OK, so let me get this straight. Some of the outraged "democrats" on here are shocked, i say, shocked that the Clintons are trying to win the nomination, and are doing all the typical things it takes to do that, including pointing out the opponents weaknesses, half-truths, past scandals, etc., and also using all the ammunition (including the former president) available to them to get the information out.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's response seems to be that the Clintons just arent playing fair.

Is that kind of response going to work in the General election?

It seems that most of the "outrage" is just being stoked by the media in order to create a better story.

Also, I think Republicans really would rather face Obama in the election and are trying to get the Dems to turn on the Clintons.

femalenick,

I'm 37, left a career in politics for other more principled work but am still addicted to it.

A couple months ago I would have admitted many of the things the NYT said. But, the simple fact is what Democrats have been saying about Bush-Cheney lately.

Yeah. She has experience, but the wrong experience, for the most part. She's showing that the experience she has is slash and burn politics (something I, like many others, never wanted to agree with Republicans on, but now see clearly) and aptitude and dividing people and creating hatred.

I think the best point the NYT makes is that she probably has a better command of the issues than Obama--or at least believes unwaveringly in what she's saying. Bush has that too by the way. That's my biggest fear of Hillary--she's an insulated bubble woman who will listen to no one outside of her sphere and take vengence on anyone who stands in her way. That's what we're seeing. Sound familiar? Their names are Bush and Cheney.

The final point that I didn't see the NYT raise at all which I think will be a huge issue when people make their final decisions is the legacy/oligarchy issue. That's the one that seals it for me.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and view his presidency as a strong success relative to the current president. That said, I am disgusted by the way Hillary and Bill have conducted their campaign. Their distortions of Barack Obama's record and statements is inexcusable. The Clintons and all the Republican candidates magnify the small policy differences between Republicans and Democrats. Only Senator Obama represents an opportunity to bridge the small gaps between Republicans and Democrats, as well as, improving international perceptions of the United States. I look forward to a Barack Obama Presidency. I will vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic candidate.

Chris, please be more responsible with your reporting. It is disingenuous to use a poll taken in late September to guage how people feel about Bill Clinton. He was nowhere near the political attack-dog then that he is now. As a life-long Dem and a Clinton defender and fan, I too was happy with him - in LATE SEPTEMBER! Things have changed and I would bet that polling would look slightly different if done today. He has certainly lost my respect and as for Mrs. Clinton, I too could no longer vote for her. Dirty politics was supposed to be reserved for the general election. Dems were never supposed to being going neg against each other like the Repubs do - we are suppose to be better than that!!!! And while I loved the fact that Obama stayed above the fray, I now hope he goes on the offensive and tells it like it is - they are not being truthfull and they are hurting our party!! Clinton supporters need to be begging their candidate to stop all of this mudslinging! Obama has only reacted to all of this nonsense - he has not and would not start it. Please stop soon before this ruins our chances at taking back the White House!!! Mrs. Clinton, please stop!! Mr. Clinton, please stop!!

prjonp, I will be 48 in less than two months.

It is true that Hillary has been overstating her experience, but it doesn't change the fact that she is more experienced than Obama.

I agree with you on Biden - he was by far the most qualified, but he didn't make it. We are now left with three choices, and my reasons are best summed up by the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html

They also endorsed McCain who happens to be my choice among the GOP candidates.

This all comes down to whether Americans will shake off their apathy and cynicism in 2008. The Clintons are betting that they will not, that the good ol' politics of smear and distortion will create a plausible narrative for their candidacy. They start with popularity, and only need to prevent a fresh face from rising above them. Their team are experts at the politics of destruction.

They know that this is not about what us political junkies think who can see through their cynical machinations. It doesn't matter that 80% of these blog comments are anti-Clinton. The sole question is whether average voting Americans are paying more attention than usual. Do they see this as an election of a lifetime, or not? I think we'll know the answer on the evening of February 5th. If the voters pay attention and really care, the Clinton tactics will fall flat and be repudiated. If not, Hillary will win. I'll be watching the returns from California closely.

FEMALENICK, YOU SAY:

"Hillary supporters seem to like Obama and often point to his inexperience as the primary reason for not supporting him today."

Doesn't this mean Obama is the most acceptable candidate left in the race? He's not hated by Democrats and Independents. And the idea that his "inexperience" is the only hesitation they have is frustrating to me. Obama actually has more total elected service than Hillary does. And I don't think state legislative experience is irrelevant. It's important to know how federal decisions impact life at the state level. Lots of mandates screw up states. There are many other general skills learned at the state level.

Hillary on the other hand has way overplayed her "experience". I cannot understand how she's gotten away with it. 35 years? Come on! She has some experience. So does Obama. You can debate who has the most, but it's not that far off. There is very little if any experience divide. So many people have been duped by this argument.

YOU ALSO SAY:
"I've been giving this some thought, and based on the demographic breakdowns, i.e., younger and more affluent voters support Obama while the less affluent and older people prefer Hillary, I have come to the conclusion that Obama supporters are more idealistic while Hillary's are more pragmatic."

Thanks for your stereotypes.

I am a pragmatist. I was a huge Biden supporter who in any other year would have been the establishment candidate. I supported Biden because I figured people should actually study the field and support the best, rather than be led like sheep to choose from the worst in the field. I'm not crazy about Obama, but he's the lesser of evils left standing.

Since you raise the age issue, how old are you femalenick?

One other note: If the U.S. media is capable of any sort of reflection about its own behavior and impact on the world, it should consider how much it has profited from the Clintons over the years (and vice versa).

Edward Albee could not come up with a relationship as toxic and magnetic as the one between the media and the Clintons--and it began all the way back in 1992, when we first heard of Gennifer Flowers. In the years since then?: Scandals by the sackful, the Clintons are down, the Clintons rally and return fire, they're up again, then they're down again with more scandals.
You have to admit that this is the sort of thing the media loves to cover. For their part, the Clintons proved adept at the 'permanent campaign.' For all the criticism they receive in the media, they also know how to use it to their own advantage ("vast right-wing conspiracy").

What will all the media folks do without the Clintons to talk about and prognosticate about? How will they fill the hours of airtime? How will they get people to watch 'news' shows if they can't talk about scandals and lies? In a time of severe cost-cutting, the media finds it cheap to run pundits 24-7, not to do much real news reporting or even basic fact-checking. Obama may have done a few things wrong in the past, but there's no way he's going to give the media the endless scandal fodder they're used to from the Clintons.

Keep your critical eye tuned on the media. Let's see how they play this moment of transition.

No major news outlet seems to have really picked up on the most interesting story to develop from the whole Obama/Hillary/Bill kerfuffle: John Edwards is making headway amongst the *voters* who tend to care more about their own lives than the candidates' personalities. Check out the latest Zogby numbers to see what I mean: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1433 .

Are we ever going to get any real election coverage in this race? You know what I mean: the kind of "news" that moves beyond the "he said/he said/she said" or "intimate portrait" infotainment model to tell us "here are the concerns of average Americans and here's what the candidates want to do about it." That would be such a positive contribution to our democracy, and such a refreshing change from the current tenor of public discourse.

Call me naive, but I still hope that our media is capable of providing us with this kind of service. Can I dare to believe as well that we, their audience, would support a true engagement with the issues that most concern us as a nation? Or have we all given up? Perhaps we really do prefer to be entertained above all else.

I honestly don't know... I'm busy, I work all the time, have a family, and have precious little extra head space to devote to matters political. While I would consider myself at least as informed and engaged as the average American, I still find it hard to really track politics on a day-to-day basis. And if I'm being totally honest I have to admit that I form a lot of opinions based on what's given to me in the coverage of sources I trust. So I'm not trying to moralize, I'm just trying to understand.

What the authour of this article tries to say could be easily summarized in few words:
If escapades of Bill Clinton is something, which would help his wife to get the nomination, Obama would then have the very real chance to win presidency after these escapades, if he immediately runs as the independent. Not bad conclusion for Obama, is it not?

Chris: Just wondering if there are any polls from SC of independent voters only regarding the Bill effect? Will his antics make them more or less likely to support Hillary in November? Also, what about young voters? That is, the people who may look back on the Clinton presidency as a time of mockery and embarrassment of a Democratic president and a time of GOP ascendance in Congress? Hillary might be able to win the Democratic nomination based on Bill's popularity in his own party, but she hasn't shown any strategic understanding that independents and Republicans get to vote in November. Obama has, and Democrats would be wise to consider that now.

What the authour of this article tries to say could be easily summarized in few words:
If escapades of Bill Clinton is something, which would help his wife to get the nomination, Obama would then have the very real chance to win presidency after these escapades, if he immediately runs as the independent. Not bad conclusion for Obama, is it not?

It's simple. The dirty politics of the Clinton Era allowed the Neo-Cons to smear the Liberal/Democratic movement by association. The Clinton Era opened the door to the Bush catastrophe.

Letting the Clintons back into power would just be opening the doors to a whole new wave of Neo-Conservatism.

After having 2 different Bush's in the White House it might be an idea to change the families in charge of the country. Get rid of the Clinton's and the Bush's and let's move onto a brighter future without them.

'Umm.... how about the use of those exact weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. how about mass killing of the Kurds.?'

with the weapons that the US gave saddam coz he was on 'our side; then. see: donald rumsfeld. i still can't forget that press party where bush was running around looking for WMD under chairs and stuff. hilarious, if you're not the family of a dead soldier.

' For a Bush supporter every day is a rebirth.'

I think they call it alzheimer's.

Zouk removed all doubt with:
Last I checked, the unemployment rate was at or below 5%

===

Not the way anyone serious counts them, child.

You're as gullible as you are foolish.

Remember when you didn't have to be so defensive?

Probably not. For a Bush supporter every day is a rebirth.

*guffaw*

1. Drindl - re: "your obssessing over me makes me nauseous, zouk, it's like having a really ugly and leering stalker. go away." This made me chuckle out loud. Is it possible that he keeps doing it because you keep acknowledging him?

2. Mark, I would just caution against assuming that Hillary is just like Bill. Unless you buy into a man and a woman turning into one (please say, no!), they are TWO different people with very different personalities and views.

In a book called "Write it after I'm Gone," Gerald Ford is reported to differentiate between Bill and Hillary, that Hillary is stronger than her husband, that while Bill is more focused on being liked and popular, Hillary holds true to her convictions and will first fight tooth and nail for them before looking to compromise.

3. In reading the comments posted by Obama and Hillary supporters, I can't help but notice that Obama supporters tend to vilify Hillary whereas Hillary supporters seem to like Obama and often point to his inexperience as the primary reason for not supporting him today. I also notice that Bill's sins are often attributed to Hillary.

I've been giving this some thought, and based on the demographic breakdowns, i.e., younger and more affluent voters support Obama while the less affluent and older people prefer Hillary, I have come to the conclusion that Obama supporters are more idealistic while Hillary's are more pragmatic.

In my view, idealism has its place. But it is unrealistic to overhaul Washington. It is unrealistic to expect politics to change overnight. It is unrealistic to expect the political divide in this country. All one has to do is read the posts on this blog or watch & listen to the pundits who make their living by taking extreme positions to realize that the divide isn't going away anytime soon.

For this reason, I want a Dem who can elbow their way through Washington, rough ride when necessary, all the while knowing when it's time to compromise. Did the last debate make me uncomfortable? Absolutely. But it also assured me that if HRC was in the White House that she will not be bullied by a Republican Congress or any world leader. She will fight for Americans' interest here and elsewhere.

Might almost be believable if it wasn't the same writer making the same grammar mistakes under multiple accounts.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 05:46 PM

Conspiracies abound in moonbat land. duck, the black helos are coming for you.

cue X-files music, run vast right wing conspiracy reference, pretend monica is lying.

With hillary as your candidate, I don't think much luck will be required. It will turn out to be just another in the long and perpetual line of Dem losers.

Like you.

"cutting taxes on the idle heirs of billion-dollar estates" those are not income taxes, that describes the Kennedies and your other cult heroes, you know the drunks and murderers that represent your morality. the old school clintons.

your new school heroes actually had to steal their money and pay income taxes on them, remember cash for pardons, yep, that was a taxable event for Hugh Rhodam.

Last I checked, the unemployment rate was at or below 5% - a 40 year low. Last I checked we have had 7 years of GDP expansion. My goodness, that must really rain on your liberal parade of defeat and pessimism. you must be so sad we are winning the war and stock market is up this week. Boo hoo for you, but cheers for america.

What a twisted way to have to live.

So Clinton-haters here aren't regular Democrats, according to the Post polls. They are definitely either republicans or Obama campaign staff. Rev. Jesse Jackson has won 13 primaries and a few caucuses in the 80's. Senator Obama has won only one caucus so far but thought he is winning big.

Some low level democratic leaders, who are not only simply supporting Senator Obama but also bashing Clintons, have to think of their own future soon.

"Obama is a refreshingly new voice and face with an excellent record of being able to garner support from the other side of the aisle in the Illinois legislature where he served for 8 years."

Careful -- that could mean everything or nothing. Remember, Bush used to brag about how well he worked with Democrats in Texas -- but the ones he worked with were all far-right conservatives who just happened to be Democrats.

Wow look at all the posts from people (?) claiming to be loyal Democrats who hate the Clintons. Might almost be believable if it wasn't the same writer making the same grammar mistakes under multiple accounts.

FTR I've been sending my money to Edwards, but if it's not going to be him I'd rather Obama .. not because the right-wing Scheißkopfen are correct about HRC (they're not correct about *anything*), but because alternating between the same two families sounds a bit like a monarchy.

Hey Rip Van Zouk, did you have a nice nap? While you were snoozing I'm afraid all the fear went out of "socialist," nowadays we get people to run around screaming in terror by waving around different words, words like "terra" and "Islamofascist," 'cept those are wearing out pretty fast too. Overuse, you know.

As for "loony," sorry but if you look up that word in a dictionary the picture is of Bush. You know, the guy who believes that cutting taxes on the idle heirs of billion-dollar estates is the best way to help unemployed construction workers.

Good luck in November, O Soft-Headed One.

Chris,
I have a hunch that the "consultants" whom you quote are mostly pro-Clinton and/or out of touch of what is happening in the Democratic Party. Many previous Clinton supporters are deserting the Clintons on the basis of their unethical campaign tactics- and specifically Bill's behavior. There is a sympathy backlash favoring Obama. Yes, Bill has crossed the line. Monica's name is coming up frequently now- by Democrats this time.

Munir

These WASHINGTON reporters are giving a free pass to republican front-runner John McCain.

Here is another lifelong Democrat who will vote for ABB (Anyone But the Billaries)... Mrs. Clinton may win the Democratic primaries and become the Democratic candidate, but she will never win a general election... there are just too many people outside the Democratic stalwarts who do not think that a third Clinton term is a good idea even if they thought the first 2 were great (although why anyone would think that in light of how the former President blew (all puns intended) his second term is beyond this Democrat.

Why I would even rather vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket, which is what I happen to believe it will be, than for a third term for this Duo. It goes against the grain of everything that a functioning Democracy should be. And who would want to trust this particular woman's judgment. She has called every decision she was responsible for wrong from her heath reform iniative on. She was quite right when she wept that some people are right and some are wrong... but she was wrong when she included herself in the former.

And if she wins the primaries in the way the Billaries have been going about it, they will lose the Afro-American vote which in key states which go Democratic is about 20% of the Democratic party electorate and she sure isn't going to make up that loss in the Red states.

Obama is a refreshingly new voice and face with an excellent record of being able to garner support from the other side of the aisle in the Illinois legislature where he served for 8 years. And Edwards also is a far more authentic voice.

I think we have a candidate for new head jackel today. drindl, hand over your crown, a new loon has emerged.

this award typically goes to the most lefty moonbat who is never concerned with fact or reason and blindly proceeds with support of only the most inane socialist and conspiratorial ideas.

congrats on your new position in the herd chrisfox8. you must have studied hard for this.

I voted for Bill in two elections. I've held him in high regard, especially in contrast with the Bush administration.

I'm voting for Obama this year. The last few weeks have reminded me of something I'd tried to forget: Bill Clinton is a low-road politician. He may even be the origin of the deep division between Red and Blue in America. Bill taught us to be really nasty, to use name-calling and distortions to make your oponent look bad. Bill knows that most American's won't research anything for themselves, so Bill can say nasty things and they stick.

I don't want anymore of that kind of politics. Clinton and Rove have perfected the "art form". Now it's time to move on.

America need a refresh. We need Obama.

Umm.... how about the use of those exact weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. how about mass killing of the Kurds.?

clearly, other than the most moonbattiest loons, this is what we call evidence of something. how about Bill clinton stating flatly he had them. how about hillary warning about the danger. how about every intelligence agency in the world thinking the same thing?

this is called evidence to anyone but the most misfits of losers - like you.

you have aptly demonstrated that you are one of the moveon.borg non thinking lefty loons.

How many people still trust George W. Bush?

Not even the 25-percenters. They know he's a liar too, they just think it's cool because they're cool with lying and being lied to.

Check out the approval ratings for Bill Clinton while you're about it.

Heh heh heh. No wonder Bush is saying it'll take longer than his remaining life span to be appreciated.

I can't wait to see him post-presidency trying to compare himself to Truman with interviewers no longer afraid of being put on the rack for disputing him.

The zouk troll nosedived into it with:

The fact is Saddam DID have weapons, they were there. That is not a lie.
==

Perhaps you've heard the word "evidence." Note I did not say "proof."

There is no evidence whatever that Saddam had any WMD programs and one solid piece of evidcence, "proof" to anyone not reluctant by virtue of scientific training to use to the word, that he didn't: he allowed himself to be captured and handed over to a lynch mob without detonating them.

You, Mr. Zouk, are a complete idiot.

FYI - for you Libs who still can't tell the truth from a lie - you know who you are - we call you clinton supporters:

A lie is when you say something you KNOW to be false, such as I was against the war the whole time, or I didn't have sex with that woman or I didn't use my power in an improper way.

contrast this to a statement along the lines of "according to intelligence estimates, there are weapons there." notice that the statement is based on an unknown premise, not a known one.

If you really need to work around this issue, I suggest you redefine the meaning of the word "is" to suit your needs.

So how many times did the clinton administration give out the same 935 lies, how many times did Hillary?

Funny how that "study" doesn't mention that, only the Bush administration. I wonder why? could it be a partisan attack masqurading as a report.

The fact is Saddam DID have weapons, they were there. That is not a lie. you Dems have no credibility on lying when you support the only proven liar in Presidential politics - the clintons.

don't try to hide the guilt by projecting onto others.

"confused". Not "confuse".

bsimon, you are correct and a great parser of sentences.

As I wrote, I confuse "south is lost to Huck"
with "McC has not lost south to Huck".

Mindfart.

Do you think BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA can win it?

Posted by: ggosu | January 24, 2008 03:01 PM

Yes because Billary will never ever win it. She is just Bush in a dress. I am a democrat who will leave this party if she is our nominee. I would rather see McCain than her and I disagree with his policies but at least he is not a knife in his own parties back. You want to beat up on Barak fine...but beat up on his policies not his person. At least in the Republican party you can tell who the racist are...they don't use surrogates to hide behind

"Secondly his family had plenty of scandals that make the Clintons look mild. How do I know because I volunteered for him."

Right, we believe you volunteered for this candidate even though you knew all about these horrible family scandals. Sure you did.

Kingofzouk:

George Bush is a liar. He and his administration lied to the American people 935 times regarding the Iraq war. Where have you been????????

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

BTW. I'm a strong Democrat. I like Bill but disagree with the way he's campaigning for hillary. They are connign the AMerican people into thinking that Bill's the nominee. Hillary's 10 times worse than Bill. I've never supported hillary. I started with Edwards, but was truly inspired to switch to Obama. Obama has to keep rolling with the punches.

Chris, your reporting is very bad. You need to get out an have a better sample size regarding this matter before making assumptions.

Mark writes
" if McC could do that well in LA with party regulars, I think it may mean that the south is not lost to Huckabee."

That doesn't parse. If McCain wins LA, Huck can do well in the South? Do you mean the south IS lost to Huck?

This is to the idiot who pointed to Harold Ford losing here in TN. Harold Ford didn't lose because he was black.. He lost because he failed to turn out the vote in Memphis.. Secondly his family had plenty of scandals that make the Clintons look mild. How do I know because I volunteered for him. So please know the facts before pulling out your race card..

I place a HUGE amount of the responsibility for the Clintons' disinformation spree directly onto the shoulders of the national press corps.

If the candidates (and their spouses) could reasonably depend upon journalists to hold every other candidate accountable for their (and their surrogates') negative pronouncements, then perhaps a modicum of HONESTY and CIVILITY would return to our civic forums.

I'm sorry to say that I remember what it was like to have a professional class of journalists always on the look-out for outrageous claims by members of the political class. Those days seem to be gone forever. In their place is time where "Nightline" and the broadcast news is just one step above "Entertainment Tonight" and "People Magazine" in their group-droolings over celebrity droppings.

Americans deserve better from the fourth estate (if you even remember what that phrase means, Chris).

Gain our respect again - PLEASE - and remember to do your JOB by focusing your oh-so-powerful and crucially influential magnifying lens on a search for the truth - NOT just the sensational.

I'm a life-long Dem who voted for Clinton and stuck with him through impeachment although, with the passage of time, I've grown angrier about his inability to keep his pants on when so many hopes were hung on him. I'm not happy about the way he and his wife are working Obama over. I'm perturbed at their self-love and drive for another bite at the apple, and if they crush this brightest promise our party has to offer, I will not vote for her in November.

I don't care for Bill's behavior these days. It seems that he's got his boxers in a bunch. And he's... well... crotchety. I'm not a big Hillary fan, and Bill's testiness lately isn't helping to lure me away from voting for Edwards or Obama.

Thanks, Jim.

Looking over these posts and taking folks at their word it looks like the Ds are in a suicidal spiral.

Assuming the D posters represent the active D voters who influence others, the depth of the passion against each other's choices is as great or greater than among the Rs.

I remember when Bob Kerrey was running in '92 and called Clinton the best liar he ever met. I know you do too. It surprised me that Kerrey endorsed HRC and for a moment I revisited her as a possibility; such is my respect for Kerrey. Well, that was a short lived visit.

I know the LA caucuses are meaningless in the big picture, but if McC could do that well in LA with party regulars, I think it may mean that the south is not lost to Huckabee.

In deciding who I will vote for on Super Tuesday, I, like many people, have had one one major reservation about Hillary Clinton: would she, as President, be able to move the nation beyond the divisiveness we've experienced for the past 15 years? Over the past few weeks, she has conducted a slash and burn campaign that has caused inter-party rifts that will come back to haunt the Democrats during the general election. I now know that my concern about whether she would be another "divider" are well-founded and won't be supporting her on Super Tuesday.

Bill, Bill, Bill. Why is the press giving only one candidate's spouse so much time? It is clearly unfair. On the most important issue of our time, whether to authorize George W. Bush to preempt a war in the middle east, Hillary was on the wrong side and it has been disasterous for our nation and for Iraq. All the policy wonking in the world cannot make up for that. Barak was on the correct side. Let us remember that when the Cs were in the Oval Office, they were ruthless and careless with the lives of others. A young woman's future was ruined, a best friend's suicide, another best friend forced to withdraw from a nomination before being given the chance to defend her ideas before congress. There was travelgate and fbi gate and NAFTA was pushed through by Bill, despite Ross Perot's wise warnings that there will be massive job losses in the US. Hillary tells us again "if I knew then what I know now" etc. and "who can tell the future". But that is exactly what makes a leader. Let us leave the Clintons to history, in the past where they belong. Bring on Obama, who can show the world a new face of America, who was level headed when others were not at a time when the white house went all out in full force and fear mongering after 9/11 to railroad us into a war with Iraq. Let us, at least, have some hope of a new beginning. The press can help, by not giving an unfair advantage to Hillary by headlining every meanspirited thing her husband says.

What Pres. Clinton and his wife's campaign have hugely underestimated is the 'idealism' we all had as kids and have lost through the harshness of life.

Since Bill first ran in 1992 a whole new generation has come of age. And they are far more connected to each other through the internet than we ever were in the 60's singing Kumbaya. You can't stretch the truth with them, they'll hunt down the facts and slam you for it. They aren't jaded by politics and still hold the belief that they can change things for the better.

What a precious gift they have given to me as one of the first 18 year olds to vote in 1972, a second chance to change the world.

Hear those fingers hitting the keys Hillary? Each day they are getting louder and stronger. Soon our generation will be passing the torch to theirs. Thank God! Obama 08

Problem is, you're talking to the same party insiders who just a few weeks ago were confidently predicting the "inevitable" Hillary would win the Democratic nomination in a walk. She may indeed win it, but it's taking a bloody, dirty, no-holds-barred mugging of the most promising new Democratic star to come along in years. And Obama's not the only one who will walk away from this fight with scars. Bill has sullied the dignity of the ex-presidency, and Hill and Bill are pushing away key elements of the coalition she'll need to win in November, perhaps irreparably.

There are currently 4 pillars to Obama's support: idealistic young college-age voters, affluent and well-educated liberals, moderate independents currently torn between Obama and McCain despite their policy differences, and African-American voters who once supported Hillary but have now abandoned her in droves. Hillary's base is now largely confined to older white women, blue-collar white Democrats, and Hispanics. Neither camp has nearly enough support at present to win in November, though Hillary's coalition may be enough to edge out Obama for the nomination.

The question is, what happens to Obama's base if the Clinton attack machine succeeds in shredding him with what are widely seen by his supporters as lies and distortions of his record? The idealistic youth vote is turned off and reverts to historic low levels of participation. The independents probably go to McCain over Hillary in any case, but the savaging of Obama only gives them another reason to vote McCain. Black voters probably mostly come home to the Democratic party but their support may be grudging and unenthusiastic after seeing the Clintons perform character assassination on the most inspiring young black leader since Martin Luther King; so black turnout is probably depressed in the general election, throwing several key swing states into the Republican column. And the affluent liberals, already suffering Clinton fatigue and horrified by the Clintons' unrestrained exercise of the Atwater-Rove "politics of personal destruction" against a fellow Democrat, split up; some hold their nose and vote for Hillary in the general, a few cast protest votes for third-party candidates, some skip the presidential line entirely and vote further down the ticket, and some sit out the election in disgust.

In short, Clinton never gets close to the majority she'll need to be elected, and the Democrats once more manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the result of self-inflicted wounds. It's much easier to imagine Obama assembling a broad progressive-center majority coalition if he wins the nomination; and it's not impossible that Hillary could do it if she didn't so profoundly alienate Obama voters in the process, but the path she's currently headed down leads only to defeat in November.

CC - You interviewing the "insiders" in the Democratic Party highlights what is wrong with the Democratic Party. It has long been the conventional wisdom that Hillary would be the nominee and the DNC and other party flacks annointed her as THE candidate. The rest of us were just immaterial. But this load of dirty tricks that the Clintons are perpetuating may just blow back on them. Why do we always insist on nominating people who have no chance to win? Last time, we should have nominated Edwards but we went with the conventional, boring candidate. We literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And now we are set to do it again. I am a 65 year old white woman and one who had to fight her way up the corporate ranks, so I would love to see an accomplished woman be president. But not just any woman. I always thought before that people were too hard on Hillary but this campaign has revealed her ugly side. And, she's not making it on her own - never has. All her "35 years of experience"(gag, gag) is a bunch of puffery facilitated by her husband. Where would Hillary Clinton be if she were just Hillary Rodham? I was a strong Democrat but I will not vote for her, now or in the general election if she makes it that far. Maybe if the Dems lose often enough, we'll have a change in the party infrastructure.

Please try and remember the definition of insanity because I think the Democrats are truly insane.

chrisfox and spectator seem to be so spaced out they are willing to support the clinton evil empire.

how gullible and dopey do you have to be to fall for this? Even hard core lifetime Democrats are bailing off that sinking ship. but then practicality and reason were never a moonbats strong suit. After all they thought Gore and Kerry were good candidates, right up until election night.

bsimon

I would expect them to go to Edwards or Obama. Edwards' message is closest to Kucinich (which is why Edwards is unelectable, IMHO), on the other hand, they may go to Obama because Kucinich supporters do not tend to care much for Clinton.

Kucinich is reported to be out of the race!

To whom will his supporter flock?

just saw the first campaign sign for this election in my town.

obama.

Forget the "impacts," what people want to know is if Bill was actually lying and the answer is an unqualified YES. He was against the Iraq war in 2002? Please. Obama didn't retain his stance against the Iraq war in 2004? No, he said that still in 2004, from his point of view "the case was not made." Obama's state senate votes are a sign of cowardice? No, they were coordinated with Planned Parenthood or were protest votes on issues he supported where he thought legislation was badly drafted (this includes voting present on several bills that were otherwise unanimously passed.) The Clintons really *will* say anything to win.

Mark

You asked about what impact the DNC sanctions of the Florida primary were having on Democrats. I am listening to POTUS-08 and Rep Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is saying that the Florida party will select delegates in the normal manner and send the delegatation to Denver. Basically they will seek credentials from the convention and they expect the candidates to support them (this becomes easier if the race has been decided- if it hasn't, I would expect the candidate who lost Florida to insist on the DNC ruling).

I disagree. I'm a democrat and I would not vote for the Clintons. They lack integrity. Bill is dishonest and seems to enjoy it. Hillary has never been able to see his dishonesty. I'll vote for someone who does have integrity.

It makes me sick to think the Clintons have a chance to get back in the White House. More scandal and bickering by the Clintons and nothing will get done.
Wake up people - do not give her that chance. I have hope the Republicans can easily defeat her - that is why I support obama so we ahve a chance to see the Politics of personal attacks by the Clintons end. If Hillary had a chance - Bill is ruining it for her. I hope more people can see through his strategy of division - just so his frumpy wife can get him back to his "playground".
He is purposely trying to make this about race and take his chances with the Latinos voting against a Black man. How sad a former President is such an evil politician. And why won't the clintons release documents of the Clinton Presidency until AFTER the election?
The clintons are the worst kind of carpetbaggers to have running this country.

"George W. Bush, whom you support, is a proven liar many times over, "

show me the evidence, for example losing a law license, perjury conviction, court fine, etc. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

"GOP dirty tricks are not the guideline that Democrats should use to measure their own behavior. Bill's remarks are inexcusable."

Not if you're a 'drindl', that is a new noun meaning serial attacking moonbat jackel who thrives on hate speech and irrationality. you know the Dem base - the Daily Kos and moveon.borg non-thinkers.

"your obssessing over me makes me nauseous, zouk" - yes I would say that you are nauseous. you disgust us.

nauseous

Main Entry: nau·seous
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯ-shəs, ˈnȯ-zē-əs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1612
1 : causing nausea or disgust

All the Clintons' supporters who have suddenly come out of the woods fail to realize Bill Clinton was a sex addict and an uncontrollable liar who almost single handily destroyed the democratic party in the late nineties. It's unbelivable to me that democrats are going down the path again of choosing another candidate that can win. Anybody remember 1988?, 2000?, 2004? Years democrats ran unwinnable candidates, and democrats are going down that part again. Unbelivable, I guess the past doesn't count for anything. Only in America.

To quote Robert Gleason, chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party: "There's one candidate who can unite the Republican Party: Hillary Clinton". It is not just "Clinton haters" who will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. There are plenty of folks like me who voted for her husband but who don't buy the "experience and electibility" crap and really don't want that trip down memory lane. Hillary, with or without Bill, is a loser.

Hey Obama supporters,

I too have been down in the dumps these past few days given the direction the Clintons have taken the campaign in...but watching the last part of Sen. Obama's speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church on MLK, Jr. Day really helped me refocus on the reasons I have been drawn to his campaign since day one---positivity, unity and hope, which is NOT blind optimism.

So enough of this defeatist attitude already! There are still a lot of primaries to go before the nominee is chosen. HRC in Nov. is NOT a foregone conclusion so let's stop talking, fretting, and getting pissed off about it and DO SOMETHING.

Talk to your friends, volunteer for the campaign, donate if you can. There is so much we can do to make sure that Sen. Obama is our candidate in Nov. And I can tell you that I am still fired up and ready to go!

SeedofChange wrote:
Once the Republicans start gunning at the Democrats, the media will be standing on the deck with the Republicans.
==

No, they won't. Republicans are too thoroughly discredited and the only one of their pack of candidates with the temerity to repudiate Bush talking points is the one whose own ideas are even kookier: Ron Paul.

McCain, Romney Giuliani all want to cut corporate taxes and make permanent existing tax cuts for the very wealthy, and they're trying to pass this off as economic stimulus. They all want to continue the Iraq money-laundering operation.

Nobody but Rush is going to stand on the same deck as a bunch of nincompoops like that.

Observation by an American living in Europe: During the debates has anyone noticed how partisan thatthe 'Clinton" campagin is? For istance US Senator Clinton always speaks of defeating the 'Republicans" and always uses "I." If you notic US Senator Obama and Mr. Edwards refer to "Us" and "We." I believe and don't hold it against me because I cannot recall the exact debate nor words verbitum however US Senator Clinton speaks of being "vetted" already by the Republican smear machine and claims this undercores that "She" alone is the contender quaified to take them on in the Gerneral Elections. Is she insane? The last thing the nation needs is a re-play of the partisan politics that follow Bill or Hillary. After reading many comments on posts, some lifelong Democrats are thinking of voting REPUBLICAN if Hillary gets the nomination. This alone speaks volumes. In fact I prefer an Obama - Edwards ticket or vice versa. If not that, yes, US Senator John MCCain is staring to appeal to me.

Sen.Hillary Clinton will make a GREAT President. She's clearly the most intelligent, qualified, politically skilled,with the best grasp of domestic and international issues of any candidate in the race of any party.

The U.S. and the world (where Hillary and Bill Clinton are known, respected, beloved, and MISSED) can't wait for the best political team in history to return to the White House. Hillary will be a great leader and the bonus for all of us is Bill by her side. The Dems and the country are very fortunate to have these stellar leaders willing to serve again.

Rock on Hillary!

Get real. Vote for a winner.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 24, 2008 04:40 PM

This independent, moderate voter will vote for a winner in a McCain-Clinton race - John McCain. I have generally voted Republican or third party (Perot in 92, Anderson in 80) for president, except I voted against Bush II twice. However, I would vote for Obama.

Spectator2: You're right, looks like the Bush trolls have done what they always do, gone too far (much like the Republicans). I just thought it worth noting that posting as a Bush supporter seems now to be sufficient qualification for trolldom, which is more good news.

Some interesting comments from Sore Loserman:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/101809/page/1

In a day and age where most governments (Japan, Korea, China, Germany e...) are heavily involved in the overall strategy and moderation of economy, some people are still preaching that the state has no role in the economy.

Unbelievable!

The fact is that tax policy, deficit control, government spending, monetary policy , social policy all are critical components of modern day mixed economy. And the President is heavily involved in most of them. That's how important it is to elect a president who knows inside and out about these things.

JFK won election with less than 50% of the vote.

JFK and Daley did something in Chicago that was not so noble.

When did democrats signed up to be the nice guy to be slammed by Republicans and Media?

Obama is viable because he is media's selection at this point. Once the Republicans start gunning at the Democrats, the media will be standing on the deck with the Republicans.

Get real. Vote for a winner.

If Hillary wanted to demonstrate a couple of character traits Americans are looking for in their next president, integrity and courage, she would muzzle Bill. His ego and their combined ambition are stinking up the Dems joint. I'll be voting Republican for the first time if the Clintons head the ticket.

Hillary is winning.

She does not need anyone's help.

Some people don't seem to see what they are until other point it out to them.

Clintons have won before and they will win again. If is a simple fact that some people don't seem to grasp. They are lost in their strange imaginary world.

It is nauseating to hear Clinton supporters attempt to rationalize the former president's reprehensible comments by saying that it's nothing like what Obama would be subjected to by "the Republican attack machine." This is a cheap dodge. GOP dirty tricks are not the guideline that Democrats should use to measure their own behavior. Bill's remarks are inexcusable.

You're talking to party insiders who don't see that there's a shift going on in the Democratic base.

Bill is turning a lot of Dems off with his negative campaigning. He has crossed the line and many of the same Dems who loved him in the 1990's are disappointed and sick that he's risking the unity of the party with his nasty tactics.

Even if Hillary wins the nomination, their dirty tactics will come back to haunt them in the general election and the Dems, god forbid, just might lose the White House.

chrisfox: have you noticed that for all of zouk's posts, almost no one responds to them. he's turning into background noise -- you know it's there, but over time it becomes easier to ignore.

A DEMOCRATIC CALL TO CONSCIENCE ...

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

--Milan Kundera

In the 1960s, Mississippi sharecroppers facing nightsticks and police dogs stirred the conscience of a nation by wearing signs that said simply: "I am a man."

Later, Cesar Chavez's United Farmworkers Union, facing a television debate with a slick corporate spokesperson, offered up a poor woman who picked grapes to feed her family as their representative--and she wiped the floor with the growers' shill.

Today, the Clinton machine is eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.

If you are tired of the Clintons' lying, race coding and defaming and distorting the record of some of the party's best and brightest, there is a solution.

We can take back the party ... by drawing on the lessons community activists taught us in the 1960s and 1970s during the heyday of the civil rights movement.

All it will take is a zerox machine, a tape recorder, or a video set-up.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of Nation magazine Katha Pollitt's article on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt). Be polite, but distribute copies as a pamphlet.

Take too, one of the original Washington Post stories on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm). (Also for use as a pamphlet.)

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ... And make sure you can play it loudly. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

Just for giggles, also take with you a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to" by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens'--and make a lot of copies of the chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.)

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Share these with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.

Ask them if they want the divisiveness, examples of disrepect for women, and union busting friendships (Wal-Mart, Marc Rich, you know the drill), that would surely come with another Clinton presidency.

Ask them if the country can afford such a spectacle as the economy tanks and young men and women are fighting and dying for our freedom many miles from our shores.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

And we Democrats are entitled to expect decency, fair play, and coherence from our candidates as they pretend to represent us at the polls.
_________

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General later called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior Janet Reno aides in a major security and corruption scandal.

Janet Reno was promoted for Attorney General by Hillary Clinton.

A DEMOCRATIC CALL TO CONSCIENCE ...

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

--Milan Kundera

In the 1960s, Mississippi sharecroppers facing nightsticks and police dogs stirred the conscience of a nation by wearing signs that said simply: "I am a man."

Later, Cesar Chavez's United Farmworkers Union, facing a television debate with a slick corporate spokesperson, offered up a poor woman who picked grapes to feed her family as their representative--and she wiped the floor with the growers' shill.

Today, the Clinton machine is eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.

If you are tired of the Clintons' lying, race coding and defaming and distorting the record of some of the party's best and brightest, there is a solution.

We can take back the party ... by drawing on the lessons community activists taught us in the 1960s and 1970s during the heyday of the civil rights movement.

All it will take is a zerox machine, a tape recorder, or a video set-up.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of Nation magazine Katha Pollitt's article on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt). Be polite, but distribute copies as a pamphlet.

Take too, one of the original Washington Post stories on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm). (Also for use as a pamphlet.)

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ... And make sure you can play it loudly. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

Just for giggles, also take with you a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to" by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens'--and make a lot of copies of the chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.)

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Share these with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.

Ask them if they want the divisiveness, examples of disrepect for women, and union busting friendships (Wal-Mart, Marc Rich, you know the drill), that would surely come with another Clinton presidency.

Ask them if the country can afford such a spectacle as the economy tanks and young men and women are fighting and dying for our freedom many miles from our shores.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

And we Democrats are entitled to expect decency, fair play, and coherence from our candidates as they pretend to represent us at the polls.
_________

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General later called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior Janet Reno aides in a major security and corruption scandal.

Janet Reno was promoted for Attorney General by Hillary Clinton.

'- the drindls of the world'

your obssessing over me makes me nauseous, zouk, it's like having a really ugly and leering stalker. go away.

kigofzouk writes:
It's astonishing to me that liberals still venerate Clinton.
==

To you, perhaps, but then you're a troll who claims to support Bush. Given evidence of your quality of judgment your inability to understand continuing respect for Bill Clinton is no surprise; you are a fool.

George W. Bush, whom you support, is a proven liar many times over, riotously incompetent, and has achieved nothing whatever good for America. You support him, so who cares about the rest of your opinions? Not I, said the Little Red Hen.

Cracked head black muslim can dream to be a President, but a women should not dear?

Sexism seemed to be very acceptable among Elite latte drinking Democrats.

It is absolutely strange how these high minded people seems to be open to using vile language against a woman, but can not stand a simple political fight.

Breaking news from the campaign trail....
Dennis Kucinich will announce his withdrawl from the race tomorrow. Maybe Obama will pick up all those Kucinich votes.

SeedOfChange, do you actually think that you are helping Clinton out at this point?

Obama can run as independent, if not nominted. I think that what Clintons have done so far can propel Obama to the presidency, if not to nomination. The way Mrs. Clinton utilized her husband's charisma and popularity, because she lacks them both herself, in inappropriate, and people (many of them) do not want her, as a president, as the implication of this utilization. Anyhow, everything would become clearer shortly.

The Obama campaign can blame their selves for all of this. The Obama campaign used a nuclear bomb....OPRAH!...in a conventional war. Such overkill forces the other side to try to match the weaponry. Compound that blunder with Obama's constant sniveling on how things are going. It's Obama's incompetent campaign advisors, that brought all of this on. So Obama supporters..... you should be mad at your own Obama campaign, not the Clinton's.

No offense, but doesn't all this prove that Hillary would be no where near a nomination if she wasn't the wife of a President? The fact that as people question her qualifications the more she brings out Bill Clinton indicates how flimsy the rationale for electing her is.

I mean, if Hillary had not married a President, what would she have been...senior partner in a Chicago law firm? High level administrator in government....but President? Nope. I don't see it.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) saying if Hillary Clinton is nominated then Missouri would likely go Republican in the 2008 general election.

When their pockets run empty.... America runs to FDR and Clinton. Only one of them is alive to respond.

Get real. Less talk more work, more jobs.

Obama fans should not take this personally. This is called Election, not Elites sitting around the table selecting the nicest looking crack head they can find.

Fight, if the Clintons are kicking you in the gutt, kick them back. You will be stronger for that.

It look a souther white trash brought up by single mother to slap the Republicans twice. It is not for waffling talkers.

Take money from Razko if needed and try to fight & win. If you loose shake hands and go after the Republicans and Media. Otherwise they are coming after you.

Yes, me too. Count me as among those otherwise-loyal Dems (have never voted for a Repug for President) who absolutely, positively will not vote for Hillary in November given her and Bill's Swift-boating of Obama. I can only hope that its McCain, and not Romney of Huckleberry, who gets my vote....

I am truly hurt to see President Clinton behave this way. I believed in him with all the hoohaw that went on. I said that part of his life is between him and God, as long as he is a good president that is what counts. I can understand him wanting his wife to win but this is not the way. He is sounding like a spiteful little boy. Hey Pres, I am deeply disappointed in you.

Hey lhaz,

Anyone who watched Obama's comments about Reagan (and has at least half a shread of objectivity) saw that he was talking about the appeal of a candidate (and a party) with vision. And guess what? Both Bill and Hillary are on record saying similar things in the past. The more you try to spin it as anything other than that, the more slimey you and your candidate look.

Why didn't Obama criticize Reagan's policies right then and there? He was speaking extemporaneously, not in a carefully crafted soundbite. When was the last time Hillary has done that?

lhaz - compared to what I have seen from the Cltinon's (and having personally experienced some pretty disgusting racial remarks from Cltino supporters), I can pretty much assure you that no one else in the country could get away with the sort of garbage and trash politics the Clinton's have gotten away with thus far. No Republican would dare to resort to outright racism, vopte fraud, "endorsement" buying, and all of the the other corrpt activities of the Cltinon's. Get a life and get a clue!! Hillary Clinton is toast. The only question remaining is if she will take down the Democratic Party with her.

The only thing certain about the political mess between Clinton and Obama is that the standard of journalism continues to sink lower and lower.

It is quite obvious that there is a very biased way of looking at the Hillary's campaign just as there was against kerry in the last election.

If anyone is being "swiftboated", it is Hillary, not Obama. Obama started his campaign not by criticizing Republican policies. He was talking about how his will be a presidency where policies won't be driven by polls (I wonder who he was referring to?). He was conflating Bill and Hillary's campaign, seamlessly transferring the guilt of husband to wife. Even though I would still like Obama to be Hillary's running mate for the general elections, a fair reading of his speeches reveals his attempt to paint Hillary as a liar and as being dishonest. Most journalists buy into this portrayal of Hillary Clinton because of the deliberate campaign to paint her this way by the most hateful and discredited Republicans, most of whom are ten times more dishonest than Hillary.

Journalists hence are reluctant to view the portrayal of Hillary by Obama as being either harsh or unfair. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, the airwaves and the print media are full of how Hillary and Bill are too harsh on Obama.

The most laughable is that Clinton is distorting Obama's opinion of the Republicans and their ideas. These words didn't come out by accident. He was in admiration of the fact that Republicans were "presenting" ideas while Democrats were not and he wanted to emulate that. But policy-wise, the gap between him and Hillary is non-existent. So where's the beef?

His analysis of Republican wins is not only shallow but outright wrong. In 3 straight elections, the Democratic nominee won more votes than the Republican nominee (1992, 1996, 2000). 2004 was a wartime election and we all know the relentless attack on Kerry's war record at the time. Not only did Kerry fail to respond but the press relentlessly played up the Swiftboat ad without bothering to bring balance or to check for accuracy.

Obama is NOT a victim. If Obama feels the heat now, imagine what it will be like in the Fall when the goons come out.

My take is that they should go at it and give it their best shot. Hopefully, there will be no surprises in the Fall.

You Billary supporters kill me. NO ONE has been WHINING but Bill and Hill!! Hillary with her blubbering to get back into this primary race and now Bill with his old geezer butt, sounding like a senile old fool.

This public whining only works because Dems are so duped by the Clintons that they can't see straight.

Now I here that members of the National Organization of Women are speaking out against the sleazy tactics that Billary are employing in this campaign. So taking this information in conjunction with my own distaste with this wicked couple, including many of my associates, it looks the Clintons are creating a groundswell of incensed Dems in the party.

Now let me see....how does this add up?

Billary fracture their party + make fools of themselves == Republican Victory in the General Election + Loss of House and Senate control.

I have been a dedicated, life-long Dem for many, many years; however, NOW I'm willing to campaign and vote for the Republican candidate to prevent these monsters from getting power again.

So Trashy!!!

"I think I can speak for many moderates when I say that people are sick of the Bushes and the Clintons, and will never, ever vote for Hillary. Maybe it's me, but I can't quite figure out how Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton constitutes "change", or where all this "experience" Hillary keeps going on about comes from. "

Posted by: grey256 | January 24, 2008 03:57 PM

This moderate wholeheartedly agrees.

Unfortunately, the effect of Bill Clinton cannot be measured right now...maybe it's better to say that the short-term effect may be good for Hillary and that it will get her nominated but that is at the expense of the party because it will be deeply divided by the time she gets the nomination and the Billary tactics will have left a nasty taste among many in the party......DEFINITELY INCLUDING ME....

Aside:

KOZ - How about the originators of the term "swift-boat"?

Back to the subject:

As a 30 year old Dem, I look at this and get the following lesson -- the Clintons don't want me in the D party. When I voted for Nader in 2000, I was told that we should bring progressivism to the D party instead of going outside it.

Well, you can look at this campaign and imagine the lesson I'm learning now about how likely that is to work.

There's a real opportunity for the Dems right now. If they decide to, they can make this primary about selecting the best candidate, not the one least damaged by the primaries. And once that candidate is picked, they can rally everyone together to deal with any crap that we see from the R's.

As a moderate Republican, I had been hoping for a Obama vs. McCain matchup come this fall. Of all the people in the field, I think these two would have given us the best choice in new options, and both would have a chance at attracting the independent voters.

I think I can speak for many moderates when I say that people are sick of the Bushes and the Clintons, and will never, ever vote for Hillary. Maybe it's me, but I can't quite figure out how Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton constitutes "change", or where all this "experience" Hillary keeps going on about comes from. And Bill's antics on the campaign trail reminds me of why he earned the nickname "Slick Willie".

Somehow these two have gotten into their heads that the Presidency is somehow Hillary's "right", and God forbid this outsider, much less a minority one at that, dare challenge thier ego.

Chris, you couldn't have said it better. Here we have a candidate who prides herself on saying she is a feminist, the first of her gender to accomplish so much, one with so much experience that she is entitled to be President, and a born leader. But to get to where she wants to go, Ms. Hillary has had to call upon a man to pull her chestnuts out of the fire because she does not have the ability or skill to do that on her own. Wow, what a great example for a feminist role model--relying on the man who gave her and us Monica. What a joke.

The times are different now than when Bill Clinton was President, so Hillary will indeed do things differently. In the meantime, Bill should put a damper on it, as he's beginning to hurt Hillary's chances of becoming the nominee.

I fundamentally differ with the analysis provided in this article. I am 21 years old and had until recently highly respected President Clinton. Now his advocacy on the campaign trail makes this progressive remember the not-so-great aspects of the Clinton Administration, including signing homophobic laws (Don't Ask Don't Ask, Defense of Marriage Act, etc.), crippling sanctions against Iraq, and the incredibly detrimental "welfare reform" which is responsible for the awful state of the poor in America today. He is damaging his own reputation in trying so hard to smear Obama's. I want honesty and optimism, not lies and fearmongering.

GOBAMA!

"They are running a campaign eerily similiar to the dirty tricks launched by the Bush campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000."

False. More made up stuff from liberal moonbats.

McCain started and fanned the vicious anti-Bush myth that, before the 2000 South Carolina primary, the Bush campaign made phone calls to voters calling McCain a "liar, cheat and a fraud" and accusing him of having an illegitimate black child.

On the thin reed of a hearsay account, McCain immediately blamed the calls on Bush. "I'm calling on my good friend George Bush," McCain said, "to stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this."

Bush denied that his campaign had anything to do with the alleged calls and, in a stunningly magnanimous act, ordered his campaign to release the script of the calls being made in South Carolina.

Bush asked McCain to do the same for his calls implying that Bush was an anti-Catholic bigot, but McCain refused. Instead, McCain responded with a campaign commercial calling Bush a liar on the order of Bill Clinton:

MCCAIN: His ad twists the truth like Clinton. We're all pretty tired of that.

ANNOUNCER: Do we really want another politician in the White House America can't trust?

After massive investigations by the Los Angeles Times and investigative reporter Byron York, among others, it turned out that neither of the alleged calls had been made by the Bush campaign -- nor, it appeared, by anyone else. There was no evidence that any such calls had ever been made, which is unheard of when hundreds of thousands of "robo-calls" are being left on answering machines across the state.

And yet, to this day, the media weep with McCain over Bush's underhanded tactics in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

In fact, the most vicious attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary came from McCain -- and not against his opponent.

"Thirdly, in sum Hillary and Bill Clinton are certainly among the most honest politicians in several decades."

see some moonbats are still in deep, deep denial.

I've said it before, and CC's article bears it out. Hillary can wage a dirty, hardball, swift boat campaign in the primaries because the Clinton name is still gold with many democrats.

But, it will fail MISERABLY against someone like McCain, who garners respect across most of the political spectrum, come November. (Against Romney or Giuliani, sure. But not McCain. The only people who can swift boat McCain are arch-conservatives in the Republican primaries--and even they are failing right now). The Dems might as well run Osama Bin Laden against McCain. She'll come across that badly. I'm really starting to think that we're going to lose this one.

Here's your problem. You are listening to party insiders. And they talk among themselves and all nod in agreement. They are the same as the rest of our useless media.

I have been deeply involved as a volunteer on and off since I turned voting age.

I mocked and lashed out at the idiots that voted for Nader or some other third party.

I once admired Bill Clinton.

That ship has sailed. I will never vote for Hillary and I don't care if it means President McCain.

The Clinton's are now a combination of Dick Nixon and Karl Rove. I will not sell my soul to vote for Hillary the liar.

But I am not a party insider, so what do I know.

Is Bill C. going through the "Change Of Life" or what??

He just keeps whining, and whining.

and I thought Hillary was hard to listen to....

Geez, Bill, give us a break. Go find a Monica, Jennifer, Sally, Ann, Margaret, Pat, Judy, Joanne, Jill, Betty, Barbara, Sue, Peggy..............to take your mind off of the White House, and the young interns, or as you called it "the playground."

While a big fan of Bill Clinton's, his role in this campaign is ridiculous and demeaning. All this does is bring up the painful reminders of the Clinton's as truth-challenged politicos who will do and say anything for power -- except support actual progressive causes and policies. It's sad to see Bill and Hill unleash Karl Rove's playbook against Obama. I'm supporting Obama, and if Hillary gets the nomination, will sit this one out. I think Hillary's ceiling in the general election is 51%, and against McCain she won't get many independents, zero Republicans, and she's going to lose 10% of Democrats. With Hillary, the Dems will have found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I must be a masochist to belong to a party of gutless Republican wanna-bees and perennial losers. When is Hillary hiring Bob Shrum to run her campaign??

I am a lifelong Democrat who will not vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe that Bill Clinton and her campaign staff have purposely and willingly crossed the line against Obama and engaged in mud-slinging, character assassination, incessant lying and the politics of personal destruction in their win at all costs effort to get back to White House. They are running a campaign eerily similiar to the dirty tricks launched by the Bush campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. America deserves better.

CC, are you so biased that you cannot see the damage Bill is doing or are you hoping that your readers are foolish enough to buy your pitch? Happily Americans aren't stupid, Bill and his sidekick are both cynical liars and anyone with any judgement can see it. The next President will be either Obama or the Republican nominee. If Clinton the Sequel gets the nomination get ready for 8 more years of a Republican Presidency and loads of howling and carping about how unfair everyone was to them - oh, and a Democratic Party drowning in bitterness and resentment.

Its always sad and amusing to read the childish rantings of the Clinton haters. There's nothing Clinton has said in criticizing Obama that's not true. Many of you dim fools choose to infer a racial slur against Obama where, if you can understand English, none was implied. You then build on your own dishonesty and say the Clinton's are playing the racecard. You've been reading too much Euguene Robinson and too much main stream media, who for the most part favor Obama. But not for any noble reason as you may be naive enough to believe; the media simply blieve the more contentious they can make the Democratic race seem, the more papers they will sell. Secondly, they of course want the Repuplicans to win, because the Republican