The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.

In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."

When he finally wound down, Bill was asked what message he wanted the delegates to take away from the meeting.

At that point, a much calmer Clinton outlined his message of party unity.

"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.

"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."

When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened.

Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.

In short, when it comes to foreign policy, Clinton = Bush.

We have now, officially (or maybe for the 80th time) come full circle in this primary fight.

Obama is just another lying politician.

There is the proof.

He punked you trolls

Admit it.

It's a pity that Obama feels the need to lie and mislead voters over Hillary's policies.

Also, I'd encourage you to revisit the diplomacy debate. I think it's over the preconditions notion. Clinton is for it, as is Bush and McCain.

Preconditions vs Preparations.

So he's technically right.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I wonder if Hillary had any preconditions met before meeting with Scarife.

greg: defender of clinton!

Normally I find TPM to be moderate but wow what is with the major HRC slant? Yeh not talking to Iran etc is non engagement, HRC thinks its naive then let her campaign make that charge not need for you to spew out her TPs...Oh yeh not talkign to Iran that worked great in Afghanistan and has worked brilliantly in Iraq no? But hey screw lets talk to the Pakistani corrupt Gov because they are soooo much better than Iran. Yeh right! Or lets talk to China despite their disgusting acts in Tibet because they are so much better than Iran. This is a fair attack and to try and parse it with HRC's TPs is hardly the objective viewpoint...not impressed.

The statement in the letter is accurate. Campaign advocacy does not need to be precise to be truthful.

I've seen a lot of people attack Sargent for bias before, but his "clarification" of the dispute between the candidates shows no balance whatsoever. It's pure campaign shillery and inappropriate for a blogger with any pretension to objectivity.

See how long it takes for this to be spun as another negative attack by Hillary on Obama. Note how Obama equates Hillary with McCain. See how long it takes before this is offered as proof that Hillary is divisive. Two against one. Poor Obama.

The entire basis of the Bush approach to diplomacy has been to demand concessions (i.e., preconditions) before agreeing to high-level meetings. The use of preconditions has stood in the way of renewed diplomacy and Hillary is firmly behind the Bush/neocon view on that. Obama will break with that and Hillary will not.

God, Greg, I love it when you do my thinking for me. It saves me soooo much trouble.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain - War Party of the US

Thanks, Greg for clarifying that Obama critique for me. For a second, I couldn't get that and then bam, you produce your masterful "insight" in to Hillary's supposed viewpoint.

You have now earned high honors now renaming TPM as Ben Smith blog.

Obama's literature represents his spin on Hillary's position. It isn't how she would characterize her position, but how he sees her. It is factual, with emphasis differences.

Unfortunately, you don't correct the record. Instead, you simply spin it from Hillary's perspective, which is far more misleading than anything Obama said about Hillary. Your take is not factual.

But I guess you know that.

A matching mailer arrived at my Kentucky home today.

It contained every piece that Greg posted, and no other pieces.

I also see no charts. I see one map of states won, lost, contested, and not decided. I see calendars for April, May, and June.

There are two paragraphs about the numbers, right at the beginning of the memo, but those are not charts at all.

Greg I think you've said something that simply isn't true. I wish you'd update your post to correct what you said. I don't think it's a big problem or that it happened with any bad intent, but I do think it's about the site's credibility and worth fixing.

I don't know what's wrong with Obama supporters' memory. I thought that Hillary was silly and over-aggressive, and Obama rather slow to admit that of course trips like this happen after negotiations and arrangements made. No high political meeting EVER takes place without the terns already agreed to. Neither side wants otherwise. I think it was just a phrasing thing, but I remember the interchange between Hillary and Barack last... fall? Do you not? Now, do you think that means that Hillary "stands behind Bush"? I don't. It doesn't seem unreasonable to describe the Obama letter as, well, propagandistic, at least in that regard. If you have problems with that, I think you have problems with journalism, and I look forward to life under Obama's Minitrue.

Greg, you are a huge duche bag. I could elaborate, but your post does not deserve it.

They have both "rejected Obama's call for renewed diplomacy as naive." That doesn't say they've both rejected _all_ calls for renewed diplomacy. There's nothing in the letter to suggest that. That would be like saying they've rejected all future eating of apple pie.

So what, Greg, has your knickers in a bunch here? Obama has made a specific call for renewed diplomacy. They reject it. Since his supporters largely embrace it, this becomes an item in a fundraising letter. Presumably you reject his call too. So don't send him money! No reason to pretend to shock at this whole line of discourse.

"Hillary's disagreement with Obama isn't over whether their administrations would conduct "renewed diplomacy" with foreign governments. Rather, it's over Obama's assertion that he would meet with the leaders themselves in his first year without precondition. That's what she attacked as "naive.""

No, you're wrong. Hillary has no real intention of meeting with enemy leaders. The pre-conditions are just more of the same -- impossible obstacles that the enemies will never meet. So we are left with exactly the same Bush policy of not meeting with people.

Obama is dead-on in this criticism IMHO, and it is a rare point of disagreement on policy. Obama would actually change foreign policy and the US' image in the world, while Hillary would mean more of the same -- more benign than Bush certainly, but no big departure.

My God, you Obama children are a nasty lot!

On the one hand, you're so sanctimonious and self-righteous about declaring how you and your Dear Leader are so far above "politics as usual" - on the other hand... Well, all this crap.

What a bunch of snots. Hypocrisy = Republican = Obamabot. Talk about coming full circle.

Guys - Reality sucks. If you can't handle the truth (i.e., you can't accept the fact that sometimes your Dear Leader lies - which he does in this flyer), you will pee all over yourselves after DL loses to McCain.

Get a grip.

i don't think that greg should perpetuate the spin on either side... if we want to hear spin, then all we have to do is turn on any of the cable news channels.

The Obama mailer reproduced above has as many charts as there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Greg's claim on that point is as well supported as President Bush's assertion that the Iraqis were trying to buy yellow cake.

"Voluminous" doesn't fly either. A memo on two sides of a piece of paper. A glossy added page with the map on it. A card for donations. An envelope to put the card in.

But hey. Voluminous versus slender. Sunni or Shia. Iraq or Iran.

Words don't matter to the Administration.

I guess I just thought TPM was more careful than that.

Bottomline of this mailer is that their is something grievously wrong when a DEMOCRATIC candidate for President is AGREEING with the GOP opponent for President AGAINST her DEMOCRATIC rival.

THAT is the CORE Issue!!

Why the hell are Hillary and McCain agreeing?
Why the hell is Hillary claiming only she and McCain have passed the CinC threshold test?
Why is her spouse claiming Hillary and McCain running in the general gives us 2 people who love this country.

There is absolute no way that the DEMOCRATIC candidate for nomination should be working in tandem with the GOP nominee. NONE.

The Democratic Party should be outrage!!

She is destroying the party.

"Scientific" - You just proved my point.

The people in this creche constantly refer to Clinton as everything from "Billary" to "cunt". The same people then turn around and pretend to be above it all - as you did just now.

I'm dishing it out, just as you are. Main difference: I'm not pretending otherwise.

As for the "Dear Leader crap" as you so innocently put it: It's your cult. Call him what you want. I'm calling it as I see it.

Original question from debate:

Question: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. ... And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

Clinton: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

Obama's later clarification (closer to HRC's position)

HRC response:

Clinton Attacked Obama's Position on Meeting WIth Foreign Leaders, Said He Committed To Meeting at High Level Without Groundwork Laid. Clinton said on This Week, "Senator Obama consistently misstates what I had said and really tries to gloss over his answer to a question in an early debate. The question was very specific. Would you without preconditions meet with 5 of the worst dictators including Ahmadinejad from Iran and others without preconditions personally as President. He said yes, I said no. That has nothing to do with whether or not we would have diplomatic efforts with all of the countries. I've been a long time advocate of having diplomatic processes with Iran." Stephanopolous asked, "You're open to direct contact with all those countries?" Clinton responded, "Absolutely with Iran and Syria, most certainly, I have said that. But it would be at low level diplomatic efforts, between our ambassadors and between our diplomats. Because I don't think a president should put the prestige of the united states on the line to meet with these people unless you have some idea of what's going to happen. And I'm always a little amused when Senator Obama goes around quoting president Kennedy when he was running for the presidency about how you should never be afraid to negotiate. But then if you look at the transcript of what President Kennedy said in the debates with vice president Nixon, he said he would not meet with Khrushchev unless there had been a lot of groundwork laid." [ABC This Week, 2/3/08]

Obama: Nobody Expects You Would Meet with Hostile Leaders Without Having Done the Appropriate Groundwork. Obama said, "Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork," he said. "But the question was: Would you meet them without preconditions? And part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no." [Washington Post, 7/27/07]

My question is, how far will you take this bitterness? I realize that it's hard to watch your candidate lose a race that everyone agrees she should have won, but it's becoming more and more likely that Obama will be the nominee. So then what? Will you vote for McCain? Will you simply stay home? You're comparing the eventual Democratic nominee to Kim Jong Il and calling his supporters "a nasty lot" and "sanctimonious and self-righteous" "snots."

So when the time comes, will you cut off your nose to spite your face? Will you help elect a Republican prick who has vowed to overturn Roe v. Wade and who wants to keep America in Iraq for another hundred years? Or will you support Dear Leader?

Hypocrisy = Obama Hater = Republican president. Talk about coming full circle.

No! Gotalife is Scalia himself. See, since I outed him he changed the avatar

Ah, but you're conveniently skipping over Hillary's chickenshit, after-the-debate attack:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said today that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, made comments that were "irresponsible and frankly naive" when he said in Monday night's debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations during his first year in office.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3409544&page=1

And to call Obama's clarification (which was in response to Hillary's intentional misrepresentation of his position) an attempt to "nuance" his position is to misrepresent him again. He has NEVER backed off his original statement. Not in the slightest. It was HILLARY who disingenuously pretended not to know the difference between preconditions and preparations. She should buy herself a fucking dictionary. And she should stop lying.

Look--everyone is fired up. Everyone is angry. That's natural. We've got two candidates who are hammering away at each other on a daily basis, and the race has gone on way too long. Hillary should be the nominee by now--there's no argument about that. But she blew it early on, and there's very little chance she's going to be able to make up the difference in the time remaining. So Obama is probably going to win the nomination.

The real question is, what are you going to do then? Will you set aside the rancor and bitterness that's developed during this over-long nominating process and vote for the Democratic nominee? Or will you sit home, licking your wounds and bemoaning what coulda shoulda been? Or maybe you'll go so far as to vote for John McCain--a guy who has vowed to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to "win." A guy who has made it a priority to overturn Roe v. Wade. A guy who will most certainly stack the Supreme Court with more Republican pricks than an airport restroom.

Will you go that far? Or will you remind yourself why you're a Democrat and support the Party?

OK.

The problem with the "preconditions" is that they are what the negotiations should be about.

The Bush, McCain and, yes, Clinton way is "give us what we want and then we can talk."

It don't work that way.

Trying to trivialize it in the manner Greg does is staggeringly shortsighted.

Greg, why don't you just write "Obama sucks" and save the TPM space for real journalism.