Why the early apology, she didn't even give it a chance to settle to provoke any response from the HRC camp.

Don't apologize. The mOnStEr's campaign staff will use this over and over again, even after your apology.

I would respond by saying only a monster would darken and distort the features of man in a photo ad to make him appear differently. Hell, that's flat out racism.

Of course that stupid slip up that she wanted off the record is the headline in the news instead of what they were talking about which was foreign policy.

Glad this story can go away as quickly as it cropped up.

A stake in the heart...

Kinda like killing Dracula?

: )

To the Clinton haters: get stuffed.

question for sjw:

Who are these mysterious Party Elders you speak of?

I hear the line time and time again that Hillary Clinton is 'tearing the Democratic Party apart. And yet, Sen. Clinton has more support among Democrats nationwide than Sen. Obama.
With all do respect SCMadden, your comments about Sen. Clinton winning Texas with 'tainted' Republican votes is very inaccurate:

66% of all voters who participated in the Texas Democratic Primary considered themselves Democrats before the voting began on Tuesday. (In other words, 44% were either Independents or Republicans)

Take a look at all the exit polls for the states that have participated in Democratic primaries or caucuses so far and you will find some interesting numbers. In every single state except Alabama, Sen. Clinton won a wider margin among Democrats than the final score. And in every state except Georgia, Delaware, and Alabama, Sen. Obama garnered less votes among Democrats than his final percentage.

For example, in Rhode Island, Clinton won 62%-32% among Democrats, although the final tally was a smaller margin; 58%-40%. In Wisconsin, Obama bested Clinton 58%-41%, although among Democrats he beat her by only 6 points, at 52%-46%. Utah? Democrats went Obama 49%-Clinton 47%. The final score, of course, was much different: Obama 57%-Clinton 39%.

And what about Missouri, that bellwether state that Obama 'won' (even though the delegates were spilt--this is entirely about the delegates, right?). Among Democrats, Sen. Clinton won 50%-47%. Among Republicans, Sen. Obama won 75%-21%.

Finally, after calculating all votes among Democrats in the primaries thus far, I found another interesting number. 8,951,938 people have voted for Sen. Clinton and 8,142, 167 have voted for Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama has much to be proud of by pulling in many independents and some Republicans to his side. But to claim that Sen. Clinton is somehow destroying the Democratic Party when, thus far, she has more support among Democrats is a pretty tricky if not inaccurate claim to make.

Wow, so she apologized. BFD.

Why hasn't Obama fired her?

Didn't he say once upon a time he'd fire anyone who got into personal attacks? What could be a more personal attack than to call one's opponent a "monster"?

If Obama doesn't fire her, he's as fake as every one of his critics has said he is.

And even if he does fire her, what does it say about his own judgment that he chose such an emotionally uncontrolled person as his top foreign policy adviser?

Cooler head? Not so much?

Who wants someone like this to advise in a genuine foreign policy crisis, when she can't stand the heat of a political campaign, and a few days of bad press?

Put this together with the Goolsbee idiocy and the Susan Rice idiocy and the bizarre Obama campaign lawyer idiocy of crashing a Clinton campaign phone call, and you got yourself a real Keystone Kops.

And people once upon a time thought that it might be OK if Obama was a naif, because he could surround himself with experienced hands.

That's really working out well, isn't it?

Yes! The Clinton campaign is racist, and anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist! Sorry to be a troll, but I just can't understand people that love Senator Obama but strongly oppose Senator Clinton, when their political views are almost identical. I saw Clinton at a campaign event in Iowa and she did not breathe fire: She was smart, inspiring, and had strong responses to questions. I made my decision then, but also like Obama a lot.

I also don't get people who don't want "another Clinton". So, what better Democratic president are you thinking of? President Clinton was the best president this country has had in a long time.

Here is the difference between the two candidates right here. When one of Obama's people does something like calling Hillary a monster, an apology is issued. When one of Hillary's people compares Obama to Ken Starr, no apology is issued.

How in the Hell can Hillary go on playing the victim card is beyond me. Calling for tax returns is not a horrible request, but she is defensive about it. Why so defensive? Why not explain why she cannot release the documents?

Effective word. Good iffiness provided by journalist "off the record" immediately after the "word". Spoken by a female about a female so gender bias won't come up. Rapid and sincere apology.

Point to the Obama campaign.

There is a big difference between calling someone a 'monster' and referencing someone to a political peer. Less we forget when Sen. Obama called Sen. Clinton "Bush-Cheney Lite" I'd take Ken Starr over that one.

Also, liam, my strong support for Sen. Clinton, in spite of her very narrow odds for victory, comes in large part from sexism such as yours. I'll fight for my candidate, but I'll also fight against the fight against feminism any day. (Not that it really matters, but I would like to point out that I am a male).

Hillary Clinton has busted her ass off for the Democratic Party and to say otherwise is more than a little ridiculous. Again, in the the contests for the nomination to date, Sen. Clinton has garnered more votes from Democrats than Sen. Obama (more than 800,000 votes, a 53%-47% spilt).

David Brooks of the NY Times continues to dismantle Barack's campaign notes: "In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn't have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he's got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."

Barack's campaign staffer, Samantha Power demonstrates a lack of discipline with her comments in the European paper, The Scotsman that, "She (Hillary) is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything". Ms. Power goes on to say, "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive." I suspect Ms. Power, while Hillary was stooping, was looking up at Hillary when she made that observation.

Barack's campaign has the look of "conventional" fatigue about it. The losses in OH, RI and TX have given his staffers a new perspective. Barack's management inexperience is becoming increasingly evident. If he wins the Party nod, he will bring this inexperience to the White House. I suspect the McCain campaign will stop him first. You see, the Republicans have a different perspective on Barack than his following. Barack may long for Hillary's sweet kisses of criticism before it's over.

cube3u

Here is the Missourit data:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225990

And flyonthewall, I but no means was even suggesting that the primary include Democrats only. I am just rightfully defending Sen. Clinton's support among Democrats. If (and most likely when) Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I believe it will be a fair election, one hard fought that he will just narrowly win. Congratulations.

But to claim that Sen. Clinton is not a Democrat, is destroying the Party, etc, is just not true in any sense.

Lastly, notice how she is Sen. Clinton, not Shillary, or Billary, Monster Clinton, Dragonlday, or even Mrs. Clinton.

I'm sticking to the same point I've been at all along. Whoever can win the primary by the rules will get my vote in the general. It's too bad it's come down to fratricide, but I think Clinton knows her presidential aspirations are probably over for good if Obama wins the presidency. If he's the nominee but loses, she's back in 2012. So why not talk up McCain? She has nothing to lose. So with nothing personal to lose, she's turning it into a brawl and probably doesn't care much how much of a mess she makes, for instance, by comparing Obama unfavorably with McCain, raising fears for your children if he is elected, and by throwing this thing to a convention floor fight that threatens the future of the party, especially all those new young voters coming online, basically none of which are coming to vote for her.

Clinton is a political animal that has been backed into a corner. Unfortunately there is no easy way to deal with her now. She doesn't think she has any options but one, so she has to be treated like a rabid raccoon, that is, cautiously and lethally.

This won't be easy, because her real WMD is victimization. That seems to have turned things in the big contests she's won. If we hear about Marc Rich, the Khazakstan mining deals, her campaign's role in NaftaGate, the tax returns, the admin records, docs in the socks, B.Clinton's role in banking deregulation and the housing mess, screwing up health care reform, alienating the future of the party, etc, it's going to take her down a few notches. But let's be careful about it, because it won't help us in the general at all, and she seems to do better the more she's dumped on. It needs to stay upbeat and substantive.

I'd start by going right after that WMD of hers, which is victimization. They started a little of that with the "complaining about the refs" line.

Same comment to the Clinton haters. Get stuffed.

>>>>But to claim that Sen. Clinton is not a Democrat, is destroying the Party, etc, is just not true in any sense.>>>>

I agree with the spirit, but there is a sense in which this charge is true lately, and that is the specific kinds of attacks the Clintons have chosen to use against BO. She is saying either her or McCain is ready to be president, but Obama is not. What could anyone say worse or more treasonous to the party than that?

So yeah, the anti-Clinton rhetoric does get a bit heated at times, because a lot of people have a real problem with her despite her obvious intelligence. Maybe in some cases it's even BECAUSE of her obvious intelligence, a point I acknowledge and which appalls me. But your claim that she has done nothing untoward to call into question her dem roots loyalty is a little off. She's DLC, she voted for the Iraq war and still wants to use that as "seriousness" cred, she calls progressive reform in payroll tax a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class..." and now she's playing "either me or McCain but not HIM."

The classless and immature remark about HRC will be a story all day, thanks to the AP.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBpcYuzkAvUs73pgP7rAa1xiwkBAD8V8KUV80

Let me pose this question -- if one of Hillary's aides called Obama a "monster" -- the Obama campaign, and of course Al Sharpton, would be leading a call for dismissal and penance.

Double standard?

It was a dumb, dumb remark. She should have apologized, mostly because it showed a third-grade mind, not someone you want in your administration, frankly.

Moreover, Hillary is NOT a monster.

If she's a monster, what is Cheney? What is Hitler, Godwin? You be running out of adjectives fast.

Powers can be let go for now, but that doesn't mean she can't or won't advise the Obama administration.

Again and again, these threads are about nothing.

She apologized for that? What a wuss.

Besides the stupid remark that HRC is a monster, evoking her "ergh" response, Powers said something eqaully revelaing about the Obama campaign.

She told the British press that Obama does not really mean that he will have all US troops removed from Iraq within 16 months after taking office as he now says.

Does anyone begin to see the pattern of a dissembling politician here? How is it that such supposedly smart people think that honesty and integrity are dispensable in a PRESIDENTIAL election?