over this canard...

I think that the media need to pull back a bit on this because it is truly uncharted territory where the usual roles are reversed and, thus, might require conventional wisdom to be turned on its head: (a) No woman has ever had a realistic chance to win the presidency before, (b) there has never been a female candidate for POTUS with her husband as one of her surrogates (Edwards has Elizabeth and Obama has Michelle, both very vocal, why can't Hillary have Bill?), and, here's the rub, (c) no candidate has ever had a former POTUS as BOTH a spouse and a surrogate before. Instead of considering these "firsts" and pondering them, the media have already decided that Bill's involvement is wrong, but are they adequately equipped to deal with it rationally? The evidence so far is that of the MSM usual echo chamber not unlike that which led to their disastrous and embarrassing 2008 NH primary predictions. The voters, and not the pundits, will ultimately decide whether or not Bill is hurting Hillary's chances, himself and the Dem party; however, the evidence after NH and NV suggests that the voters do not YET share the chattering classes' negativity on this one.. It remains to been whether after weeks of being told 24/7 that Bill's involvement is wrong and unbecoming of an ex-POTUS, the voters would change their view...IF they do, I just hope they'll do so after Super-Tuesday :-)

LATIMES seems to think that because Obama is black he should be treated more gently than other candidates.

Deploring Bill's involvement in Hillary's campaign the LA Times states "When he happens to be a former president himself, and his wife's rival is the first black presidential candidate with a chance of winning, it looks even worse." Oh, the other candidates are supposed to step politely aside because Obama 'is the first black presidential candidate with a chance of winning?" Can you imagine the uproar if it were suggested that Obama step politely aside and stop his distortions because Hillary ' is the first female presidential candidate with the a chance of winning?'

This notion that Bill Clinton was not going to step down from his pedestal and get into the thick of things shows a comical failure to understand the degree to which Bill and Hillary have been political teammates for decades. Bill has the ability to get the public to focus on the real issues: was Obama's opposition to the war as consistent as Obama claims? This is a legitimate question when Obama has the same voting record as Hillary on the war and has made statements around the time of the vote acknowledging that he does not know how he would have voted but has not seen evidence which would convince him to make that vote. More damning to my mind, is that Obama supported the warmongering Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary – if Lieberman had been defeated that would have made far more difference in the conduct of the war than if Hillary had changed that vote.

I know of several things that Hillary has done out of principle to the detriment of her political prospects – starting with using the maiden name in Arkansas when this was a demand that women be respected as individuals whether married or not.(Sounds quaint to all of you under thirty I know but it was that way.) I am very tired of all this whining about dynasties – after JFK attained the presidency should all the other Kennedys have left politics? And certainly not campaigned for each other? Your right to campaign for an office depends on you and should not be restricted because of who’s in your family. And further, if Chelsea Clinton combines the best characteristics of each parent – You go, girl!

tz, said "her vote was one of 89 votes". What?

23 courageous Senators read the intelligence report and voted against the war in Iraq. Hillary did not read it and voted for war.

As the former First Lady, and if we believe her rhetoric now, the most knowledgeable person in the nation on foreign affairs because of extensive travel abroad and meetings with heads of state, Hillary had an unparalleled opportunity.

If she had been vocal and visible as an opponent of the war she might well have delayed or prevented it. But she voted with Bush, because she thought it would make her look stronger as a presidential candidate. Guess what Hillary, that vote makes you look like what you are: a calculating, warmongerng, mediocre politician with HORRIBLE JUDGMENT.

John Edwards for President or John Edwards as the Ralph Nader of the Democratic nomination season as far as progressive interests are concerned?

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-vs-obama-and-reagan.html

It's sad that lying about your opponent's record or words can be considered a normal part of campaigning. Sorry, but I don't accept that.

On the issue of Obama's war record, even Hillary has avoided making the same distortions that her husband did. So clearly what he's doing is out of the norm, especially for someone of his stature.

935 lies THATS WHAT GOT US IN THIS WAR

Victoria wrote on January 26, 2008 3:31 PM:

"I like Edwards..But I don't like the fact that if Obama/Clinton don't reach the number of delegates they need Edwards than becomes king maker...Don't think it fair...than the majority of the votes don't count..I think this is the reason he is staying in the race."

I don't like this possibility either, Victoria and, regardless of who he endorses eventually (if he does endorse), the endorsement will be regarded by many as an opportunistic political deal.

CHECK OUT STATE BY STATE POLLS OBAMA IS ONLY LEADING IN 3 STATES

AJM wrote on January 26, 2008 3:43 PM:

LATIMES seems to think that because Obama is black he should be treated more gently than other candidates.

Josh Marshall hasn't crossed the Rubicon yet...

He will

The Problem With Bill 2.0

I've been trying for several days now to sort out my reactions to the increasingly bitter turn of the Democratic nomination race. So let share with you my thoughts about where we are.

As I told you at the time, I thought most of the charges that the Clintons were injecting race into the process were bogus. And the Obama campaign definitely tried to stoke questions about what were at worst awkward or ambiguous statements. What's more, most of the talk about venomous attacks on Obama really don't add up.

Bringing up Rezko or cherry-picking Obama's quotes about the Iraq War to cast doubt on his consistent opposition to the war don't cut it. You don't go into a campaign with the idea that your opponents are obligated to present a dispassionate and fair-minded picture of the totality of your record. Or if you do you're a fool. Maybe you think that it should be that way but I'm not even sure there's any point discussing that hypothetical. Fundamentally a campaign is an adversary process, like a courtroom; it's not a civics lesson. Each side puts the other to its test. And there's very little I've seen from the Clinton camp that would seem like anything but garden variety political hardball if it were coming from Hillary or other Clinton surrogates rather than Bill Clinton.

I hear from a lot of Obama supporters that that may be how it's been. But Obama is about the 'new politics'. But this is no different from what Bill Bradley was saying in 2000. And it was as bogus then as it is now. Beyond that there is an undeniable undercurrent in what you hear from Obama supporters that he is too precious a plant -- a generational opportunity for a transformative presidency -- to be submitted to this sort of knockabout political treatment. That strikes me as silly and arrogant, if for no other reason that the Republicans will not step aside for Obama's transcendence either.

And yet I cannot deny that I've felt a mounting sense of unease verging into disgust with Bill Clinton's increasingly aggressive role in the campaign over the last couple of weeks. So I've tried to figure out just what it is that's gotten to me. To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy. Transcendence isn't usually a big sell for me in politics. And I continue to have my doubts about whether Obama is tough enough or savvy enough to withstand the avalanche the Republicans will throw against the Democratic nominee this fall.

I think there are a lot of us who sense an air of arrogance in Obama's talk of transcendence, reconciliation and unity. I think there are a lot of people who would say, I would have loved to have transcended back in 1995 or 1998 or 2002. But we were spending every ounce on the political battle lines trying to prevent the Republicans from destroying the country. It's hard for folks like that to hear from someone new that they're part of the problem, part of the 'old politics'.

But again, I've thought to myself, what is it that seems wrong about what's going on here. And it's this: seven years after he left the Oval Office, in many respects, Bill Clinton remains the leader of the Democratic party. No, not in any formal way. But he remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats. He is almost unique in the last century as a successful Democratic president continuing to live on after his term of office. Give it some thought and you'll realize that it's almost unprecedented. Harry Truman left office extremely unpopular. And the deserved cult that's grown up around him didn't take root until many, many years later. Certainly it didn't apply to Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter. And Kennedy and Roosevelt didn't outlive their presidencies.

For all these reasons Bill Clinton is unique, sui generis. And for all these reasons he commands massive press attention. I agree with what TPM Reader JD said last night that, in effect, Bill Clinton holds a de facto office within the Democratic party. And what he's been doing amounts to an abuse of office. He has come into a primary process between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and used his unique power to jam his thumb down on one side of the scale in a way that I think is very difficult for anyone to overcome.

Now, when I've written similar things before, many of you have written in to say: How is that fair? Obama's and Edwards' spouses are vigorous advocates on their behalf; why can't Bill do the same for Hillary? Why should she be penalized? Others say, he's her husband. Of course he's going to do every thing he can to ensure victory for her. How could he not? Some even say that he owes her in some way because of past transgressions. But this is silly. Obviously there's no comparing Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama to Bill Clinton.

But there's another aspect of this too. Bill Clinton may owe all sorts of things to Hillary Clinton. I'm sure there's a complicated mix of loyalty, love, sense that he owes her, probably the sense that she'd be a great president. But here's the thing. Back during impeachment folks like me made the point -- and I think it was the right one -- that Bill Clinton's obligations to his wife, to his marriage to sexual fidelity and so forth were an issue between him and his wife. He had a different set of obligations and responsibilities to his supporters and to the larger public. And it was the latter that concerned me.

I think something similar applies in this case. I respect all the loyalties and devotions between the two of them in what is clearly a very complicated but also very enduring relationship. But I'm not part of that marriage. Its obligations aren't any concern of mine and they have no claim on me. My relationship with Bill Clinton is as a member of the party that he is, as I've said, the leader of or at least the most revered elder statesman of. And I feel like he's violating the compact that I have with him.

You might say that's not fair, that that means his obligations as a husband and as a leader of his party are hopelessly in conflict. And I could only say you're probably right. But that frankly is one of the reasons we have instinctive suspicions about dynastic politics. And as I say, I can only see one side of the conflict. I'm not part of that marriage. And I can't see putting the fate of the Democratic party, or the country for that matter, into the balance of its obligations.

But before I finish there's another part of this that is I think even more important. With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years.

For the moment, I doubt either of them is losing much sleep over that. Get through today and then worry about tomorrow. But I think she looks much smaller now. He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around? Will he be going off to foreign countries on his own little diplomatic missions?

I had assumed he'd remain a step in the background as he has through through most of this decade. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If the constitution allowed it, I'd happily have Clinton back. I'd happily have Hillary in his place. But I don't want them both.

The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job.

--Josh Marshall

"Obama is not electable because he is still too inexperienced and he is black (as will become clear from the SC vote): Double whammy."

The only "Double Whammy" around here is the double penetration flick your mother is in - doesn't Obama have more foreign policy experience as a candidate than both Clinton and JFK? Oh, what a way to spin a possible SC win for Obama - Howard Wolfson, just go by your name next time.

Josh hasn't crossed over yet...he's in the trailing cohort

He will. Millions already have

and we ain't coming back no mo

Sweet River!
My home is over Jordan
Sweet River Lord
I want to cross over into campground

"Poor Obama supporters get very, very hurt when confronted with the truth."

I guess that explains my euphoric state..

"They prefer lies and fantasies, Peter Pan world, koolaid drinking, and all that."

Yes, please tell me that bedtime story about how Hillary refused to vote for the biggest foreign policy in american history - oh I forgot, that's the truth.

"I love it when Obama supporters get off message and start engaging in the very same tactics they falsely accuse Clinton and her supporters of engaging in."

I kind of love when, unable to provide a legitimate retort that your garden variety 5th grade can provide - the person proverbial jumps the shark and proclaims that they know what their political choice is. Nostradamus..lol

lol @ Mack

Mack: "I guess that explains my euphoric state..."

That's the koolaid.

Drink more.

It will ease the pain of losing.

"Yes, please tell me that bedtime story about how Hillary refused to vote for the biggest foreign policy in american history - oh I forgot, that's the truth."

I don't know anyone who has ever voted for a big or small foreign policy.

TexasModDem...

No thank you! Thank you for showing us the moral deficit that exists in a democratic party where classic african american spirituals are ridiculed!

We worship an awesome God in SFCA, Capital of the Blue States of America

Thank you very much indeed

This exactly why we cannot afford to "refight the battles of the 1990's with Barney Frank"

PS - As Eric Kleefeld will attest, I am as queer as a 3 dollar bill..so save it

"Shouldn't that be YOUR?"

We have a bona fide school marm in here..lol

Josh's post is partially on point about mr. bill. Mr. bill is the democratic party establishment and he is putting the establishment's full weight behind h. clinton against obama. That's not right and it does speak volumes about what obama has been able to accomplish thus far. I don't care if he is her spouse. He should be keeping his mouth shut, but he is not. Also, it really does take away from her campaign and makes people wonder what on earth is going to happen if the clintons occupy the white house. Talk about Peyton Place. The world's most powerful country being run like a soap opera. It's a frightening thought.

On another note, tpm should watch msnbc and then update the site. I was disheartened, as usual, by the post from the ground in sc. Well, its wrong. Turnout is huge and is expected to be more than double 2004. They reported from several precincts and the turnout has been more than twice 2004 and that was a couple of hours ago. So turnout is huge, which is good for the party regardless of the winner.

Finally, republican precincts have had unusually high turnout and last week the turnout in the republican primary was unusually low. SC is an open primary, so republicans are voting in the dem primary and we all know who they won't be voting for. That's good as well.

Anyone interested in what is going on should be watching msnbc. It's going to be an interesting night.

I'm amazed at the debates at this web site.

Just a few weeks ago, it seems, we were all congratulating ourselves about how great a selection of candidates we had compared to the Republicans. And now, we're pissing all over all three of them.

I'm an Edwards supporter and will be voting for him in the Illinois primary a little over a week from now. I know that his voting record wasn't impeccable, but unlike Russ Feingold -- who has the luxury of a progressive constituency -- Edwards represented North Carolina, hardly a bastion of liberal thought. And he's apologized for his vote in the war. And he's honest when it's unpopular. And he won't apologize for the War of Poverty -- won't characterize it as one of the "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" like another popular candidate.

And obviously, he won't win; he hasn't raised as much money as Obama or Clinton, and we all know that money talks. But I'll vote for any Democratic candidate who does because frankly, any of them would be preferable to the available nightmares on the Republican side.

But for the life of me, I don't understand where the passion for Obama and Clinton comes from. Clinton is a war-mongerer who learned from the health care debacle of the 1990's that you ought to take lots of money from the medical industry. And Bill's behavior is bringing back the Clinton fatigue I suffered from for so long.

As for Obama, I know that he talks pretty, but he's a politician just like any other. He hedges his bets; he offers this moderation, telling liberals that they're too angry and partisan, which pisses me off the way it pisses off Josh. He says he offered unwavering opposition to the war -- just not true, and I'm not even talking about his voting for the funding. In his first week in office -- his first week!!!!! -- he voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice. That's not exactly "unwavering opposition to the war." And then, there's the vote for the Patriot Act.

But his supporters just don't hear any of that. They always respond by (a) bashing Hillary or (b) talking about how he wants change. But they offer no evidence of it.

What I'd like to say to Obama supporters on this board is that you should try persuasion. Tell me why I'm wrong to be disappointed in his voting record, why I shouldn't be skeptical that he'll compromise on issues I care passionately about in his effort to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans, why I'm wrong to think that he's the 2008 version of Clinton's 1992 "third way." I wager that none of you can do it without using the words "Hillary" or "Clinton."

The Clintons are about to get their well deserved comeuppance. What's beautiful is that they have triggered an enormous backlash that's going to crest right as we hit Super Tuesday.

Reap. Sow. And you know the rest.

...but nowadays he spends more of his time trashing Barack then he does explaining why Hillary should be president.

Does he? Or does the media only report the minute or two of his 45 minute campaign appearances where he gives the obligatory sharp elbow?

I've seen him on the campaign trail. He's very complimentary of the Democratic field.

C-SPAN should have video of one of his SC events up tonight. Why don't you watch it and judge for yourself.

If you haven't noticed, the media is spinning all kinds of crap that bears little or no resemblence to the truth -- like when they said Obama had a "testy exchange" last week that wasn't the least bit testy.

Like frankly0, I don't see why Bill Clinton needs to abide by all these weird strictures that are being freshly minted just for him. I don't think Bill Clinton _is_ the public face of the Democratic party, or why his involvement crosses some kind of line.

Josh also argues on the front page that Bill Clinton is overshadowing Hillary. If that's true, it's almost certainly because THE NEWS MEDIA has decided to expend this much energy following him around and hanging on his every word until he says something testy, then handing it over to some experts to parse his testy behavior and what effect it has on a sadly polarized electorate.

In response to comments like "the problem is, he hasn't been doing that [campaigning for Hillary]. he's been campaigning AGAINST Obama," you're reacting to the way the news media is framing Bill Clinton's appearances and behavior. Do you really know what proportion of his statements are anti-Obama vs. pro-Hillary? _All we see_ are the edited clips of his saying "Give me a break" and "Shame on you." Believe it or not, he talks a lot about other things.

The media likes strife and conflict. The only thing they like more is blaming someone else for creating it.

I have to say I'm coming to share Bob Somerby's disappointment in Josh (read the latest Daily Howler if you haven't). He really ought to know that this whole "Bill attacks!" thing is 99.99% an invention of the media.

I know this man remembers the 90's and the ridiculous amount of just-made-up shit that got thrown at the Clintons. Shouldn't that make him a teensy bit slow to take the headlines at face value here?

As for the argument that Bill taking an active role "diminishes" Hillary, I'm sorry, but that's just plain sexist bullshit. As frankly0 pointed out above, did Hillary diminish Bill? Or did we just find it easier to assume that Bill could control what Hillary did than vice versa? If so, why?

As Edwards supporter I said to myself before checking this thread, well let me guess either the Obama groupies will disclaim that they ever wanted Bill to not campaign on behalf of his wife or they will allege some quid quo pro the most common hypotheses being the VP slot for John or the Attorney General slot.

Obama supporters should know this: by staying in the race Edwards mostly hurts Clinton, not Obama. Two, I could in an instance support Clinton but never under any conditions support Obama. Call me a Naderite but I don't settle for Republican-lite which is what Obama is only that Republicans actually stand up for their beliefs while Obama tries to be all things to all people and thus is nothing to everyone.

I might also congratulate Senator Obama on his win in South Carolina today an hour early but I will note with glee that by winning he is actually losing. He is now the Jesse Jackson of 2008. Carried the black vote, lost the white vote.

With 13 closed primaries and caucuses coming up, independents will be on the sidelines and the rank & file get their say. That vote will go to Clinton and Edwards overwhelmingly.

For those of you who say that Clinton can't win in November. I beg to differ. The economy will be the issue no matter who the Republicans put up. And even if you're right about Clinton's lack of appeal, then I say this, I'd rather lose with Clinton than win with Obama.

That I hope gets across the level of antipathy the rank & file have against Obama. I urge you look at who he really is not who he says he is. Ask Alice Palmer about Obama and why she is now a delegate for Clinton despite having been Obama's mentor in the mid-1990s. Ask Martin Luther King III why John Edwards is the only true choice for blacks.

Obama's pandering is truly something to behold. In Nevada he channels Reagan to win an endorsement from the conservative Reno Gazette-Journal. In South Carolina, he channels Huckabee with his Jesus Christ is my personal lord and saviour routine. It's frankly disgusting.

There's been concerted effort to take offense at everything Bill Clinton says. Pointing out Jesse Jackson won SC twice is just fairly obvious (Edwards won it as well - it's not surprising that a Midwest/New York candidate might be weaker there). The "Fairy Tale" comment? Was that so horrible? Follow that with Obama acting like he's running against the "status quo" when he's voted the status quo in the Senate? Again, the MLK vs. LBJ thing - you'd think the Clintons had said something racist. If Obama thinks street action is more important than being President, why did he leave the streets? And I think it's pretty gutsy to try wearing the mantle of MLK based on what? A vote registration drive on the south side? 3 years of paid activism?

Anyway, Obama's welcome to his pushback, and there's never been a shortage of people to criticize Bill Clinton, including his own party. I'm sure he'll just file the criticisms in the usual place.

john mccutchen: "Thank you for showing us the moral deficit that exists in a democratic party where classic african american spirituals are ridiculed!"

Thank you for showing us you do not know the meaning of "ridicule" or are a liar.

Probably both apply to you.