Oh helllllllllllllll no!

Bill was disbarred for his perjury! Bill Clinton lying is not a right-wing talking point. It is a FACT.

Now calling Obama's plan to address social security by raising the cap on social security taxable income "a trillion-dollar tax hike"? THAT's a right-wing talking point.

More hypocrisy from the Clintons pushing me further and further away from supporting Hillary in the general if only to purge the disgusting, lying, self-entitled Clintons from the party so I do not have to be ashamed to be a Democrat with them as the head of my party.

Greg:

Please tell me you laugh out loud when he said that. Please.

New Obama ad.

Inspiring:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1385609375

They can't address Obama's charge, instead going for the schoolyard reverse taunt, "no, you're a liar!" That's pretty sad.

Thing is, the right wing attacks stuck, and in a major way, since Bill Clinton definitely did lie - her purjured in front of the whole world where a single moment of honesty would have changed the course of history for the better.

What's crazy is the last several weeks ahve proven the right wing smears, if harsh in invective, were absolutely right about the character of the Clintons. They will leave bodies in their wake. They are not nice people. They care only for themselves.

I am not cheered by yet another 8 years of mendacious government.

Audacious_One:

Cause they are frustrated because Obama lost. Or they are spouting right wing talking points. Or, um . . . all we know is that it will never, ever, ever, ever, be because the Clintons were in the wrong. Ever.

I think it is safe to say that the words "integrity" and "responsibility" get no play in the Clinton camp.

if the shoe fits, bill. if the shoe fits.

Are they all such douchebags? I thought maybe it was only Penn.

As a two time voter for Bill Clinton, I am getting more and more disgusted with him and Hillary's attacks of Obama.

They have distorted Obama's comments about Reagan. Obama said Reagan RAN at a time that American's needed a new direction. Because of that FACT - he was able to capture both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICAN votes.

Bill Clinton did NOT win by getting both Republican and Democratic votes.

They distorted Obama's stance on the Iraq war - parsing his words.

Their supporters are spreading wild accusations about OBama's name and his religion that's all been proven false.

Why can't the Clinton's --AND I MEAN THE CLINTONS --(apparantly Hillary can't run on her OWN record as OBama has to) run on Bill's record instead of stepping on Obama with personal attacks?

I'm so ashamed of them..They are the ones playing with GOP politics.

bottom line look up the definition of DLC ON WIKiPEDIA fro the short explanation.
do you want that (gop-lite) or something and someone ObamA, who really can bring about Real and Significant change.
as a woman, of course if the choice was between a man and a woman who would both be good for all of our futures i'd choose the woman.

but our only choice for real hope and change is a man.

i cant find what i and the country needs in the Billary tag team of a man and a woman.

The idea that Obama uses "right wing talking points" is ridiculous. Accusing him of that is a textbook example of the Rovian politics of aiming at your opponent's strongest point. If anything, Obama has a better liberal record than Bill OR Hillary. I mean, Hillary wants a freaking flag-burning amendment for Chrissake!
I'm at a place politically that I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd be at: I'm sick to death of the Clintons. So please Bill, STFU and go away. You're destroying OUR party.

The Clintons, and all the morally challenged losers they surround themselves with, are a cancer and must be purged from the Democratic party forever. Hopefully we will do it now, in this primary season. If not, count me among the growing sea of voices saying that we will purge the Clintons from politics in November. The long term interests of the party are more important than their greedy, self interested power grab.

Kos ha accused obama of the same thing in regards to kerry and gore.

obama the big cry baby! if you cant take the heat....

Wow, just like their supporters, if you call the Clintons out on their lies, you are accused of being a Republican. Can the hypocrisy get any thicker??

No jackass, Bill HAS been lying and distorting Obama's comments, that is a fact. Calling Bill a liar is not a GOP trick, if he is lying, he is lying, that's it. Just because the GOP in the '90s called Bill a liar (oh, and they were RIGHT for once!!!) doesn't mean that everyone challenging Bill Clinton's truthfulness is a Republican.

And GOP talking points??????? Is this for real?! This coming from the same Clinton campaign who dropped mailers saying Obama is going to raise your taxes? This coming from the Clinton campaign that suggested that if you don't elect Hillary we may be attacked by terrorists?? This coming from the same Clinton campaign that suggested that Obama was too liberal on gun control to be electable?? Hillary is the QUEEN of GOP tactics and talking points, give me a damn break! This is so ridiculous it would be funny if so much weren't on the line, and if so many people weren't ignorant enough to believe it!

The hypocrisy is astounding...seriously...astounding.

We've had 8 years of Vice President George HW Bush
We've had 4 years of President George HW Bush
We've had 5 years of Governor George W. Bush in Texas
We've had 8 years of President Bill Clinton
We've had 7 years of Senator Hillary Clinton
We've had almost 8 years of President George W. Bush

How many more years should we continue to believe that the Bush and Clinton families are the only ones that can LEAD OUR NATION? Must we experience another 4 to 8 years of the Clinton family running our country?

Whether you consider them good or bad years -- surely you have to wonder WHY do we feel the need to have these two families in Charge? Are there no other human beings capable?

Wake up America. You and I have been under a spell for over 28 years. Why must we have a King or Queen running our nation?

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Dear God, when do we declare the Clintons a cult so people can get help?

I've been a Democrat for 30 years. I voted for Clinton both times. I've told my husband for 10 years he was irrational in his Clinton hatred and most of the stuff he said about them was regurgitating Rush, but I'm rapidly starting to think I was wrong.

When this started I was for Obama but happy to support whoever won. Not anymore. I could care less about the party, I'm voting to support the country and Hillary will not get my vote if she wins the primary through republican tactics. America is BETTER than this.

The Clintons are such victims. Hillary is a victim of an unfair plan to allow caucusing in casinos. She is the victim of having her dedication to Civil Rights questioned. She is the victim of being born a woman. She is the victim of unfair media. Bill is the victim of people who question his honesty. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", anyone?) Please, dear God, make this never-ending drama go away.

Hillary as president would not be a victory for womens rights. It would be a victory for people who take no responsibilty for their actions because they constantly believe they have been wronged.

Once again, the Clinton machine makes it clear - if you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not with us, you must be a right-winger. What a sick insult to American voters everywhere.

I saw Senator Obama at the Ebenezer church here in Atlanta. He kept saying "we"...He is from Hawaii, what does he know of my experience here in Auburn. The Senator needs to come out with a plan I can comprehend, not just generalities. Until then he's just more wind. Another revival tent.

Bil Clinton balanced the budget. Kept us out of major wars. Had some good s*x and doesn't preach to me. Senator Clinton was correct that I don't need false hopes, I have my own faith to get me by, I don't need another politician. My kids are plenty hopeful.

The Obama people need to get out more...all this anger is just like Sean Hannity and crew...

It's always fun to see the Obamabots work themselves into high dudgeon.

It reminds me of the Manichaes of the first century. Our man is the epitome of all that is good and holy. The other side is pure evil.

You can tell they haven't been around politics very long.

Sure, Bill is not a lier. On the other hand, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Sure, this isn't a dynasty. On the other hand, "I will not have some reporter thumbing through our papers. We are the president." This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I ever saw.

Pepp, no, actually, Bill is being accused of lying about Obama because he is lying about Obama, those are the facts, how about you pay attention a little bit before you post on here. No one is saying that the only reason to think Bill is lying is because he lied before. In fact, the Hillary campaign are the ones making the Lewinsky connection here.

It's time for all Democrats to think about the long-term prospects of the party. It's been a long time since US politics has had such a destabilizing convergence of economy issues, energy issues, and no clear leadership. Go back to the 1856 election and watch how the Whigs imploded and the Dems split, giving the "3rd party" candidate in the 1860 election the victory.

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, it's time to make the Clintons move on: for the party, which can ill-afford to lose this presidential election when it is for the asking and for the country, which can ill-afford the notion of concentrations of power than become entrenched and corrupt. In that sense, the Clintons are no different than the Bushes. Many of W's dealings were aided by the contacts that GHWB made while president (and before) -- leading to massive foreign corruption of US politics (see also, energy dealings with the Mid-East). The Clintons are a set-up for the same situation.

It's time for people to recognize that the world is very complex and that all politicians are human. Regardless of how pure the Clintons are (and I don't think they are), it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely. HRC can still fight for the country indefinitely in one of the most exclusive jobs in the country: the Senate. That should be good enough.

I urge everyone to vote for the candidate in the primary that has the most chance of derailing the "inevitability" of a HRC White House run in the GE. Already, too many people decided not to run in the primaries because of her perceived invincibility. This is not representative democracy, it's a sense of entitlement. Bill Clinton on the campaign trail shows little understanding that as an ex-President, he is a public servant of the American people, representing everyone... rather than just his wife.

"Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:45 PM:
As a two time voter for Bill Clinton, I am getting more and more disgusted with him and Hillary's attacks of Obama."

Same here.

What is going on with Bill? Isn't Hillary still in the lead?

How much easier is it to call Clinton a liar than
to address what he says. The Republicans tried
to blunt the Clinton presidency be calling
him a liar. Obama, and his supporters, wants his
votes for the Iraq War, identical to Hillary's while they
have been in the Senate together, to be ignored.

Clinton's statements about Obama's record has been
closer to accurate than the spin given to
the Clintons' and their supporters' statements about
Obama.

While the three Democrats have very similar policies
as Paul Krugman has pointed out Obama is the least
progressive of the three thus his main claim to
the Presidency, besides his race, is opposition to the War
in Iraq. That is just not as clear cut as he and the Press
would like to make it appear.

I am beginning to not like Obama very much at all. Also, his supporters are eerily a lot like republican supporters, mean and nasty while slinging right-wing slurs . To use right wing slurs, from "a vast right wing conspiracy to bring down a President from the opposing party' is wrong on many levels not the least of which, he (Bill Clinton) was the best President of my lifetime and some democrats are using phony arguments from a phony investigation against him. I let God judge his morals as you should also .

On the one hand I think the Clintons have shown that they are indeed quite experienced at attack-dog politics. They've been making the argument that this experience is a point in her favor, and it certainly seems to be helping her win the nomination so I guess I can't disagree.

On the other hand, even though I am a passionately partisan Democrat, I don't think I'll be able to vote for Hillary in November anymore. Hard for me to believe, but I just don't think I could stomach it after what I've seen the past few weeks.

I'm a strong Obama supporter (though I'll vote for Clinton if it comes to that). I like Clinton's wonkishness and work ethic, but I'd feel queasy about a return to the 90s. I also think it's pretty sucky that Obama effectively has to campaign against two presidential candidates.

That's why I'm thinking his Reagan remarks might have been a deliberate attempt to goad Bill into a rage. Remember, he said that Reagan changed the trajectory "in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

Now, to someone with Bill's massive ego, that's gotta hurt. He's already been outspoken and passionate in Iowa and NH, and suddenly to have this presumptious upstart, this whippersnapper belittle his presidential record. How dare he?

And then Obama goes on to disparage, yes disparage, the 60s and 70s, and says he's not as "invested" in that generation as some of those ... er, well, hippies. I mean, those old fogies are always saying it's a big deal (eg Camille Paglia). But Obama, he's all, whatever.

So the big dog goes just over the top (as do much of the liberal blogosphere, from authentic dirty long-haired hippies like digby to those close to the times, like Rick Perlstein, to those younger activists who subscribe to its combatant view of politics). After all, these are our foundational dogmas he's trampling all over.

So Bill finds a reporter and lays into him. And Obama lets it fester for a bit, while everybody realizes he's the kind of guy who'll tell the home truths to the ultimate liberal base: the bloggers (and Paul Krugman).

And hopefully, Bill will spiral very publicly out of control, tarnishing his reputation and Hillary's campaign.

It's a high-risk strategy for Obama, but no one ever said he wasn't audacious.

Why should we care what any campaign manager or pollster has to say? Talking points are not news.

It's "interesting?" It's completely expected. What campaign have you been following?

It's the media! It's the Obama campaign! It's the VRWC!

We'll see just how far they go with this talking point. It's a dangerous, dangerous issue for them. Even their most ardent supporters know that Clintons are liars. We just never thought they'd use the tactic against a good Dem.

I suspect this talking point will go the way of, "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?"

These comments seem written by Rushbots. We are in a campaign. Sift through charges and counter charges. Hillary can do the job. Bill did the job. Reagan was Bush without a Republican legislature. I'll take a straying functioning president and a forgiving spuse over publicly sanctimonious, compassionate Kunbaya do nothings every time.

I'm sooo switching to independent if Hillary wins the nomination. I don't know which is worse, being associated with nasty Clinton campaign tactics, or being associated with the way too large chunk of the Democratic party who constantly lie (or maybe they really are that stupid and don't know any better, it's hard to say) and smear other candidates to help Bill and Hillary get back into the White House. Really I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat right now for a few reasons, and I refuse to be associated in the future with such ignorance or liars.

Not Fair!
Why is everyone so mean to Obama. He is so nice. I loved him since I saw him on the cover of GQ. Would Hillary ever be on the cover of any fashion magazine? I rest my case.
Please please please be nice to Obama. I know the Pope will put him on 'fast track' for sainthood as soon as he is dead.
He is so nice.

The Clintons will discover the effects of this kind of campaigning come November. Mr. and Mrs. Piggy can go to market, while Obama's toes can stay home.

Your Republican-like zeal for ABC is going to land you an inferior candidate like Edwards or Obama who will not survive against McCain or Huckabee.

LOL. Put down the Kool Aid and step away from the computer.

If he loses the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama may owe that loss to a single day, when, offered the chance to shut down Hillary Clinton on the war issue, he chose instead to interject his race into the campaign. Responding to Mr. Obama's comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and thinking on her feet, Mrs. Clinton let the Obama/King comparison stand and associated herself with Lyndon Johnson. At that moment, the Obama campaign could have tied Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq and her style of governance to President Johnson's failed adventure in Viet Nam, permanently destroying her with the Democratic anti-war base and establishing Mr. Obama as the peace candidate. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to characterize her remarks as denigrating Dr. King. It's ironic that Mr. Obama's downfall may be his inexperience, not in office, but on the campaign trail.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but never voted for Bill - couldn 't bring myself to stoop so low as to vote for someone who cynically used the execution of a mentally-impaired African American man (i.e., Ricky Rector) to advance his first presidential campaign. I've had it with his assumption that he has the 'right' to participate in the campaign with personal attacks on another candidate - Obama - to advance his wife's candidacy. He has a responsibility as a former president to step back. He's an exceptionally selfish and self-centered politician. Why in the world would anyone want him back in the White House, albeit as "first gentleman". For him (and for Hillary it would seem) politics consists simply in what he/she can deliver - politics as nothing more than bureaucratic servicing of constituents - how depressing. Obama seems to have some richer understanding of the possibilities of politics.

Hey Greg, you didn't pin him down at the apparent lies? You didn't make him back up Bill's statements about the war. This is he said/he said journalism, no?

"I marvel at all of the Clinton haters. Does anyone not remember past Bush?! Criticism aside for his personal issues, Clinton did a lot for the country--such as cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr.'s deficit."

Tell me again, which Clinton is running for president? It's an election folks, not a time machine. The 90's are in the past and it's time to move on...

Watch for the Clintons to start getting really really nice to Obama if there comes a point when their polls tell them they are going to win. They will want him to serve as VP to repair the astounding damage they have done to the Clinton brand in the black community. Four weeks ago I would have said Obama should take it out of loyalty to the party. Now I say the Clintons don't deserve to have Obama launder their filthy brand of politics.

Lordie, I haven't heard this many nasty Monica jokes since Free Republic circa 1998. I was under the impression this was a liberal blog. Sorry to have bothered anyone; I'll be on my way now.

wglad wrote:

"At that moment, the Obama campaign could have tied Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq and her style of governance to President Johnson's failed adventure in Viet Nam, permanently destroying her with the Democratic anti-war base and establishing Mr. Obama as the peace candidate. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to characterize her remarks as denigrating Dr. King. It's ironic that Mr. Obama's downfall may be his inexperience, not in office, but on the campaign trail."

Yes, that would have been an ingenious parallel and one that might have worked far better. And, she would have walked right into it. Instead, he resorted to old fashioned pandering and damaged his credibility as a "new" kind of politician.

According to the http://www.ajc.com/ President Clinton was the only audience member who did not stand to applaud Mayor Franklin's speech at the MLK service today. Wolfson will probably have more explaining to do.

I voted for Clinton too, and thought he was a great president. He had his terms, and he is done. What I don't like about how this campaign is evolving is how Hillary lost in Iowa, and it seems like Bill is bailing her out. He is the one causing all the publicity and getting the attention. I don't know if that is what is translating into votes or not. It does seem to me that Hillary got into a jam, and her husband is saving her.

I have some hesitation in voting for Obama, because his experience is limited. I do know that he has many specific policies on his website. (Honestly, more than I could process) The argument that he is all happy speeches is false. I haven't decided yet who I will vote for, but I don't like the way things are going.

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:11 PM:

I marvel at all of the Clinton haters. Does anyone not remember past Bush?! Criticism aside for his personal issues, Clinton did a lot for the country--such as cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr.'s deficit.

Yes, I remember the Clinton years:

a) The government took in HUGE revenue because of the stock market tech bubble. Remember all the paper millionaires? This, more than anything, got the budget under control. (Presidents like to claim some control on the economy but in truth, they don't (except for the recent follies of W spending US treasure in Iraq in a pointless struggle). However, I was very happy that the recession of '92 helped defeat GHWB -- but I didn't think GHWB caused the recession.)

2) I remember the paralysis of government and the shut-down. I remember Bill abandoning most things and developing triangulation to work with a hostile Congress. A Congress that was elected to help curb the budget. Triangulation is good once you get into office. HRC applying triangulation to get into office means she has no point of view she finds worth defending.

3) I remember the government derailed by a stupid impeachment trial *caused by Clinton*. As a Democrat who twice voted for Clinton, you have to realize that had Bill C developed a decent working relationship with Congressional Democrats, he wouldn't have had the GOP all over him like that. Nixon, who committed actual crimes, had more support from his GOP relationships for a longer period of time!

Yes, I remember the 90's. I did very well financially. And I still don't want Hillary (or Bill) back. She has yet to apologize or explain her vote on Iraq (like Edwards did). We don't need that kind of polarizing arrogance in the White House again.

If the Dems can't find someone besides a Clinton to rally around, the GOP gets my vote (unless it's Huckabee who truly scared me).

At this point, it's important to send a statement that we follow non-dynasty politics. Eight years was enough for George Washington, it should be enough for the Clintons.

While I agreed with the Article, the black woman who stated she saw Obama at Ebenezer caused me to respond. She initially started criticizing Obama for waying "we," and not having a clue to her life in Auburn. Not two sentences later, she is saying how "I" do not need hope, "My" chlidren are fine. On MLK day, she really has missed the mark. She is like the doubters who were at the Mall on Washington when King gave the famous speech. They missed it then, and she is missing it now. How sad it is when this woman is unable to see that Barack is what MLK was dreaming about 40 years ago. I realize that she is not sleeping, but rather in a coma. For those of you who are not comatose and still shopping around, wake up and look to the future. Put old wine in new skins. I dare you.

LDuncan wrote on January 21, 2008 2:22 PM:

Watch for the Clintons to start getting really really nice to Obama if there comes a point when their polls tell them they are going to win. They will want him to serve as VP to repair the astounding damage they have done to the Clinton brand in the black community. Four weeks ago I would have said Obama should take it out of loyalty to the party. Now I say the Clintons don't deserve to have Obama launder their filthy brand of politics.

If He says no....he will be forgotted...have a voting record.....someone else will take his place....he will be 9 years older. He'd better suck up and say yes to Madem Prez.

Let's do a summary of the right wing talking points Hillary regularly uses.

Number 1: If Obama is elected and the terrorists strike, like on 9/11, we should fear he won't be ready. (That was Cheney's exact argument in 2004 against Dems).

Number 2: Fixing social security by adjusting the payroll tax (rather than cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age) would require a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class." Wrong. Obama has a tax credit on payroll taxes for low income folks and is proposing an increase only on incomes over $200-250,000.

Number 3: Voting for the Levin amendment, which would have required Bush to return to Congress if he could not get security council approval for the war, is -- Hillary really said this on Tim Russert (twice) -- "giving veto power to the UN." Of course, Levin was still giving the US an opportunity to reject the UN security council, but Hillary wants to sound like a Repub on foreign policy, so she labeled the Levin amendment one giving the UN "veto power."

Number 4: Talking to foreign leaders of enemy states is a bad idea, because they can use those meetings for propaganda purposes.

I am sure there are more.

How on God's green earth do the Clintons (yes, plural- is there any doubt that they are BOTH running?) expect to win the general or get anything done if elected?

I AM SO SICK OF PARTISAN BULLSH!T- REPUBLICAN AND DEM!!!

Screw the Clintons. They don't care about ANYBODY or ANYTHING but getting back in to the whitehouse.

Their "Rovian" tactics of distorting someone's statements or record are EXACTLY the CHANGE Obama has referred to! Sick, old, tired, politics.

NO MORE ROVE, NO MORE CLINTONS.

i am alone when i hear a highly articulate Obama giving speeches and frequently tongue-tied in roundtables, debates, etc

How much of this is coming from Hill and Bill, and how much of this is just Wolfson being himself?

I'm developing a growing and intense dislike for the man. As with Mark Penn (where HAS he been lately, by the way, shoveling horse crap in the Bronx?), Wolfson as the public face of the professional staff strikes me as being, shall we say, something of a negative? Actually, he's having a hard time not being a jerk, most of the time.

Ruthless and willing to do "whatever it takes to win."

Just like the boss.

The Clintons are incredibly dishonest people and they're running a filthy, dishonest campaign. I'm getting so sick of the attacks and the nonsense about Hillary's "experience". She's got exactly 7 years of experience. That's it. The rest is Bill's experience (although, from the look of the campaign so far, Obama is running against Bill--not Hillary). God help us if Hillary ever needs to lead this country and Bill disagrees with her. We all know who will win THAT argument.

A short follow-up. Hillary Clinton is in the campaign to win. She will rightfully do whatever it takes to win. The Democrats will equally face a Republican in the fall that will likewise do whatever it takes to win.

Edwards is already out, even if he won't admit it. Almost like Thompson's quitting speech but forgetting or not able to quite get all of the words out.

Now for Obama, I do not have any hatred for him. But as I wrote, the more he either pushes race or it becomes the issue, he loses. This isn't a racist issue at all. It is simply that if this is the only thing he offers or is preceived to offer, then he stands no chance. And yes, unfortunately, he can be painted into this position because of his inexperience and his own comments--such as not being a COO and thinking union-hating Reagan was a role-model or whatever he said or is saying (the exact words don't matter as simply picking Reagan over 2-term Clinton, a Democrat is one of those I'll remember that moment until I die things).

Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win.

Bill Clinton has so much integrity! In fact he thought it was more important for him to get oral sex from a young girl than it was to uphold the office of the Presidency and honor. He betrayed all of us! I volunteered in his campaign and defended him when the right wing was saying he had character problems. Well, he proved them right! His credibility is shot. He should stick with philanthropy. He is a moral sink hole and should stay out of politics.

'Bill Clinton made a bunch of statements that contained a series of half-truths, lies, and weasel words (technically true but used to deceive).'

Is Obama's voting record re:war spending not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?

Is Obama's overall voting record not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?

Did Obama not contrast Bill Clinton's presidency to Rayguns in from of a conservative editorial board?

Is that a 'lie'?

Andy wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM

"...Obama got an equal number of delegates in NH and one more delegate in NV. A tie doesn't equal a convention win."

Why was it then, that when Obama "Crushed" Hillary in Iowa (Obama received 16 delegates; Hillary received 15; Edwards received 14), it was such a resounding defeat for her? Now it's a delegate race becuase Obama has lost the last three (2 contested) primaries? Looks like the O-Bambi crowd has been taking spin lessons from Wolfson...

Wolfson rocks!

Howard Wolfson (from Ari Berman's The Nation article on Hillary Inc):

A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch.

ARE THESE THE FOLKS WE WANT IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNMENT? MORE CORPORATISTS HELL BENT ON WORKING FOR THE POWERFUL OVER THE PEOPLE? WE WILL NOT GET CHANGE WITH THE CLINTONS. THEY DELIVERED NAFTA, TELECOM ACT OF '96 AND HELPED EASED THE BANKING MERGERS. WE'LL GET MORE OF THE SAME.

Matthew, fact check:

You might want to take another look at the 90s and see how much Bill strayed from the Reagan-Bush policies, because it wasn't a whole lot. He supported conservative economic policy by pushing deregulation, NAFTA, and slashing social assistance ("welfare reform"). He did produce a budget surplus, but in all fairness a large part of that was via fiscal conservatism dictated by the Republican majority in Congress. Slashing social programs also helped him cut the budget down. Anyone who thinks that Bill was running the show by himself in the 90s needs to review the history books because nothing happened without the Republicans having their fingerprints all over it. Bill was a fiscal moderate-conservative at best, and he got a bit economic boost from the dotcom boom.

You say that Obama or Edwards are the inferior candidates who will not survive against McCain or Huckabee, that is a funny viewing of reality. Turns out if you actually look at the polls, every Democrat kills Huckabee, that isn't hard. But when it comes to McCain, the likely Republican nominee, both Edwards and Obama do best against McCain, Hillary on the other hand LOSES BIG TIME! All polls confirm this, and so does common sense. But hey, I don't expect a Hillbot to come on here and make assertions based on logic or facts, so whatever, I'm happy that you know how to type and can give us your unsubstantiated opinion and try to pass it off as something that didn't just come out of someone's ass. Heckuva job buddy!!

On the Rezko thing, there isn't much there. It is actually an old news story (for those of us who pay attention), and Obama has long since maintained that it was bad judgment to have any contact with the guy whatsoever. However, Obama did nothing illegal, and Rezko isn't being investigated about anything related to Obama. There is nothing there. I always find it funny though to have a Hillary supporter trying to dig up ethical dirt on Obama's past, when their own candidate has more skeletons on her (their) closet than anyone running for president on either side. Hell, I don't even have to go way back into the past and try to make mountains out of nothing to bring up more unethical crap fromm the Hillary campaign. One word: Hsu. She got tons of illegal contributions from corporations from this guy, who she knew was bad news because he had a warrant out for his arrest from years ago when he was under investigation for similar types of fraud. Yeah, shady financial dealings anyone? And then when they try to bust him, he skips town! A fugitive again! That isn't the distant past, that is THIS campaign! And there are PLENTY of similar shady financial dealings in the Clinton closet that puts any questions about Edwards or Obama to shame. One more for the road: Bill pardoning felons for money. Niiiccee. So the hypocrisy of trying to attack Obama on ethics is really striking. Yet another example of the Hillbots throwing stones from a glass house when they have nothing else. Trashing on other candidates is never going to make your candidate any less dirty, and it is never going to erase the Clintons' long history of shady financial dealings. Hsu hasn't been through the spotlight, the media brushed it under the carpet, and I guarantee that if she wins the nomination, the Hsu thing, the pardons thing, the Clinton library mystery contributions and every other little scandal throughout her "35 years" will be spread all over the media. To think anything else is to be absurdly naive.

On the race card, of course it helps the Clintons and hurts Obama, why do you think the Clintons played it in the first place? Duh?

You people are so ridiculous if you think that Hillary has ANY chance against McCain. You people are so naive if you don't understand what having her on the ballot would do to our congressional chances when the Republicans come out in record numbers to defeat her. You people are really so shortsighted and so naive when it comes to politics...you just have no idea how backwards everything you say and do is, and how much the Clintons' actions are hurting the party, and how much damage it will do to the party if she our nominee. It is just so frustrating to see the train speeding toward the edge of the cliff, and the lemmings propelling the train are too ignorant and hopelessly stubborn to listen to reason, facts, or take any notice of the rapidly approaching cliff.

I really don't want to be in that "I told you so" position when we have a President McCain and we get our asses kicked in Congress...but that is where we are heading. And I hope when that happens all you Hillbots will take a moment to remember how naive you all were, and how you lied and misled and attacked Obama all to get us a losing candidate. I know you won't though, just like I don't think any of those assholes who elected Bush kicked themselves for voting for him after the consequences became undeniable. That kind of awareness just doesn't occur with that kind of person.

Alright, whatever, thats my two cents, now go ahead and lie and whine and attack and insult and distort reality some more, I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

I'll try not to repeat what's been said. There are a lot of voters who will vote on the perceived personal character of the candidate. What if the Republicans nominate McCain? Think about it.

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

"Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win."

Well, the more likable claim is highly subjective and appears to be a minority view. And, I wouldn't say smarter, either. Both of them are very intelligent leaders. But, I agree 100% with the rest of what you wrote and that is why I support her.

Two points: When Bill said THAT woman INSTEAD of Monica Lewinsky (view the press conference yourselves)everyone everywhere should have known he was lying. Fixing the deficit hardly compensates for Bill's unraveling of FDR's America, for bombing Serbia and sending missiles to the Sudan, Baghdad and elsewhere for CNN footage. One more point, it's because of his disrespect for the office that we have the present clown.

'He supported conservative economic policy by pushing deregulation, NAFTA, and slashing social assistance ("welfare reform"). He did produce a budget surplus, but in all fairness a large part of that was via fiscal conservatism dictated by the Republican majority in Congress.'

And there you go...

Bad things...Bill did it.

The Good things...only cuz republicans were in congress.

See how that works, 'liberals'?

"The Clintons are incredibly dishonest people and they're running a filthy, dishonest campaign."

You Obama supporters are pathetic. All over the lefty blogs I see such vicious, hateful BS written by so many of you. Of all the various supporters of candidates, the right wingers and the Obama supporters on the left sling such hysterical, vitriolic spew. Are you all just overly hormonal 18 year olds, or just emotionally-intellectually delayed? what will you do if Hillary wins the nom? Probably pout, take your marbles and go home. After filling the blogosphere with hysterical profanity first, of course.

Anybody who thinks Clinton would even consider Obama as VP is out of their mind. After spending those famous 35 years living in the shadow of her husband, she's not about to do the same with her VP.

Also, considering Bill Clinton's recent behavior, I'm sure anyone left interested in the job as Hillary's VP is seriously reconsidering (with the exception of Vilsack). The only person who could be happy in the position is someone happy being a pseudo-First Lady as we know who the real Vice President will be.

As a voter, I'm increasingly concerned that a Clinton 44 administration would be a co-Presidency. Considering that, as a former President, Bill gets daily briefings, does anyone really think she can keep him from trolling around the West Wing? If a world leader does not immediately fold to his wife's desires, will Bill be calling said leader personally to persuade him to see the Clinton way?

Makes you want to join the right wing... just to refute this!

Oh I see. Obama is now part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are dishonest, paranoid and ethically bankrupt. Their win at any cost, Bush-Rove, divide the nation campaign has gone too far. Americans concerned about the future of the nation need to speak out.

The Bushes and the Clintons are the same. This nation needs to put them in the past....fast.

"Waaaahhhh! The Clintons are picking on me!"

Do I smell Republican provocateurs in here? The tone, the disingenuousness... it all seems so familiar.

Bill Clinton would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever lie. About anything. He's a one-man truth factory. How dare Barack aim his right-wing gutter politics at Bill's blameless, virginal reputation?

Greg Sargent wrote: Pressed on whether there were any point at which Bill's conduct would come to be seen by the campaign as a liability, and asked if there was any campaign discussion of this possibility, Wolfson replied.

"A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," he said.

Wolfson did put that rather very well. There is clear evidence that Bill is helping: she has won the two contests in which Bill was actively engaged in campaigning for her, including pulling a rabbit out the hat in NH. But the clearest evidence that Bill is helping is that the media have now gone on over-drive about it, with their verdict already rendered: Bill is hurting [had to turn off the tube on Sunday because it simply got out of hand]. When the media's consensus on anything involving Hillary is Y, you can bet that the truth is closer to X or even -Y. The only thing that is hurting Hillary regarding Bill's involvement in her campaign is the doubt being raised by the media about whether he is hurting or helping; but that is really their whole purpose, isn't? 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 raising this canard...

I think that the media need to pull back a bit on this because it is truly uncharted territory: (a) No woman has ever had a realistic chance to win the presidency before, (b) there has never been a woman 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 (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 usual echo chamber not unlike that which led to their disastrous and embarrassing 2008 NH primary predictions.

"A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," Wolfson said. Well put...

zip your pants - I mean your mouth Bill.

I am not sure of many things in this life, but I would bet my bottom dollar that Hillary is not going to pick Obama as her VP.

Indeed, dear Dawn, this is one point one which I can unalloyedly agree with you. Neither one would offer the job to the other, and neither one would take it in the impossibly improbable event that such an offer were made.

Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win.

LOL, what a balanced take. And you argued so well for it.

I'd point out that the only person injecting race into the matter here is you, and no matter how hard you may insist that Obama's campaign injected race into the national discourse, pretty much anyone who can see beyond their nose before their vision is obstructed by Clinton blinders realizes how much that directly contravenes reality.

Or I guess Obama made Bob Johnson say those things, right? And Shaheen too?

And I guess Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emmanuel, they're just getting played by Obama.

Sure.

If the Clintons win the nomination, I'm writing in "Sen. Barack Obama" on the line for President. I wish the Clintons would go away.

If Obama thought he won Nevada, why did he run home to IIlinois, before all the votes were counted? His feelings were hurt because his buddies, the media, told him he was going to win. They did the same thing in NH. He can't take degeat. Hillary is a soldier. She is tough as nails. That is the kind of president we need. He didn't even thank his supporters in Nevada. Hillary would have congratulated him, if he had won, and thanked Nevada. That is a leader who has class. He will commit suicide if he loses SC. The media and everyone is once again telling him he will win. Hillary knows how to go out and go door to door and talk to people. He doesn't want to work for it, he feels it should be given to him.

LOL - I'm going to cut and paste this thread as proof positive that Obama's online support is coming primarily from Republicans. Man alive, I can't believe this.

No wonder Obama's support from liberals is falling. This thread is a rightwing echo chamber.

Dadgummit. Anonynous at 2:54 is me. Sorry. Just got down on the recent mysterious influx of anonymous posters, and went and did it myself again.

Oh, Bret, get a grip. The reason Obama went home to Chicago is because he has two young daughters - 6 and 9 - with whom he has precious little time. Don't damn the man for having his priorities straight... He saw a window where he could be with his family and he took it.

I'm for Obama but c'mon guys! Politics are rough business. If he can't handle Billary, then he can't handle the Republicans. Wait until they start showing us pictures of his family in Kenya. Poor. African. Super dark. Wait for the attacks on his church. Non-racist white Americans will pause at the prospect of a proud black man from a strong black church. White Americans know nothing about this kind of man and when fully revealed they will fear & resent his audacious feelings of equality. Black strong & brilliant men constantly mask themselves for fear of enraging white people who see arrogance in unashamed black excellence. I fear he is too good for this country. He's too smart. He is literally too good for what this country will do to him. So I say let the Clintons have at him. Let him get a sample of what Republicans will give him. When the GOP gets finished with him he will long for the good old days when "shucking and jiving" seemed an insult. You did read the Rove piece that turned Obama into a mere "trash talking" & "lazy" basketball player? You think Clinton will rally the Republicans? Wait until the hard core non-voting racists come out to vote for the first time. They'll come down out of their Appalachian homes & backwater shacks and shake the foundations of this country. People will wonder where these voters have been all of these years. The Clintons are just scratching the surface. Let's see if he can bring an A game to the fight for the Free World. Whining won't cut it.

The republicans are trying to help Obama, because they do not want to battle the Clintons. They are scared to death and praying that Obama gets the nomination. He thinks Bill is picking on him now. The republicans will be 10,000 times worse, and they will surely lie. He can't take the heat and it hasn't even gotten hot yet.

goldberry wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:
Judging by the number of references in this thread to the Lewinsky investigation, I'd say that wolfson was dead on.
I also now know who the Republican trolls are. ;-)

Could it be we are "celebrating" an anniversary of some sort today? One that involves the said Lewinsky? Could that be why it's being brought up in these threads?

TELL ME GOLDBERRY, D'YA THINK?

People, what kind of banana republic do we live in when South Carolina is using e-voting machines so easily hackable that a starting tech at Best Buy could hack them? And the chain of custody is so disastrous that people take them home and "sleep over" with them?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5579

There's even been talk circulating around about the Clintons having tried to put someone up to hack one of the machines in South Carolina-- apparently an anonymous tip from an employee with the company. Now, I question the accuracy of this offhand, but the very fact that such talk really does have legs is an indication of how pathetic a failure our democracy is. Again: OUR DEMOCRACY IS AN ABJECT FAILURE WHEN WE CANNOT EVEN RUN ELECTIONS RIGHT! People in SC: Go to the governor's steps if need be, and insist on paper ballots, counted by hand.

The USA truly has become the world's laughingstock. We are a banana republic, pathetic. No other modern democratic nation uses these machines! We need paper ballots that can be hand-counted by many hands, full-stop!

Oh willyjsimmons, your tripe is exactly why we need a fact-checker. It would have been helpful to your case if you actually addressed the parts of what Bill Clinton said that were lies.The questions (for reference seen at your 2:37 PM post). For giggles, lets go through your questions and see why they, at best, are tangential to the matter at hand.

"Is Obama's voting record re:war spending not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?"

No. But the point Bill Clinton was trying to make with his "fairy tale" comment was to call into question Obama's anti-war credentials. Obama was very clearly against the war at the beginning (you know, by publicly calling it a stupid war and all). Obama's votes to fund the war are orthogonal to his position against the war. Being against the war does not necessarily mean that you think the best resolution you can achieve is to defund it, which, potentially, would require leaving in an unwise manner. Getting out responsibly is what Obama--and the other Dems who opposed the war but chose to fund it--are trying to achieve. So, Bill Clinton was trying to confuse the matters (these would be "weasel words" for those playing at home). Oh and do Clinton's votes for funding mean she is pro-war?

"Is Obama's overall voting record not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?"

They are close, but I don't see anyone complaining about this. I didn't say Bill Clinton never told the truth. Its just rarer than it should be.

"Did Obama not contrast Bill Clinton's presidency to Rayguns in from of a conservative editorial board?

Is that a 'lie'?"

You again miss the point entirely. Sure, Obama compared their presidencies. Clinton, however, lied when he said, for instance, that Obama said the Republican had all the good ideas. He simply never said it, and to get to such a statement you have to severely twist Obama's words.

And that's just the start.

As a Barack Obama Nevada caucus attendee, my frustration towards the Clintons has nothing to do with Obama's defeat(s).

As-matter-of-fact, I never got the chance to mourn over Obama's defeat in Nevada.

Why ... Because of the unjust treatment I had to endure from Hillary supporters for no clear reason - that still lingers with me.

Their loud taunts, threats and obscenities towards me were far more hurtful and devastating than any defeat.

I am more than angry with the Hillary supporters for their unconstitutional tactics used at Nevada caucus locations, than a defeat.

I am a registered Democrat, I made pledge to support all Democrats, therefore, for me to be unjustly treated by other Democrats is incomprehensible.

The way the Clintons are handling matters with fellow Democrats is only going to fester and create serious repercussions, that will last way beyond the Presidential election in November.

'yet they are the ones who can't understand the simple logic of Obama's Reagan comments.'

The 'logic' has been understood for some time now.

Obama was PANDERING to a conservative editorial board.

Simple as that.

As far as 'don't ask don't tell'...

*sigh*

Should it be repeated that this was a compromise?

Bill Clinton's options were to either veto it, or sign it?

Should he have vetoed it?

"In fact, an Obama volunteer, a precinct captain -- not the campaign itself"

Bull and you know it. obama was caught. So they changed the words a little. Same thing has been done in FL and CA. I'm guessing you know that to greg. What a shame.

Democrats have rejected obama. See NH, NV. His only 'hope' is that enough repubs will be "democrats for a day." Pathetic.

GordonsGirl Why didn't he give a victory speech or even talk to anyone until Sunday? If I had just won Nevada, I would have thanked the many people who voted for me. What presidential candidate would not address the people who just voted for him? He is a fraud. He had to go home and cry a little, before he was able to talk. He had everything going for him, the union, the failed lawsuit, and unfair caucus sites, a racist ad demonizing Hillary. He still lost. Then he tries to spin it, like he actually won. He is a wimp and Hillary is showing him how to really run a winning campaign.

Whether one argues that it's fair for Obama to talk about Bill lying, it's absolutely fair to say that it is the quintessential right wing talking point used against him.

There was certainly a time when Democrats defended Bill against the right wing slime machine that claimed he was always lying. They pointed out that what Clinton might have lied about was restricted to his private sexual life -- which was nobody's business but his own in any case.

Kind of interesting to see all the Obama supporters so happily taking up the right wing attack, down to the insistence that Clinton's lying about his sexual life demonstrates once and for all that he is liar, never to be trusted.

Where, by "interesting" above, I mean revolting.

How in God's name are we supposed to unite to take back the White House in 2008 when we are clearly so divided now?

There's your problem right there DC

we have no trouble deciding what you "report" about

No trouble deciding about Bill Clinton either..the REAL reason Hill's in it to win it at any cost

Amen, Whit.

The truth is not, never has been, and never will be a right-wing talking point.

Whit -- wonderful comments on 'talking points' and truth, and the effect of charges such as Wolfson's. Thank you.

wglad wrote:
>>>> Instead, Mr. Obama chose to characterize her remarks [about MLK/LBJ] as denigrating Dr. King

RaymondA

I have to refute your 4) immediately since it has been driving nuts ever since that uTube debate. This is when I first started thinking Obama was not up to the job. The question was, and I paraphrase slightly, would you pledge right now to meet with Chavez, Ahmadinijad, etc. IN YOUR FIRST YEAR. Obama jumped right in and said yes, and gave an otherwise good answer about overall diplomatic policy of talking to your enemies. Clinton gave a more thoughtful answer - not in the first year, you need to first do the groundwork and make sure it was not just a propaganda ploy by the other country, etc. She never said she would not meet with people that do not agree with us. He's lucky the the headline the next day wasn't "Obama pledges to meet with Castro the first year." Good thing the press was distracted by the talking snowman.

Obama has since since done a very good PR job of distorting that answer, and her position, as "Bush Lite diplomacy". In fact, that was the first negative attack I recall in this campaign. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I will also echo the sentiments that OUR nation of over 300 million individuals, surely we can find someone else who is well qualified albeit with a last name NOT Clinton or Bush.
ABC - Anybobdy But Clinton. They are Lying Liars surrounded but Liars who tell them.

Absurd. I don't want 4 more years of this nonsense. Right-wing talking points? I'm tired of that phrase as well. Do these people think that americans are that stupid? Lets move on.

Shorter Obama supporters:
How dare you say that Obama uses right-wing talking points? Blowjob, blowjob, blowjob!

'Obama's votes to fund the war are orthogonal to his position against the war. Being against the war does not necessarily mean that you think the best resolution you can achieve is to defund it, which, potentially, would require leaving in an unwise manner.'

'unwise manner'?

Feh. Doesn't even make since. There is no 'wise' way to leave what is already a clusterfuck.

'Oh and do Clinton's votes for funding mean she is pro-war?'

Nope, it means she, along with other dems, want to stay in Iraq. Including Obama and Edwards.

'that Obama said the Republican had all the good ideas. He simply never said it'

Except he did. Probably didn't MEAN for it to come across as such, but given the larger context, it's certainly clear that Obama was taking a dig at Clinton.

dcshungu:

seriously, how much are you making for sock-puppeting Clinton talking points? i need in on that racket, i've got car payments to make.

Re: "duncan wrote on January 21, 2008 2:46 PM:"

Way to bring us over to your side. And we're supposed to be the children?

This is not a football game. There are higher stakes to consider here, and frankly, I find it ironic that many like you fail to see the forest, so to speak.

If you want to believe a bunch of lies about Obama (that he "loves Reagan", or whatever), be my guest. No need to insult us on your way, though.

"A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," Wolfson said. Well put...

Yes, very well said. The only thing that HRC will win is the nomination, not the GE.

On NPR (that vast right wing of conspiracy), it was reported that when questioned about the really aggressive tactics HRC used in the campaign so far, her response was "They'll forget it by Nov..."

Thanks, HRC. I won't forget it. I won't vote 3rd party, because I believe it's in the best interests of my country to prevent an elite ruling class (Clintons, Bushes, etc.) I will vote you down...

'Yes, Bill Clinton should have vetoed the don't ask, don't tell policy. Full stop.'

And how is that 'progress'?

Bill vetoes it, and the hostility towards gays and lesbians serving in the military remains.

Again, it was a compromise.

Not perfect.

Nothing rarely is.

And since it's passage, how much effort have dems put into changing the policy?

As always, Bill's fault!!!!

Wait.

Pointing out verifiably false statements is a "right-wing talking point"?

What in the holy fuck is wrong with these people?

No!

The GOP will not have to use code words. They will call him a nigger. They will call him a "magic Negro." They will call him, quite simply "black." That's all it will take.

I was optimistic at first. But the Clintons have reminded me that I live in America & there is simply no way on earth a black man will ever win the Presidency here.

When the son of Mario Cuomo, the great liberal Mario Cuomo turns out to be just another dime-store racist--well, it's just the reminder I needed.

Senator Obama, go down fighting! Do it with honor. They want to anger you. When Bill gets angry he sways voters. When you do it you carry the weight of blackness on your soldiers and scare white people. You are trapped and they know it.

Harold Ford lost the election the very second he approached his Corker outside of the boundaries
of the "formal" campaign structure. It was seen as a breach of Tenn. racial codes. This is the metalanguage of race in which you are competing.

The Clintons, and their shoddy politics, can't leave the building soon enough for me. Assuming she gets the nomination, it will be the first time I haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election in, oh, 36 years.

Obama is full of it on this point. It is a smear campaign against Bill Clinton. Next time Obama gets in front of the cameras and tells us that he is running an inspirational campaign, can someone please ask him how getting on national television and calling President Clinton a liar is inspirational and not negative.

Each time he loses, he comes back like a cry-baby. Compare and contrast Hillary Clinton's gracious speech when she lost Iowa. He has yet to concede a single loss.

He cannot beat her so he picks a fight with her husband. A fight that frankly he will lose by a landslide.

And please don't tell me that he didn't say "Clinton is a liar." He may not have used those exact words but that is the clear import of his words.

Let's be clear, Obama loses this fight. We, the people of the US, who lived through the Clinton presidency know the truth. He is the only living Democratic President who ran the country successfully. We know what he can do. We respect and love him. He withstood a $70 million smear campaign run by the Republicans and Richard Scaife (he was not convicted or impeached of anything that was the legitimate focus of the Starr portfolio).

Obama may be full of potential but President Clinton has proved himself.

Re: Anonymous @ 3:30pm -

I can't speak for others, but I feel none of this divisive rhetoric is helping anyone on the Democratic side. However, I usually only see supporters of Senator Clinton denigrating Obama backers as "childish" and "naive" - and I believe this to be due largely to the large age divide. Older folks seem to support Clinton, younger ones Obama. And that's fine. But don't talk down to me like I'm some neophyte voter when Wolfson says some ridiculous shit like that. Please.

Also, I think the condescension has reached a point where it's becoming destructive to the party as a whole. There are many, myself included, who will not vote for Senator Clinton now or in the GE, and that's regrettable. I sincerely hope that in the coming weeks and months, should she land the nom, she gives me reason to change my mind. Her supporters certainly aren't helping, for theirs doesn't appear to be a club I'd like to join.

Clinton's law license was suspended for five years, but he was not disbarred. If he was inclined to, he could practice4 law right now. The one thing he was banned from is that he can not argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. And, I would imagine, his chances of being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice is pretty much nil because of that.

Nigel Aimes said "I'm a strong Obama supporter (though I'll vote for Clinton if it comes to that)."

Many Democrats may have to make that decision. For me, Bill and Hillary Clinton represent everything that Edwards and Obama say we must change. I can't imagine voting for Mrs. Bill Clinton under any circumstance. I would however, vote for any of the other Democratic candidates.

If the Democratic party nominates Hillary Bush-Clinton, it will be destroying itself.

Tapper sounds like someone who knows much about going off one's meds.

frankly0 wrote on January 21, 2008 3:14 PM:
"Whether one argues that it's fair for Obama to talk about Bill lying, it's absolutely fair to say that it is the quintessential right wing talking point used against him."

No, it's only "fair" if Wolfson can back it up. Obviously it's just a tactic to ignore the question. I know they're playing hardball and it's politics, etc., but don't pretend that it's "fair".

Jen...Unless we retire the Clintons now, McCain will in the fall

The Clintons will destroy the part for this nomination. It's about Bill. I suspect that all but the most hardcore Clinton supporters now realize this.

Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel have.

If the Democrats want to slit their wrists, Bill's got the knife.

If the Democrats want to seize the moment and turn this country around from the ClintonBush miasma, the choice is ours and it is obvious

This is so juvenile and self-destructive. Bill Clinton needs to stop overshadowing his wife, and Barack Obama needs to stop making thinly veiled appeals to Republicans and independents, start speaking as a Democrat.

Further, Obama really needs to proactively address -- and needs to do so immediately -- the problems created by the upcoming Feb. 25 federal corrpution trial of one of his major IL Democratic fundraisers, Tony Rezko, rather than respond after the fact as details of the indictment dribble out, as has been Obama's wont. If he doesn't, the Rezko trial holds potential to inflict on the campaign a very slow death by a thousand small cuts.

The Clinton's are smarter, always just one step ahead. She will be the 1st woman President. You people may not want it but it doesn't matter.

Pray tell, it Democrat for a Day was only one precinct captain in Nevada, then why is the same thing happening in FL and CA now?

More rogue precinct captains?

John McCutchen: "The Clintons will destroy the part for this nomination."
-------------
It's not the Clintons or Clinton supporters that are saying they won't vote for a Democrat if it's not their preferred candidate. That's Obama supporters.

It's just insane to claim that the Clintons are destroying the Democrats...apparently because they won't give in to the electoral terrorism, the our-guy-or-nobody threats of Obamamaniacs.

playing fast and loose with the facts now appears to be the MO of another Hilary Supporter. I just sent this Letter to the editor of the local Westchester newspaper regarding Nita Lowey's interview today on MSNBC:
To the editor:

As a former legislative fellow in the 107th Congress for a fellow democratic House Member [Bill Pascrell of New Jersey] who used to admire Nita Lowey I was ashamed today to hear Ms. Lowey’s interview today on MSNBC, in which she blatantly asserted an essentially dishonest claim that Hilary Clinton “won” in Michigan. That Ms. Lowey’s interviewer was ignorant of the true state of affairs does not excuse Ms Lowey as it is not possible that she – as a highly placed Democrat – did not know that both John Edwards and Barack Obama, in support of the national Democratic Party withdrew their names from the ticket and also refused to list themselves as write-in candidates.

When Ms Clinton explained away her choice to ignore her own party by leaving her name on the Michigan ballot, I remained willing to suspend disbelief and accept her awkward reasoning because I continued to want to support Ms. Clinton. However Nita Lowey’s appalling claim that Ms Clinton “won” in Michigan was so far beyond disingenuous that it struck a chord. Why must those in the know try to pull the wool over voters’ eyes to make Clinton seem more likeable? Clinton does not need this dishonesty and she should not need her supporters to lie in order to convince undecided people of her worth. Ms. Lowey has fallen in my esteem and I await some indication that Ms. Clinton disavows Lowey’s dishonesty.

Deborah S. Alexander, Esq.

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

"Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win."

Likeable? perhaps in person but not particularly in print or on tv.
Smarter? I do not recall that Obama failed his first bar exam as HRC did w/the DC Bar.
So please give us all a rest on HRC's stellar personality and brilliance.
And experienced in politics? if you put a lot of stock on being on the Wal-Mart board, the people who have made millions on part time no benefits workers.
but I guess that qualifies as being " willing to do what it takes to win"

Taylor Marsh is a fucking hack..

Fun exercise- go to Hillary's website and check out the "Truth Patrol" or whatever they are calling their fact checking page. There you can see, side by side, EXACTLY how Bill's characterizations of Obama's Reagan comments, his characterization of his Iraq support, etc are intentionally twisted to create a false impression of Obama's words. It is right there in black and white, and yet Hillary's page treats it as if it is proof of Bill's accuracy. Is anyone in the MSM pointing this out ? It is so obvious that turning Obama's statement from "republican's had all the ideas" into Clinton's "Obama says Republicans had all the GOOD ideas" is so an intentional distortion (lie). How this can go unremarked upon in most of the coverage of this issue is beyond me. Instead, its the media's preferred "he said/he said" relativism and "balance." It is part of what is wrong with the country and what the Bushes and Clinton's have wrought - there is no truth but what you say it is, obfuscation works, and no one is accountable. Ugh.

Obama's radio commercial that aired on Neocon radio stations in Las Vegas informed all neocons and independents that they could go and switch their affiliation with no problem. Sounds like Obama is wondering what the meaning of "is" is.

Here is my story about the Nevada caucus:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=106&func=view&id=2528&catid=15

Note to Scientific:

enough with the old people are Hillary supporters.
neither my wife nor I who are old enough to have supported McGovern and voted against Nixon and That War are HRC supporters so be a little scientific and test your hypothese or change your assumptions.

Yellow Dog Democrat: good on you.

Looks like Ole Bill's decided that his wife isn't MAN enough for the job.

Perhaps now he'll run and hide behind the FIRST LADY's skirt!

>>>That's called politics, and if you aren't running up against the edge of the truth, you aren't trying.>>>

Jesus. The Bush years have f-ed with a lot of people's brains.

virginia cynic -

Re-read what I said. What part of "seem" didn't you get?

If Obama is the nominee, I will stay at home!

Gee, Obamabots, it works that way too.

Its nice to be passionate, but being a fucking idiot is something else. Whoever gets the Dem nomination will get my vote, and if you have emough sense to pour piss out of boot, they woll get yours too.

ps I'm a 68 year old Texas Democrat, and I am supporting Hillary, regardless of what you call her, as long as she is running.

Okay okay! The -bot suffix only works well in Hillbots; with any other prefix, you get away from its association with robot. Can we agree to call Hillary's acolytes Hillbots, and Obama's Obamaniacs? 'Cause otherwise, we'll be linguistically indistinct, and I hate that worse than the lying venal crass classless guttersnipe called the Clintons. But, I don't think they're racists: that's just stupid.

The Clintons are showing they are willing to win at any cost no matter how much they try to spin Bill's behavior.

The Clintons will destroy their own party and fail to bring independents out in the general election.

We will have another Republican regime.

I am not surpised that both the Clintonista and the Obamaniacs are going down into the gutter. Rove must be having a hearty laugh. And this on MLK Day. The candidates have a lot of nincompoops for supporters: people so convinced that they know it all. Just give both candidates time to make their case. The voters will decide. Commenters simply don't have the votes in the end. they muddy the water. If you want to help go out and help voters get to the polls. A lot of Blacks from the poor section can do with transportation. I think one can a do great deal in that way instead of throwing spitballs. It is easy to sit at a desk and dash off bilge. Get real fellow. I see the enemy, and it is us.

The "right wing talking points" point is, I believe, an attempt to hook into longtime Obama criticism by the big liberal bloggers (remember the Krugman SS dustup, anybody?) and thereby peel off a small but influential demographic from the Obama campaign. It's working, too. HRC criticism on the blogs, once intense, is now considerably muted as bloggers are driven to defend her as a woman and as a partisan Democrat. This narrative may be having an impact in the real world as well. Jerome Armstrong has a post up on MyDD with numbers showing that Team Obama is hemorrhaging votes among self identified liberals. Obama seems to be running his primary campaign as if it already were the general. This could be hurting him among the party faithful who aren't ready to make nice, yet.

It is really commical to see the whole fleet of Hillary attack dogs trying to claim that accusing Bill Clinton of lying is unjust.

The whole world knows Bill Clinton is a liar.

Don't Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton have anyone around them honest enough to see and tell them when their LIES are transparent?

Despite all the bravado about "new voice", big victories, and momentum, the Hillary Campaign sounds desperate. Obama is the real thing, a born learder, a uniter who can inspire the entire nation and move it forward. Hillary looks like a rank amateur. She should step aside and give Obama all the support he deserves and the nation needs.

Bill Clinton and George Bush are both punks.

They both should have been impeached -

unless of course you like being lied to.

I agree -

I've come to see Clinton as a punk.

I find it notable that Wolfson doesn't actually deny that Bill is being misleading.

For example, the claim by Bill that the Obama camp encouraged Republican and independent Nevadans to switch parties for a day to vote for him is known to be inaccurate. Wolfson didn't even try to defend Mr. Clinton with any kind of excuse. It would've been easy to claim that WJC simply made those statements based on information available at the time, and we now know more. Nope. Instead, he changed the topic "insisting that the failure of the Obama camp to get the precinct captain to resign showed tacit approval for the tactic." But, this is simply more of the same. The topic at hand is whether or not Bill Clinton is being misleading or dishonest. The point about whether or not the precinct captain should have been forced to resign is a separate topic - and may be worth pressing into - but it doesn't change the fact that the precinct captain acted on his own without the prior knowledge of the Obama campaign. Wolfson tries to hide from this fact, and doesn't acknowledge that Bill did, in fact, make misleading statements.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Clinton camp has begun a new phase of campaigning that employs the standard tactic of making misleading smears on others, and Bill is the point man. Make a note of it, and then note that the Obama camp will NOT respond in kind. Who is the candidate for CHANGE? The one who resorts to the same old ugly politics, or the one who calls upon our noblest ideals of unity and decency?

Think about it.

If Obama won't fight back against Hillary then how can we know he will fight back against the GOP? They will crucify him.

Very few disbarments are permanent: most are either for a specified period or can be reversed on application. To argue that Clinton was not disbarred, but only had his license suspended for FIVE YEARS is a distinction without a difference. Anyone who knows lawyer discipline knows that a five year suspension is a severe statement. Lawyers shrink from punishing their own. Clinton had the book thrown at him. Don't kid yourself.

It's getting more difficult each day during the primary season to read through these progressive blogs as they sound more like pages out of The American Spectator. As I read through the comments, I would have thought I was reading comments from Michelle Malkin's blog and at times it seemed as if there were more Ann Coulter followers than anything else. This primary season, and the majority of these comments would make any right wing blog proud to have them. Then again, maybe I will read The American Spectator. It's probably more moderate than what is going on in these progressive blogs these days.

Well??? wrote on January 21, 2008 5:14 PM:
If Obama won't fight back against Hillary then how can we know he will fight back against the GOP? They will crucify him.

Great question! Glad you asked, because it gets to the core of the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign is not about the fight. In fact, it is singularly opposed to the fighting as exemplified by American politics.

For those who understand "the movement", it is clear that no real progress can be made in this country, if we continue going down the path we're going. Quite simply, "united we stand, divided we fall". Our nation is frittering away all it's resources as we fight the same fights over and over, generation by generation. The current political reality centers around a philosophy of 'us vs. them' in an ever-increasing cycle of venomous hatred and political retribution fueled by a sensationalist media that loves the blood and fire, and political machinery that puts Party and Power above Country and Humanity. What have we got? A nation that is stuck in a perpetual tug-o-war where no side can ever really win, and nothing ever really gets accomplished, as we become more and more polarized by our politics. The only way to break the cycle is to embody the spirit of MLK and the civil rights marchers, who, despite the beatings, the dog attacks, and the incarcerations, continued to march and at the same time, loved thy enemy. The Obama campaign isn't about being soft and cuddly. It is about transforming the political landscape in much the same way that MLK and those who joined him, changed the political landscape of their day. (Read the text from his speech at MLK's church, yesterday... it will help you to understand what I'm trying to say. I can't find the link, but I'm sure you can find it yourself somewhere around here.)

But I'll add this... to the degree there is a fight, Obama's more about Judo than boxing. He isn't out there to pummel and destroy the opposition. He's there to take a stand and defend his ground. And, to the degree the opposition chooses to play dirty, he can turn their power against them, in much the same way the dogs and hoses and lynchings only served to hasten the changes that ultimately came about in the 60's.

Ron Cantrell -

If you want to stay home because you don't like Obama that's fine. But don't pretend all things are equal here. The Hillary crowd who are so contemptuous of Obama have only had him around a short time - which suggests his real main problem is: how dare he run against Hillary? Face it, most would like Obama fine if he was running when Hillary wasn't in the race.

But the folks, like me, who have said they may well not vote Dem if HRC gets the nomination have had more than 16 years to become disgusted and fed up with the Clintons. I got pretty sick of defending Bill back in the 90s - I will not do it again.

If Obama turns out to be a dud I'll still be grateful to have a NEW dud, not the same old duds that we had a decade ago.

And even if you stay home Obama is bringing new people in to vote for a Democrat - something no Democrat should be sneering at. Hillary isn't going to do that no matter what. Highest negatives of any candidate in either party. A LOT more folks will stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

A lot of Clinton supporters seem to be saying that the "toughness" she is displaying in the campaign will equate to "toughness" in the Oval Office. But the campaign toughness involves lying, mischaracterization, race-baiting, and other such "win at all cost" maneuvers. Some see that as laudable. I can not, as I think these are the very character traits that make for a lousy president - look at what we've got now. Who were our best presidents? People like Washington and Lincoln, whose character stood out in office. They are not admired for lying thier way into office. In fact, those are the very traits that lead to someone losing the confidence of the American people and other people around the world (see Nixon, GWBush).

Character counts- which is why I would seriously consider voting for McCain against Clinton.

bvd states:

And even if you stay home Obama is bringing new people in to vote for a Democrat - something no Democrat should be sneering at. Hillary isn't going to do that no matter what. Highest negatives of any candidate in either party. A LOT more folks will stay home if Hillary is the nominee.

This is based on? If you don't have your way? Passion is great. Very few of my primary candidates in the past have won - but I rolled up my sleeves and went to work. Kerry sure didn't resonate with me.
Just go to the free republic and it's likeminded ilk (if you can stomach it, be forewarned, it's nasty, I had to shower afterwards)and see how those whack jobs hate both Hillary and Obama equally. And I'm sure they've slimed Edwards too.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-
news/1956714/posts

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Our top three candidates tower above the GOP's.

Even right-wing talking points have truth in them sometimes.

This is a 'talking point' for anyone with morals and who knows that lying is wrong. Clearly the Clinton's don't know this.

If they equate it to a Republican talking point, are they saying that all Democrats are liars who don't know that it's wrong? I really don't appreciate that, and it's one of the reasons why I don't want them in office. They are not representative of either the Democrats I know or the America I love.

That it may be a right wing talking point does not transform a lie into the truth.

This is a shameful tactic by Wolfson.

For many months, beginning last May, I began to understand that ANY criticism of Senator Obama's experience was perceived as the moral equivalent of calling him "boy," and that ANY questioning of his failure to meet his responsibilities as a legislator (I was especially troubled by his (non) leadership of the very important Foreign Affairs subcommittee he chairs) was perceived as the moral equivalent of calling him "lazy." Because my already committed pro-Obama friends, some in the campaign, reacted as if my concerns could only be explained as stereotypically prejudicial, they effectively put any thoughtful exploration of my uncertainties off limits. I believe that there is a sub-text in the Obama campaign that may or may not be unfair to the candidate himself, that he is above criticisms regarding capacities -- that he is obviously smart enough, eloquent enough, and elevated enough to warrant anyone's support. I do believe that this attitude is a major contributor to the mood among the rival camps. I only hope that each voter can pick his or her way through the minefield and make an educated guess about what combination of strengths that these candidates so evidently have is most likely to be effective in the very troubling time ahead.