Is there something factually inaccurate or misleading about the mailer?

I can't wait for the HRC response that she isn't her husband. But when Hillary keeps bringing up the Clinton presidency on the stump and during the debates, she puts things like this mailer on the table. She can't have it both ways.

I can't wait for the HRC response that she isn't her husband. But when Hillary keeps bringing up the Clinton presidency on the stump and during the debates, she puts things like this mailer on the table. She can't have it both ways.

Sounds great, but where are effective Obama surrogates making this case? He shouldn't have to do it himself. Get Sebelius, McCaskill, Napolitano, et al to bring this home in firm way that puts a positive spin on it: nominee Obama and President Obama means more Dems elected in Red states.

He is right on the money here, and I'm glad FINALLY this issue is being mentioned. Everyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass knows that the Clintons are polarizing, especially Hillary "50% unfavorable rating" Clinton, and nothing will bring the GOP (and independents) together like Hillary being on a ballot. My biggest fear (and a fear shared by governors and members of congress from red/purple areas) is that Hillary will get nominated, resulting in a surge in Republican voter turnout, and destroy our gains we've made in state and local races. If the Republicans didn't destroy our congressional majority in 2008, they would seal the deal (just like in 1994) in 2010 if Hillary somehow became president. Granted, I think that is impossible, because she will lose to McCain, but people need to wake up and realize that Hillary is the Typhoid Mary of elections, she is a huge liability to our party, and it is frankly amazing this hasn't been mentioned more often. The reason a lot of the establishment is coming out for Obama is because they know Hillary is bad news for the party and they want to avoid getting our asses kicked in November. So really people, wake up and understand that Hillary is the exact opposite of what our party needs if we want to win elections.

Clinton hurt the Democratic Party. One thing they left off was the fact that Clinton led to the election of George W. Bush. This idea that he was successful is the biggest myth I've ever heard of. Whatever successes he had (and they were few) pale in comparison to the damage done by Bush.

Did FDR manage to lose the majority in the Senate, House and governors?

Obama has already taken direct aim at the Clinton presidency, arguing in a now-notorious interview that the GOP was the "party of ideas"

Greg:

What do you mean when you call it "a now-notorious interview"? What is notorious about it. Why are you using such a loaded pejorative description of the comment. Your Hillary bias is showing through.

Agree with WWJB 100%

The nightmare scenario is that this thing isn't settled at the end of the primaries, and a protracted legal and public relations battle sets in throughout the summer.

So, we'll have teams of Democratic lawyers, and lots of inflamed Democrats and Progressives, at war with one another though the summer leading to one group or the other walking away after the convention.

This will make McCain look like the sane, rational choice.

Let's pray that Obama wins Texas and Ohio, though I doubt that Hillary quits even if that happens. Everyone knows that, given a choice between what is right for the Party and what is right for the Clintons, the Clintons choose themselves every single time.

(See Monica Lewinksy, Ending Welfare as We Know It, NAFTA, Health Care, and Kyoto, as examples of Clinton choosing personal over Party/Country.)

As of this very day George W. Bush still agrees fully with Hillary Rodham Clinton, that her vote in support of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation was not a reckless and colossal mistake on Hillary's part.

Looks like Obama is trying to slay the fire-breathing dragon, to borrow Maureen Dowd's image. And the best way to fight fire is with....

Some folks up thread are actually accusing Greg of being biased for posting information about this mailer??? How is the campaign supposed to be reported, if reporting such a mailing is a sign of bias.

That said, kudos to Obama supporters upthread who candidly state that, in their view, Obama should push the theme that the Clinton Administration was bad for Democrats. I look forward to that debate, if it occurs.

He is trying to bait Bill.....hoping Bill takes it then having the press spin on Bill. Obama Rules. Even though Bill would be within his rights to defend his record the story would be about Bill being racist, Bill attacking Obama, Hillary not being able to control Bill ETC ETC ETC. Stupid shit instead of the real story of Obama going after a wonderful Dem Prez. TPM would play into it also as usual. ;)

I can't wait for the HRC response that she isn't her husband. But when Hillary keeps bringing up the Clinton presidency on the stump and during the debates, she puts things like this mailer on the table. She can't have it both ways.

The brochure is right but it may be counter-effective. It educates younger voters, but they're on Obama's side already. The people who want 2-for-1 back, warts and all, will be pissed.

Still, I like to see him fight, as long as he's honest.

Paddynoons, losses in 2000 are really on Gore's shoulders--he didn't fight to win, then Kerry in 2004 wouldn't even defend himself. As everyone points out, but fails to appreciate, Clinton to this day still has 70+% percent approval by Democrats. On the blogsphere, about 1%, but if Obama wants to win, he won't do it using Republican talking points and propaganda. Unless, that is, folks here among the blog commentators can deliver a majority of votes?

If you think the best route is to tear apart the Democratic party by buying into the anti-Clinton hysteria, go for it. Assuming Obama succeeds in garnering the nomination by ripping apart the Democratic party, he will go into the fall without traditional party support, plus his own set of baggage--inexperience, his ties to friend and slumlord Rezko, his play on race, and so forth. He loses. Better he loses now and the Democratic party goes forth with a winner, Clinton and with its real strength, Clinton, and, yes, the main stream, traditional Democrats that still to this day support him. But, I'm sure I am wasting my breadth here as you've all drank the Kool-Aid and want "change" with a new pretty face, a Black face as the LA Times recommended, last week, as if this is a substitute for a substantive candidate and potential president. No, I'm sorry to conclude, with Obama we would get Gore loss in 2000, Kerry loss in 2004, Obama loss in 2008, with a McCain or other Republican win once again. I guess at least we can comfort ourselves in that McCain and the others are at least not likely to be as bad or be a repeat of George Bush.

If this is Obamas version of the politics of hope, then I am happy to be old school. An intersting phenomenon is occuring. The more Obama gets high profile endorsements and the hero worship of the MSM, the base is holding firm for Hillary. The punditocracy may be be losing their grip.

If the Clinton's are going to run by trying to bask in the afterglow of the '90s, then Obama has every right to remind Democrats of how the '90s actually worked out. If the '90s were a successful decade for the party, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.

this is a very smart move for obama. he's been making the case ... through this mailer and by allusion in his debates and speeches ... that he is the most effective speaker/leader for the dem party because of his ability to get young voters (and regular voters) engaged and excited. as the superdelegate race heats up, the congressional reps could be swayed to his camp based on this. he can get them re-elected better than clinton can, is his position. he's saying he's the best salesman for a progressive majority. and he's right.

Everyone in left blogostan argued Obama's comments comparing Reagan's legacy to Bubba's proved Obama wasn't ready for primetime. But Bill bit down hard on the bait, the debate became about the past, Bubba looked like a racist cracker, and Obama smoked Hillary in SC. Why not give it another go? I doubt Bill can restrain himself. Just ask Monica Lewinsky.

Clearly the Clinton years were not good to the democratic party but I'm not sure how much of the blame you can lay at the feet of the Clinton administration. Probably some but certainly not all. Personally, I'm not at all clear on why the Obama campaign would want to bring this up but I would be surprised if they push this very much.

I am curious what Clinton did that so alienated the population that Dems were drummed out of office as a result. He pretty much governed from the middle. He was incredibly popular across all spectrums of the country except for the far right. Do you think if he had been more of a leftist that things would have gone better for him in this regard? Perhaps if he had completely lifted the ban on gays in the military or expanded the welfare system, we would have had overwhelming Dem majorities for the last 16 years. Come on. This is pretty revisionist stuff. Ironically, he actually was a bipartisan president who accomplished goals by reaching across the aisle. Isn't that what Obama supporters expect of their man? Or is it all a ploy to get in an cram a socialist agenda down America's throats. Gee, I wonder how long his congressional majorities would last in that case.

I think most historians would agree that the reason the Dems lost congress in the 90s was because they had been pegged as the party of big spenders for the previous 12 years. People felt they had been held in check by 2 republican administrations. But when a Dem got into office, it was too easy to rile up the independents who had gotten used to their low taxes. It had nothing at all to do with who was there. Any Dem would have suffered the same fate at that point in history.

Give them time. The media will be all over this.

I can't wait for the HRC response that she isn't her husband. But when Hillary keeps bringing up the Clinton presidency on the stump and during the debates, she puts things like this mailer on the table. She can't have it both ways.

I can't wait for the HRC response that she isn't her husband. But when Hillary keeps bringing up the Clinton presidency on the stump and during the debates, she puts things like this mailer on the table. She can't have it both ways.

I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that the far-left, progressive is not a good label, wants a leftist candidate instead of a moderate, mainstream candidate. I'm not sure if Obama will fit neatly into this leftist box the blogsphere wants but maybe its easier to overlook details just so you can dump on a moderate, mainstream candidate that can leverage the party's success and continued support to win the election in the fall. I think at the end of the day, or election in the fall, Obama as your left candidate of change is no more electable than Ron Paul is on the liberatarian right. More credible, yes, but electable, no.

This is a promising but risky strategy:

Pros:
- Undermine's Hillary's appeal to the golden years of the Clinton reign
- Implies the Hillary is partisan and divisive
- Reaches for the mantle of new leadership for the party
- Might provoke Bill to say something stupid

Cons:
- Negative message undermines Obama's hope & unity message
- May alienate voters who like Bill but not Hillary
- Underscores the criticism that Obama takes Republican positions

"Is there something factually inaccurate or misleading about the mailer?"

No, but the implication is that the stand alone, in a vacuum, "polarizing" effect of Bill Clinton's presidency caused those losses. I would submit that 70 million spent on investigations, and a corporate Republican owned media, among other things, contributed to those numbers on that flyer. I'm concerned that Obama seems to have a love for debunked Republican talking points. Factually inaccurate? No. Pretty sleazy? I think so. Oh wait, I forgot about the hope and change.

The Democrats lost because they did the right thing for the country by passing the legislation that resulted in the Clinton surpluses -- as Clinton pointed out in one State of the Union. They're heros in my book. Too bad they ended up sacrificing their careers to shore up the country's accounting so Republicans could syphon it off to cronies. Still, they're heros.

The second reason is that, like today, the Republicans had a blanket policy of stopping any piece of legislation that might pass during a democratic Congress, and then blamed the Dems for the lack of movement, and Newt Gingrich, with his lapdog press, took great advantage of the politics of hate and scandal-mongering that disappeared during the accountability free naughties.

And Obama just lost this supporter's vote.

Hillary, all the way.

Good stuff from Obama. One of the arguments for his candidacy is that he'll create a movement, bring in fresh blood. We certainly saw that at the caucuses here in MN last night. The Clintons did not create any type of lasting shift towards the Democratic Party, as the mailer clearly points out.

Plus, Obama is certainly justified in going after both of the Clintons, as they're both going after him. (or at least they both were, until it backfired so badly in SC) If Hillary is counting her 8 years as first lady as experience, then the effect the Clintons had on the Democratic movement is fair game.

Obama adopting another one of the right wing talking points; It's Bill's fault!

What's pertinent about Bill Clinton and the '90s?

Let's hear some substance on the issues and stop this apparent obsession.

Silver......Bill....has forgotten more then Obama has learned...please. Your guy is a babe in the woods. Your guy has never ran a complete race yet,
you sound stupid. Bill is a 2 term President. Nuff said.

Obama the poker player:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/02/04/080204ta_talk_mcmanus

I thought this Thug from Chicago calimed he is about future, then whay is he talking about 1990s!

Looks like sign of DESPERATION, Obama is losing delgate cout and he can't cross over Hillary.
So much for looking he being the FUTURE!!

A Clinton victory may result in a smaller percentage of Democrats down the ticket, but it will result in 100% more Clintons in the White House. I believe that is the calculus employed by their campaign.

Clinton's two terms in office only look good for Democrats if you are seeing them through the lens of two terms of Bush. If you remember the '90s fondly vote for Hillary. If you remember the '90s accurately vote for Obama.

What evidence do you have, Matthew, to support your claims? Can you point us to a specific poll that shows McCain beating Obama? How is Obama's approach in 08 different from Bill's approach in '92? I was just a kid then but I think I remember grumblings from base Democrats that resemble your own.

May I add that there were many things I liked about the Clinton Administration. My earlier comment made it seem otherwise.

Here is a link to the Newsweek article by Fareed Zakaria that I mentoned in my previous comment. I recommend it to everyone, including the pro Hillary folks here.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107578/page/1

Bill Clinton...lied under oath and was disbarred. I've never heard of a smart lawyer doing that....no kidding! Is that all he did..or is that all you guys fix on. The point here is that attempts, such as yours, to bring down Bill failed. I suspect Obama will fail as well...and he never lied under oath. Still not too smart.

Did everyone notice how Hillary ripped off Obama's past speeches last night? Obama is twelve steps ahead of her.

Is there a reason Obama won't debate 4 more times.

I'm not voting against Obama because of his supporters. I'm voting against him because of the continual poor judgment his campaign shows with mailers like this, and smearing guys like Krugman, while he talks of unity.

From what I can tell, the entire movement is based on a Republican echo of Clinton hatred, not any love for Obama. It's all anti-Clinton. Why should someone like me, who loved the Clinton Presidency vote for him, if he keeps doing these ABC-style rewritings of the most successful Presidency we've had since Kennedy? It's like McCain running for the GOP nomination based entirely on hatred of Reagan.

No problem with the blowjob...

>>>I thought this Thug from Chicago calimed he is about future, then whay is he talking about 1990s!

Well, because he doesn't want the Dem party to repeat those disasterous past losses in the future would be my guess. (And, by the way, the question could have been asked just as well without the wildly-inappropriate term "thug")

A nameless commenter said : "Bill is a 2 term President. Nuff said."

And this proves?
So is George W Bush.

Don't forget that Bill had a third party candidate who siphoned off more votes from his opponent in both of his elections. He never even got to 50%.
1992 - 43%
1996 (incumbent) - 49%
Even with the power of the office he never got to 50%

Matthew added:
"Hillary is a personal victim of Bill's indiscretion so I wouldn't blame her."

You need to add an "s" at the end of indiscretion. I agree with you that there is no way Obama will touch that nor should he. All I blame her for is sticking around for a shot at the brass ring. But I don't really blame her because I am not married to either of them. My sadness is due to the wasted years of his Presidency from the Lewinsky scandal. It was a witch hunt to be sure, but we know he didn't have to go there. And by lying about it for a year, he squandered his legacy.

But don't count the Republicans out from figuring out a way of working that into the narrative, along with the financial shenanigans in their past (and possible present with the Khazak story).

Caindp,

I complement you on your deportment and your flair with the English language.

It's another winning tactic from Obama, The Great Uniter! Just look at the comments here- isn't Obama uniting us already?

I doubt Bill will take the bait. It's one on one, Obama will have to debate more than one more time, you Obamaites will have to see your doctors for meds cause HRC is gonna be on the top of the ticket, like it or not. He's smoke and mirrors. The truth will come out.

Add Missouri to the things you'll have to explain, Matthew. This is an open primary so the indies could choose their ballot as they wanted and our voter rolls don't even include party affiliation. Obama and McCain took the indies--with Obama at a much higher percentage.

All of us older folks--and I'm in the Boomer category and not at the Obama end!--need to step aside and prepare the way for the younger folks who can change things in this country because of their enthusiasm, energy, and the leadership that Obama brings.

Hillary is a deceitful, do-anything to win politician, which are a dime a dozen in Washington (see: John McCain, Mitt Romney). The only two candidates worthy of their parties nominations are Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. Both of these candidates are honest, straight-forward, and free-thinking. People claim to be fed up with politics as usual, and here we are with a 99% chance that we will have senile john mccain on the right and a 50% chance of Hillar-me on the left. Bad news for our country.

As for the Clinton 90s, I think Hillary's botched health care effort DIRECTLY led to the Gingrich revolution in 1994. She had already shown how blatantly self-centered she was, even blasting DEMOCRATIC congressmen and senators who thought her UNIVERSAL health care plan was too over-the-top.

Hillary is the epitome of a divider...even within her own party. as an independent thinking Democrat, there is just no way i could vote for her in Nov. If she manages to steal the election via Bill's influence over superdelegates, she will get slaughtered by wacky john mccain in the fall. that would be the end of hillary clinton. this won't be the end for sen. obama b/c he can go back to the Senate, work, relax, and then begin his run against mccain in 2012.

ANYONE who thinks Hillary has a chance of beating John McCain is not paying attention. He will outraise, outspend, and out-surrogate her. She's broken down emotionally twice (PUBLICALLY) in a Dem primary. What's the Vegas over-under on how many emotional breakdowns she will have in a general against McCain, Rove, et al? I have it at 5 1/2 now. I'll take the over.

Matthew Weaver: Well said and written.
Seems like u are the only sane person on this blog.
The morons who are blaming Bill for everything don't realize that they are splitting Dems and helping Republicans finally win.

Politics of Hope! Politics of Hope!

Heh-heh-heh-heh...!!

*Puke*

What was Sen. Obama's supporters doing to help the Democrats in the 1990's?

Playing with their crayons?

So all you Hillary backers appear to be buying into the Fairy Tale that Bill Clinton has been a born again Virgin for the past seven years. Who is naive now!. If Hillary makes it to the White House more recent Bimbo Eruptions will flare, and the Republicans will win everything in 2010 and 2012, which means that the Supreme Court will be theirs for at least twenty years.

Obama will not debate 4 more times because he is THE FRONTRUNNER now. Frontrunners with $32 mill last month do not need to give free airtime to their waning challengers.

The Clinton machine has been trying to run out the clock for weeks. The only thing inevitable about Hillary is that she is going to have another emotional breakdown, soon. Maybe after she gets beat 80-15 or 70-30 this saturday. maybe when she loses VA 2-1. Or maybe after all the time she spends slumming in Bal-more looking for the few racist Dems that are there (i lived there, they exist) and still gets cooked.

After the 5 (oops, Maine caucuses), i mean 6 straight defeats, the pressure will be on her to drop out. I can't wait to see her Superdelegates start jumping ship!!!

It's true there were Democratic losses, particularly in the 1994 election.

It's also true the Democrats lost the 1994 mid-term election after the Democrats raised taxes to reduce the deficit and after numerous scandals in Congress, for example, the the House Post Office Scandal that were blamed on Democrats as a whole.

"So all you Hillary backers appear to be buying into the Fairy Tale that Bill Clinton has been a born again Virgin for the past seven years. Who is naive now!."

Ha! Not likely. But I couldn't care less about his personal affairs or her personal reasons to stay with him, nor do most people which explains his popularity upon leaving office. I care about policies, Hillary's policies. Obama wins on Iraq for his initial stance. But she wins on health care and the economy, and they both have the same idea about Iraq now anyway...

I guess to some the fact that 21 Republicans have to deffend their seats in 2008 doesn't matter. It matters greatly to me, as I would love to be able to finally elect a Democrat to replace Gordon Smith as my Senator.

The message of this mailer is clear, when Clinton was in power, Democrats lost races all over the nation. We finally took back control (barely) in 2006, and right now we have a Democrat who is winning with huge percentages in states where these key races will be on the ticket in November. That person is Barack Obama.

It is a simple fact, that activists know, when we run coordinated campaigns in a state,during a General Election year,coat tails matter. I think we can all agree that it would really suck to lose seats again. Pointing out that the Clintons have a history of not helping us win Democratic races in non-solid blue states, is a really important fact to point out.

Even if we stipulate that Clinton was a good or near great President, that doesn't mean his wife is entitled to the office as well. That's what burned me the most about her candidacy, especially at the outset. She and her crew (Penn, McAuliffe, Bill et. al.) seemed to think they were owed. Read Penn's early campaign memos about her "inevitability" as the nominee. Think back to the attitude of her campaign prior to the October debate. If there was ever a crew that was measuring the drapes, this was it.

I also felt from the outset that Obama was the better candidate on the merits. But the dismissiveness and arrogance of the Clinton campaign (not the supporters, the candidate and her inner circle) really chaffed my hide. Now that she is in trouble she is going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama. We will see who comes out on top. But if you are wondering why she seems to be generating some animus from fellow Democrats, well that's where mine comes from.

Well, this mailer is absolutely correct. And if Hillary Clinton is going to run on Bill's record - which she is, to a large extent - then you can't pick and choose. Two years after the first Clinton presidency began, after they completely blew the presidential 'honeymoon' with a secretive, long drawn-out health care initiative, Republicans absolutely pulverized the Democrats all across the nation. And we've had to deal with that ever since (with an improvement only in 2006, after terrible disasters by another president).

How much of this was really the Clintons' fault? I couldn't say. But Bill Clinton certainly didn't inspire the country, did he? He didn't boldly lead the Democratic Party into the future. He got himself re-elected, but those years were a disaster for Democrats - just as the Bush presidency is likely to be a disaster for the GOP, if the Democrats don't blow this opportunity.

Nothing would energize the divided, dispirited right-wing like nominating Hillary Clinton. Whether she could get elected or not, it would be a disaster for other Democratic officeholders (those who are not in reliably Democratic districts, anyway). But there's more than that. We'd be blowing an incredible opportunity because we were too fearful, because we were afraid to move into the future and decided instead to cling to the past. We'd have decided that inspiration was not for us, and all these hopeful young Democrats were foolish and should return to their apathy. This would be the real disaster, far bigger than a lost election.

1. has anyone verified the authenticity of this document. the production value looks awful and certainly the 1st two pages look totally different from last two (which are the controversial ones).

2.Has anyone verified that this document was actually sent to an actual person: "The mailer was forwarded to us by a political operative who told us it was sent to Alaska, though it was probably sent elsewhere, too."

Sounds like double hearsay. Who is the "political operative" who does he operate for? Aren't these the exact kinds of questions TPM routinely takes the establishment press to task for not asking time and time again. Hey we have a bombshell, who cares if it is true. Again source for this is a operative in ALASKA!

3. If I were a REPUBLICAN operative and I wanted democrats to fight amongst themselves, I can't think of a more perfect vehicle. Forward a false document on to media and let it grow. I think Karl Rove was doing this in High School.

4. Is there an objective argument from anyone that outside of the presidency, the 1990 and early 2000s were a very very tough environment for Democrats. We can argue the reasons, but does anyone actually dispute this.

5. Bill Clinton was popular among Democrats despite the beating we took at all other levels of government (a) because he won the presidency when many of us feared that indeed the republican had a mortal electoral lock, forever (b) he had and still has tremendous personal charisma, and (c) the right wing attacks were so over the top and overplayed that they ultimately subverted national interests (e.g. shutting down the government; impeachment).

Now back to your local food fight. Thanks Karl.

This is terrible.

All it does it amplify right wing spin by blaming the Democrats for the power of the right wing noise machine and their pipeline to the elite media.

This is like blaming Al Gore for the fact that he was branded a liar -- it simply feeds the Republican narrative.

Also, let's take a closer look at what caused the massive losses in 94 -- it was the unwillingness of Blue Dogs to go along with Bill's push for progressive change.

--The blue dogs sunk health care, while giving bipartisan cover to right wing smears about it.

-- They complained about the budget deal (that not a single Republican voted for) in a way that gave legitimacy to Republican claims that the Dems were the party of big, instusive government.

--They slammed Bill when he tried to allow gays to serve openly in the Military, causing serious damage to the party brand.

-- They attacked him for trying to ban assault weaponS, giving rise to the phony NRA-Republican argument that Dems wanted to take away your guns.

It was actually only when Bill stopped letting the blue dogs walk all over him that we reversed the gains.

So I guess what Obama is telegraphing with this mailer is that he sides with the Blue Dogs, not the progressives.

In order for Obama to get some knockout punches in on Hillary, he will have to be much more critical of the Clinton Administration and its record throughout the 1990s. He has only heaped praise thus far. But he must now take aim at the negative aspects as well. In particular he should target the horrendous debacle of NAFTA, which Bill Clinton passed AND the genocide in Rwanda. As we all now know, NAFTA ended up costing millions of American manufacturing jobs, shipping them overseas and I believe has contributed mightily to the current economic woes. Hillary, the so-called "champion of the middle class" supported NAFTA as well. The Clintons must be brought to task, because NAFTA was (and is) a disaster, not only for the U.S., but for Mexico as well. Obama could severely undermine the misguided conception that Hillary can better rectify the current economic crises. The truth is, the Clinton economic policies, in tandem with Bush, layed the groundwork for the current crises we are all experiencing. Obama needs to position himself as the the Visionary Candidate that would reverse the trends of NAFTA by rewarding green companies that create jobs in America. Rwanda, on the other hand is an obvious blunder. Bill Clinton twiddling his thumbs for 100 days while a hideous genocide takes place and then afterward apologizing for his lack of will to do anything shows us precisely how ineffectual the Clinton Administration could be. And thats not even mentioning Bill's personal issues, which left a permanent stain on the White house. Hillary cooperated with all of this at the time, and should be brought to task for it. Obama needs to expose these issues so that voters have a more balanced perspective of the so called "Clinton Legacy".

If any of you have read anything about Obama's decision to run, the urgency of now becomes more important.

Now I don't want to be a "now or never" girl, but the bare bones of the fact is Obama made a promise.

He talked to Michele about running. Michele knew it was Barack's passion and knew that she could not impede what obvious gifts he has.

By the same token, they have 2 little girls. Unlike seasoned politcians who leave their kids being raised by nannies and such, Michele are Barack are very involved loving parents.

As such, when Barack and Michele started to talk about his run, she was really afraid of what it would do to the family. But like the supportive wife she is she told him that she I believed in him, but that he must think of his family. To win the presidency and to be able to change the world is definately worth the shot. But if he loses, she did not want their family put through this again.

I can't say I blame her. To those who say, well he is not seasoned enough, wait until 2012 or beyond, I say we might not have that choice.

Not so brilliant:

The focus on personal indiscretions is distracting. Clinton's became an issue because he was already target of Republicans in a way unlike previous presidents. Bush Sr. was reported to have his own indiscretions....

Hooey.

Underplaying the importance of having morally upstanding individuals in the White House has no precedence in our history.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that even though ordinary Americans are themselves products of dysfunctional families, they expect more from a First Family.

Whether you think everyday Americans should expect such higher behavior is one debate. But to dismiss their concerns as "distracting" is partisan flim-flam.

Like it or not character matters.
And like it or not the Clintons are fatally flawed in this regard.

Not only did Bill lie with a pious attitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related
But he lied repeatedly about some rather egregious behavior with a young woman in the Oval Office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related

Bill Clinton's lying wasn't of the "one-and-done" sort. Not by any means. His was a full blown coverup that went on for a considerably time. Remember the old yarn: It is not the crime that matters but the coverup?
That really nails it.

Sorry, but character seriously matters.
It always has, and God willing, it always will.
To argue otherwise is pure partisan hooey.

Okay, so Obama is blaming the Clintons for the collapse of the 1990s? Instead of, say, the bungling and corruption of the Democratic establishment? How about blaming it on massive corruption of the entire national discourse and electoral process by the political sociopaths running the Republican party?

Which party's candidate does he want to be? The Republicans consider him an enemy and will pull every dirty trick, smear, and media manipulation they can to destroy his reputation and steal electoral votes from him. If he does not understand that, it is a danger to the nation if he gets the Democratic nomination.

The American people are sick of the stupidity and dishonesty of our politics. A Democrat who will not blame Republicans for what has gone wrong with our country cannot run against incompetence and corruption because he cannot name names, policies, and scandals. He will do nothing but serve as a punching bag for the Republicans in the election and will look like a whiner and a weakling when he complains about being picked on.

The Democrats already tried that strategy with Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and it failed miserably. They all thought their inherent goodness would shine through the storm of mud the Republicans threw at them and they were dead wrong. They just looked like losers and they just lost.

Negative attacks like this are probably why Barack Obama got fewer votes yesterday than Hillary Clinton.

Ok, is he copying my posts? I posted these same fact on monday. Hello dems, the clintons virtually destroyed the dem party in the 90's and gave us the king, delay and newt the nazi. Do we really want to go through this again????? Wake up people.

There is something fundamentally dishonest about this mailer.

In 1994, after putting the country on a course of fiscal sanity (i.e. raising taxes) and trying to get universal health care passed, the Dems lost 54 house seats, and 8 Senate seats, and 10 governors seats. (and, in 1993, the Dems lost two other governors seats)

Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Party, paid a steep price for those efforts -- and as in the subsequent six years, growth and overall prosperity meant to little change in how the country voted.

In other words, between 1994 and 2000, dems picked up 8 house seats, 1 senate seat, and 0 governors chairs.

Not exactly a stellar achievement -- but if Obama thinks he can achieve "fundamental change" without any political costs, he's kidding himself. The simple fact is that Bush is going to leave the next president an even bigger mess than his father did -- and by 2010, all the problems that remain unsolved will be blamed on the Democrats.

M Weaver,

Actually, my experience in the South and Midwest is that Obama is considered the Moderate vote.

I think people from the NE really under estimate the venom that people have for the Clintons, as a whole.

I really hate this new commenting. Sorry if its a double post.

Ok is he copying my posts? I posted these same facts on Monday. The clintons virtually destroyed the dem party in the 90's and gave us the king, delay and newt the nazi. Talk about a marvelous legacy. Do we really want to go through this again? I don't.

Send the clintons packing in 08.

*How did they do this? Qualify this statement. Bill got a blowjob; this aired in dirty laundry by the republican witchhunts; I hope they do the same thing to obama, so I can rail about how Obama destroyed the dems in 2008.

Piling on your own huh? I guess that's why Bill left office with a 64% approval rating.

WHAT.EVER.

Part of the reason there were Congressional lossess in 1994 was because of the economic package that Clinton pushed through the Congress, which passed without a single republican vote and required Gore to case the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It included tax hikes which cost some members of Congress their seat. But it was the reason that there was fiscal prosperity in the US and that the deficits were turned around and a surplus was generated.

In my humble opinion, an Obama administration would be a nightmare. He is way too inexperienced in national affairs.

I find myself wondering if there is anything Barak Obama actually likes about the Democratic party.

Bill Clinton had the same sort of energized campaign back in 1991; when I first turned 18 in 1992, I voted for him...

He brought new voters out...wanting a change, and he delivered. But he would never harp on a former Democrat to win dem votes...what the hell is going on here?

He has no honor.

race issue? the clinton's started that for political gain.

now that "she" has started losing her stranglehold on women, we see desperation as her daughter is praising RADICAL feminist Robin Morgan.

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/05/chelsea-s-take.aspx

And if anyone is wondering why I could never support Hillary, read this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182065

SO the Clinton's play the race card to try to marginalize Obama: it fails. The Clinton's see the base among women eroding and they try this? Puh-lease. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures!!

Obama seems to be using the McGovern strategy -- attract youthful and affluent anti-war voters and cross-over Republicans (voters George Meany referred to as "$25,000 a year men" and "elites") by running as a "reform" and "change" candidate not only against the sitting Republican administration but to an almost greater extent against his own party (both those members of its establishment that were most supported by the working class base, and the working class base itself). McGovern did this by lumping "big labor" together with "big business" as examples of "excessive power" and refusing to draw realistic distinctions between them, and by doing a Sister Souljah play to Labor on the Right to Work issue. Obama is doing it by lumping the Clinton Administration with the Bush Administration as "divisive" examples of the "politics of the past" and running to the right of Hillary Clinton on health care reform and Social Security.

It may well work in the primaries, as it did for McGovern. And, given the very different political environment of today compared to '72, it may not cost him as much in the general election as that strategy ultimately cost McGovern.

But how, having won with such methods, does he then regain the trust of those constituencies (working class women, young people and men) he is sacrificing now? And how, having worked to expand the party's support among affluent independents and right of center voters, does he govern in a progressive (in terms of economic policy) way?

The McGovernites' biggest sin isn't that they lost the election in '72, it is that the elite "$25,000 a year men" and youthful meritocrats of that movement didn't share the economic interest of, have much understanding of, or any respect for, the party's traditional working class base. Their increased dominance in the party after '72 was a big factor in the party's failure to address, over the last 35 years, issues of importance to working and middle class Americans.

This is why I, a former Edwards supporter, can't support Obama.

"If any of you have read anything about Obama's decision to run, the urgency of now becomes more important.

Now I don't want to be a "now or never" girl, but the bare bones of the fact is Obama made a promise."

So much for keeping a promise. Previously Obama promised to fulfill his Senate term rather than run for President, but lo an behold, he has broken that promise. I'm not worried about his promise to not run again for President because I know he will if he doesn't win this time. Obama is a POLITICIAN...he's just branding himself as the anti-politician because he knows that is what sells.

Obama is resorting to fear-mongering - don't elect me now and I'll never run again, my supporters might not support Hillary, elect Hillary and Dems will lose, blah blah blah. I don't buy it...if he's such a Uniter then why does he keep saying such divisive things?

Where is the media on this. What would had happened if a clinton supporter did this? I am sick and tire of this freaking media BS. Be fair when you are covering the election or just go home and shut your mouth.

Hillary is running on Bill's presidency. If she is going to hide behind Bill's skirts, and have Bill attacking Senator Obama, then Bill's actual record in office is fair game.

Could one fairly say that Darfur occurred on Obama's watch? I'm not aware of him personally sponsoring any legislation, resolutions, etc. addressing the situation in Darfur or even traveling there on a fact finding mission. In fact, I don't think his stump speeches ever specifically refer to Darfur. If W. is not responsible enough, and you want a black person to blame, why not Condolezza or Colin?

Correction: ...when judgement and BI-PARTISANSHIP are sorely needed.

To those of you who say the Clinton administration was a failure, I say this. Budget surpluses, who else has done that? 22 million jobs created and real wages climbing in his second term. Many Democrats don't like winning, and the Clintons represent the Winning wing of the Democratic party.
So now Obama supports use right wing talking points against the Clintons, accuse them of playing the race card, a move designed by the Obama campaign to consolidate the African American vote behind their candidate. And the clintons do anything to win? Give me a break!

Obama's gotta say this, and he's not falsifying numbers.

But I think the implication is overstated.

Elementary social science - correlation is not causation.

The 90s were bad for Dems outside the White House, and
Obama has a right to point that out.

But I resent the idea that this was somehow all, or
even mostly, Bill Clinton's fault.

Bill Clinton did fail to impose discipline early in
his administration, and made mistakes here or there,
but there are plenty of others to blame.

1. Congressional Dems for getting lazy and either
retiring or assuming their seats would be safe i the 94 election.

2. DLC Democrats for knifing their former leader in
the back shortly after he took office.

3. Old egomaniacal twits like Moynihan who did not
play ball on health care.

4. Resentful also-rans like Bob Kerrey who had brought
up the health care issue in their campaigns and then
trashed the Clinton plan.

5. The Zeitgeist of the American people at the time:
conspiratorial, anti-politics, ignorantly
anti-Washington political anger without a clear
focus....the kind of attitude that drove up the Perot
vote, and encouraged wacko militias in the early 90s. Remember that free-floating anti-Washington, anti-government, anti-politics vibe that attached itself to no coherent program.

6. The arrogant editorial writers at the Post.

7. The people for telling the politicians they wanted
the deficit cut and then voting the people out who did
it...the last Democratic Congress.

Finally, credit must go to Newt Gingrich and the
conservative movement (including talk radio)for
regrouping, reenergizing, and making Clinton and the
Dems as a whole pay for any mistake. The right-wing
militia wacko who shot Alan Berg also deserves blame
for taking out the only liberal talk radio guy for
decades.

I've played the what-if game many times, and
its hard to imagine a way to have kept a working
Democratic majority from 1994 onwards. Basically the
Dems were complacent in '94 and it was time for a change.

Let's face it, Carter and Clinton had their faults,
but post Watergate Democratic congresses have not been
too good to Democratic Presidents either. Frickin
prima donnas.

Much as we criticize our elected and failed-to-be-elected leadership I think that non-conservatives need to acknowledge the failures in followship as well as leadership.

Perhaps these might help:

The Myth of Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton was no champion of the poor

While the info in the mailer is correct and the problems that existed in the first two years of the Clinton Administration were real, I think a lot of people are confusing success with likability.

Bill Clinton was a centrist. His wife Hillary is a centrist. Barack Obama is a centrist constantly talking about how he can attract independents and some Republicans, which you can't do if you're a progressive or a liberal.

Everyone is arguing over the same flavor of ice cream here. The only difference is one is old and everyone's tasted it before and the other one is new. That's not saying that Obama won't have a different governing style and different policy nuances, but if he's bringing all sides together he will be doing what Bill Clinton was attempting to do before him. He will not be bringing forth the liberal cause or the progressive cause any harder than the Clintons would. The difference is that we've all been screwed over by the Clintons' before and we're familiar with the situation.

And all this "bringing all sides together" talk is just that, talk. Politics is about compromise, but it's also about fighting. If we all agreed we could get rid of the constitution and just be a bunch of capitalist commies already. People with opposing ideologies are supposed to fight, unlike living in a monolithic, hierarchical organization. And judging from the blood-letting and hog calling it's working out just great for them.

And just because Barack Obama wants to bring everyone together like Bill Clinton tried to do as president, doesn't mean all of the Republicans will go along. I can pretty much guarantee that the partisan warfare that has existed in our country since the second US presidency of John Adams will march on irregardless of who wins the White House.

My only hope is that the Democrats will stop taking one in the nuts all the time and fight back. I don't expect them to go old school and dig up tricks out of LBJ and Chicago Mayor Daly's 1960 Rigging Elections Democratic Party Handbook, but a little spine and some dignity would be nice.

Point being, likeability doesn't equal success. Bill Clinton was "likable" in 1992, but as time and battles wore on he was less likable. God only if he has the pleasures of serving two terms what Barack Obama would look like after eight years of political beatdowns administered by the opposition and the press.

With those forces at play you'd hate your own mother in long enough time.

I think it is time for Barack Obama to but a stop to this type of talk that he has been doing for weeks. It is very close to racist, My voters will vote for me but they would not vote for Hillary. Could you think at what the media would do if Bill or Hillary said that. When asked last week if Hillary was not the winner would you back Barack Obama, he said yes with out thinking. But Baracks wife said she would have to think about it. He keeps saying George Bush's line he is a Uniter, but his rhetoric about Hillary's voters will vote for him, but his voters won't vote for her is racist, and it needs to stop Now! That kind of talk splits the party, and if he keeps running his mouth about it he just might lose those Hillary voters if he does win primary. If he does and we get McCain in 2008 you will be able to tie it back to his campaign speeches. Barack if you want to be to leader of our country stop and think about want you are saying, and what it might sound like to you if someone else was giving the speech. God Bless America, and may he see that the people get it back.

Looks like Obama should be running in the Republican primary.

Every time I think I need to try to see my way to understanding this guy and what his supporters see in him, he pulls some crap like this.

One thing for sure: if he wins the nomination, he is getting no money or support from me. I'm going to have to give some serious thought as to whether he will get my vote.