Bill Clinton -- From Plus to Minus to Plus

From the start of the 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that former president Bill Clinton would play a unique role in his wife's campaign. What exactly that role entailed was anybody's guess a year ago, but it was impossible to imagine that the 42nd president -- widely regarded as a leading political strategist within his party -- would not be actively involved in the effort.

Bill Clinton campaigning in North Carolina

Former president Bill Clinton reaches to shake a hand during a March 21 campaign stop in Cary, N.C. (AP Photo)

As the campaign has played out, Bill Clinton's role has evolved and then evolved again, a roller coaster journey that fluctuated between the poles of help and hindrance, anger and effectiveness -- a cycle of highs and lows so familiar to those who have followed Clinton's political career.

Asked what role the former president sees for himself in the campaign these days, spokesman Matt McKenna offered this: "He has been a tireless promoter of Senator Clinton and will continue to do so. He obviously has a unique perspective on what it takes to be president and believes very strongly she is the most qualified candidate for the job."

For most of 2007, Bill Clinton was regarded as an unalloyed plus for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. Popular with the base of the party -- particularly African Americans -- Clinton could go anywhere in the country to campaign for his wife and draw the sorts of crowds other political spouses could only dream about. Privately, Clinton was also a major force behind the scenes, helping to raise money for the campaign and working party insiders (the now famous superdelegates) to convince them to back his wife.

All of that changed in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and for the three weeks leading up to the South Carolina primary on Jan. 26. After the Iowa loss, Clinton went on offense on behalf of his wife -- attacking Obama as candidate far too inexperienced to be the nominee and suggesting the rise of the Illinois senator was largely a media creation. The days leading up to the South Carolina primary were filled with allegations that the former president was trying to play the race card -- talk that grew to a roar following the former President's now infamous "fairy tale" remark.

Following Hillary Clinton's larger-than-expected-loss in the Palmetto State primary, Bill Clinton went largely underground -- a sign, his detractors said, that his efficacy as a surrogate for the campaign had ended.

Not so fast.

As Politico's Jonathan Martin wrote in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's March 4 wins in Ohio and Texas, the former president played an integral -- if not high profile -- role in rallying rural white voters and Latino voters to his wife's campaign.

"But what is certain is that when the former president -- and especially a personality as large as Bill Clinton -- comes to an out-of-the-way place, it's a big deal and draws big coverage," wrote Martin. "Because of her demographic strengths among Hispanics and blue-collar whites, Hillary may still have carried these places. But having her husband visit -- a living, breathing reminder of the decade many Democrats in these places pine for -- at the eleventh hour certainly didn't hurt."

All told, Bill Clinton did 50 -- yes FIFTY! -- events in Texas ahead of March 4 and another 30 in Ohio, according to the Clinton campaign.

Exit polling in both states suggests that Bill Clinton's intense focus on rural and Hispanic voters paid off. Among Latino voters in Texas -- 32 percent of the electorate -- Clinton won by a whopping 66 percent to 32 percent, a far larger margin than her 51 percent to 47 percent win statewide.

Among rural, white voters in Ohio and Texas, the numbers were even more stark. In Texas, Clinton won that voting bloc 59 percent to 37 percent; in Ohio she carried a massive 72 percent to 27 percent edge over Obama among rural whites.

Those margins are certainly not attributable entirely to Bill Clinton, but it's hard to disagree with the view that he helped his wife given the number of appearances he did and the popularity he retains among these voter groups.

A look at his schedule in advance of the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 and the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 shows that the former president is keeping up a breakneck schedule focused heavily on rural areas where he remains extremely popular.

Today, for example, Clinton is scheduled to make four stops in Kentucky. He won't be in Lexington or Louisville, the state's principal cities. Instead, he'll be in Frankfort, Paris, Maysville and Morehead. Tomorrow, the former president heads to West Virginia. His stops? Not population centers in Charleston and Huntington, but rather Parkersburg, Chesapeake and Beckley. The same holds true for a Pennsylvania swing on Thursday when he is scheduled to be in Pottstown, Reading, Carlisle, Lewistown and State College.

With the exception of the recent Joe McCarthy kerfuffle, which, to be frank, seemed far more smoke than fire, Bill Clinton has made almost no news during the nearly two months since South Carolina voters rebuked him.

That may be due in part to the fact that where once most major media outlets (print and television) had a reporter embedded with Bill Clinton, that pack has now narrowed to two people -- reporters for ABC and NBC. With less eyes and ears covering him on a daily basis, it's far less likely his comments will draw the attention that they might have a few months ago.

But the larger reason for the lack of news coming out of Bill Clinton's mouth these days is his own recognition that he did his wife no favors with his actions on the campaign trail in January. Clinton, is, if nothing else, a survivor (hat tip to Fix friend and mentor John Harris). That means, he adapts to changing circumstances. It appears as though he has done just that in the past few months -- opting to play a less high profile role in his wife's campaign in favor of focusing his attention on the communities and areas where he remains a popular and beloved figure.

In other words, just because you don't see or hear from Bill Clinton as much these days, don't assume he isn't active on his wife's behalf. Though his reputation has clearly taken a hit in the eyes of some members of the Democratic base -- particularly in the black community -- he remains a well-liked and effective surrogate in many parts of the country.

Most importantly of all to Hillary Clinton's campaign, her husband now appears to understand his place in the race. To claim victories in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and particularly Indiana, which my colleague Anne Kornblut wrote smartly about today, she will need the rural voters to whom her husband remains a hero.

By Chris Cillizza | March 25, 2008; 2:18 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008
Previous: McCain Expands Campaign Media Team | Next: A Major Shakeup in Virginia Governor's Race

Add The Fix to Your Site

Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.

How other Democrats can even stand to look at Bill Clinton, besides letting themselves be influenced by him, is absolutely beyond me. This is the man who disgraced us all by lying under oath about his abuse of power over an intern. This is the man who made it impossible for Al Gore to receive a clear majority of votes for the presidency. This is the man who opened the door wide for the Republicans to assume power, both in Congress and the Whitehouse. He should be living in exile on an island somewhere, not being allowed to possibly take up residence in the Whitehouse again! Are you Hillary supporters all insane?
Put the Clintons back on the presidential ticket and, after being a registered Democrat for 39 years, I will re-register as an Independent and forget about politics for at least another four years!

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 27, 2008 12:49 PM

When I read some of comments I have to laugh and ask myself...why these people are smoking pot firstly and then write comments here...nothing else to possible say about it. Anyway I hope HRC and Bill move back to Arkansas, McSame takes retirement on Bahamas and Barack Obama with Michell and their daughters move to the White House. I thin we deserve to have finally president without baggage of scandals behind him, we deserve president with normal family...Yes I wish to live long enough to see woman as a president of USA but we are not in Scandinavia where women are part of political life without necessity to prove that they are stronger than men or that they can play nasty game as their men advisers are telling them to play..may be one day it happens and we find the woman who will be "the woman" as a president not power monger and liar as HRC is

Posted by: Jarda1 | March 27, 2008 2:47 AM

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 10:51 AM

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM

I had my Hillary button on last month while riding my bus to the rail connection that gets me home in nine minutes (non-New Mexicans--take that; we have a commuter program installed). I was sitting in the back of the bus (ironically) when a Black woman came to me from the front of the bus. She had seen my (modest) political regalia as I boarded. She attacked me in loud, abusive language, that at first stunned me, but then amused me, but then stunned me. She called Hillary the other witch word many times, and let me know what she thought of my perspicity and acumen. (Does this posting have a spell-check?)She carried on for twenty minutes, blaming Hillary (and me, I guess) for all the woes of the Black population. What is going on? From where is she getting her information and hatred? Jeepers.

Posted by: jaafl100 | March 26, 2008 10:14 AM

mark_in_austin:

If you're still following this thread ...

I was a little troubled that my last answer to you (@5:35 pm) was kind of a vague non-answer, so I decided to go through the PA demographics to see how many counties/districts are similar to mine. Based on the numbers, I think I'd revise my estimate of the percentage of the electorate that will use race as a governing factor in their vote.

The major cities in PA have about 2 million of the 12 million people total. These places will probably have a lower percentage of white voters who would never vote for a black person -- especially since Philly is about 43% African American and Harrisburg is 55% AfAm. But that leaves about 10 million in the rest of the state, which is about the same as here (90 - 98% white). Based on my experience, I would estimate that 8 - 10% of the people in my district would not vote for a racial minority candidate, whether they choose to admit it or not. So, extrapolating from that, we're in the range of 8% of the PA populace that would use race as a deciding factor in the election. That may be a little high, but I think I would modify my previous estimate to be at least 6%.

Again, I don't necessarily think that it is an overt hatred that drives this bias, but rather a lack of interaction with highly educated, successful minorities who are qualified for national elected office. I have to say that Lynn Swann managed to get 40% of the vote against Ed Rendell in 2006 despite Rendell's significant advantages in money and organization.

One last thing is that we've seen a huge increase in the number of voters registering for the Democratic party in anticipation of the primary. And my phone has been ringing off the hook -- so much so that I've turned off the ringer.

Posted by: mnteng | March 26, 2008 3:08 AM

Slow down with the comdemnation. Bill Clinton is a superb Democrat, and awesome guy, flaws and all.

Whilst this primary fight goes forward, the Clintons, and just look at Bill, are quietly and selflessly moving forward with action and green solutions, for our youth and for our country.

Described by Bill Clinton to Greta current work is underway in New Orleans to establish a New Orleans University where students come to implement new green energy and housing solutions as part of their course work, and at no cost to the students.

The project and others by the Global Initiative is so impressive, especially when he explains they encourage young computer techies to come up with new ideas and solutions to pressing problems. The University will help them implement innovative solutions to help green up America and provide efficient housing, energy and University experience for our youth.

Richard Branson pledged an estimated $3 billion to combat global warming at a Clinton Global Initiative in New York City, and said that over the next 10 years he will invest 100 percent of all profits from Virgin's transportation businesses toward tackling this international problem. During its second day of meetings, the Initiative also received monetary commitments to create safe spaces for Jewish and Muslim communities, improve diagnostic services in Uganda, and help more than 50 million people work their way out of poverty. Branson also made a commitment to develop alternative fuel for jets, for which none has yet been found.

Seeing creative economics at work again, in action, brings back fond memories of balanced budgets and innovative thinking of the 90's. The Clintons are truly about solutions, and it's a shame Senator Clinton is being scrutinized in a way that doesn't allow her genious to shine. She truly is one of the great intellects of our times. And along with her husband, the two of them make positive change for the country.

Every one indeed has amnesia if they don't remember the creative solutions the Clintons are capable of initiating, which actually produce really positive results!

Posted by: thinktank | March 26, 2008 1:00 AM

The ideas reflected by the people in the video (see link below) represent a tall order to fill.

Improbable, because it's not merely institutional changes that would be required to create this perfect world, as portrayed, it's us,individually, who have to change too.

We can't have a perfect government until we ourselves have created a more perfect dialogue, existence, one does not come without the other. That should have been the lesson of Obama's pastor.

With history in mind, there was another generation, who sought the same kind of changes, the 60's generation: participants and creators of literary, musical brillance and the advancement of civil rights.

This video targets a small niche market, and I use that word because it's clearly target marketing, akin to selling a product. Ironically, a product you can't elect. You can only achieve it through your own changes...

Watch the video (link provided below. Here are words from an Obama supporter.

"Those videos make me, an ardent Obama supporter, much LESS inclined to like him or his campaign. I am past needing cheesy songs and celebrities to confirm my political beliefs or philosophy. I don't think I'm the only one that finds them mildly offensive. "Oh Jessica Alba is a Barack supporter? The Fantastic Four was so good. I'm definitely going to vote for him."

"I think it tarnishes his image as a uniter since it once again seems to be a statement about privilege, about power, access and fame."

"I liken it in my head to the Radiohead phenomena. Part of what made their gambit so brilliant was that for once every fan regardless of affiliation (famous celebrity, promoter, reporter, record label guy) was treated the same way and on equal footing: as a fan. Nobody was a 'bigger' fan than anybody else. It was a direct connection with the artist and I didn't feel excluded or penciled into a caste system for not having the right credentials. It felt so refreshing."

"That's the same way I think about the Obama campaign. We are the ones we've been waiting for. The community."

Besides being awful music, these videos sully that notion and seek to separate the tiers of Obama supporters into the masses and the beautiful celebrities. They strike exactly the wrong note for me. And it's annoying. They feel, in fact, Clinton-esque in their self-satisfied, pseudo-hip cloying preening."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obama-obama.html

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 11:29 PM

We need to remember not to forget that we need to emphasize and point out at every opportunity we get that both the Clintons - Bill and Hillary are running for the same job - the Presidency and not only Hillary. Remind the voters that they are getting a two for one in the Clintons.
We need to be reminded of the sleaze, slime, scandal and bribery during the Clinton years.
We also need to be reminded that Bill Clinton prepared the way and prepared the ground for the 9/11 attack on America. Bill Clinton has 8 years to deal with Osama Bill Laden. He did nothing because he was too busy having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.
We need to remind of the bribes the Clinton took from the Canadian Business man in exchange for political patronage afforded to the Kazasaatann President
America cannot afford to have Bill Clinton running the white House from behind the scene.
Do we want both the Clintons in the White House continuing and doing these shady deals? There are too much financial irregularities on the part of the Clintons that the press had not bothered to ask.

Matt

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 25, 2008 10:57 PM

FUNNY HOW SVREADER POSTS THAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE BUYING INTO ...

every right-wing anti-clinton screed known to mankind. ...

ON THE SAME DAY THAT HILLARY USES THE NEWSPAPER--THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW--OWNED BY MELLON SCAIFE (THE PERSON SHE ONCE ACCUSED OF RUNNING A 'VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST THE CLINTONS) TO RESURRECT THE WRIGHT CASE AGAINST OBAMA.

THERE IS A SAYING IN SPANISH--IF YOU LAY DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU GET FLEAS.

THE CLINTONITES MUST BE ITCHING NOW; A CASE IN POINT IS SVREADER'S AGITATED SCREEDS.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 25, 2008 10:14 PM

"Pontificating and obfuscation: Sound familiar?"

Yes it does!

"Obama to Stiff Arm Michigan and Florida?"

"Okay, so we know Obama doesn't care about Florida, because he knows he'll lose that state to McCain, and if there's a re-vote he'll also lose it to Clinton. That would mean yet another huge swing state in her corner, which Obama can't afford because it further makes the case that Clinton's path to the White House is much better than the crap shoot Obama offers. As for Michigan, there was a "firehouse primary" floated, but the Obama campaign has evidently nixed it. To make matters worse, Zogby was on CNN recently doubting that either Michigan or Florida should count. Are these guys nuts? The fact is that Obama seems to want to deny both Michigan and Florida voters, which became apparent when James Carville tangled with David Wilhelm on CNN. Jerome agrees, BTD weighs in as well."

"The Ragin' Cagin completely unmasked the Obama campaign's actual plan to disenfranchise Floridians, which for some of us who remember 2000 all too well, sounds positively un-Democratic, capital "d." Carville puts Obama's man David Wilhelm back on his heels in this interview with Wolf Blitzer. Shorter review: don't send a boy to do a man's job. Wilhelm is totally outmatched in this one, with Carville creaming him on every angle.Carville offers solutions, Wilhelm offers pontificating and obfuscation. Sound familiar?"

"The problem with this exchange is that Carville honestly tries to off a way through the DNC's mess, but Wilhelm won't accept it, preferring the limbo and disenfranchisement Michigan and Florida voters currently are experiencing."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27185

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 9:54 PM

***
Mainstream Democrats should have caught on to Obama the moment his supporters gleefully started repeatng every right-wing anti-clinton screed known to mankind.

Obama's groupies aren't Democrats, they're members of the "cult of Obama"

Mainstream Democrats will never forgive them for throwing Bill Clinton "under the bus"

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 03:16 PM
***
sv,

How do you define "mainstream democrats" anyway? You mean WHITE democrats? What are you talking about?

Posted by: pinepine | March 25, 2008 9:46 PM

Great role-modeling on behalf of your candidate!

Check. One Obama supporter proves the point that hate speech is contagious!

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 8:07 PM

"Your demonstration of hate speak should be a signal to everyone not to vote for Obama."

Even you admit that you are doing such a crummy propaganda job, and that your position is so weak, that you would spin night into day, black to white. "Obama support means vote against him!"

I don't know who it is you are shilling for today - Clinton, McStupid, whomever - but again you have been exposed and beaten. I know that this revelation will never shame you as it should, and you will return to your fraud and slander like a dog to its vomit. Lick it up, you lying cur!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 25, 2008 7:36 PM

Bonjedi,

I think the point has been made: unfounded hatred and aggression like the kind you've just demonstrated seems to be more typical of Obama supporters.

It reinforces the impression many have that following a hate filled Pastor for 20 years is not a good indication of the line Obama himself will draw between hate filled dialogue or treatment of an individual or a group.

But, the media is giving him a pass, something they wouldn't do for Hillary Clinton, call it reverse discrimination.

We need a lot less glib talk on this forum and a lot more fact. Your demonstration of hate speak should be a signal to everyone not to vote for Obama.

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 7:22 PM

lylepink = svreader sock/meat puppet

Posted by: bondjedi | March 25, 2008 7:02 PM

Bluster without backup is the problem here.

Take for instance Obama's Health Care Plan:

The "Urban Institute study shows that yes, mandates are essential," while Obama says no mandates. The key passage:
"Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled."

Obama sent out a misleading mailer about Hillary's plan which she blasted him for.

Is this "changing the way things are done?"

Obama's claim has been he's going to "change the way things are done in Washington."

Paul Krugman of the NYTimes says,
"I know that Obama supporters want to hear no evil, but this is really, really bad."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 7:01 PM

Lylepink --

By the way, I hope you're wrong about Gore.
I've got a lot of respect for him.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 7:01 PM

Thanks, lylepink.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 6:57 PM

"ammap, you're nothing but a filthy god***n liar. "She won in their states. Well you know what, you can't have it both ways." Guess what, genius? Whether superdelegates vote according to their constituents OR as the system is now ... OBAMA STILL WINS!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA! The only real choice left for the Klinton Kampaign Krew is: do they want their can of electoral whoop-ass in regular or diet flavor!

How do you want your nomination whoop-ass served vammap, or whatever sock puppet you are? Would you like the can of whoop-ass, or straight from the tap?"

Dude, maybe it's time to lay off the triple espressos.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 25, 2008 6:54 PM

svreader: I have had the same thing happen to me.ie.. Posting using your name. Your Posting of FACTS about Obama is something his supporters FEAR most. The things that have came out about this guy and his wife {"Proud of American for the first time in my adult life"} is really telling about who this family is and how they feel about The USA. I agree with you if Obama is nominated by the Dem party, it will be a landslide for the Repubs. The "Losers", like Kerry, Edwards, Bradley, [Senator Kennedy and the Governor of Mass. despite the vote of the people in their state], Gore, and other highly recognized Liberals seem to be hell bent on losing this 2008 election and destroying the Dem party, mainly because of their Hate of the Clintons. Each and every day this is becoming more evident. These are the same people that turned their backs on Bubba in 2000 and 2004 and lost the WH. We all KNOW what a disaster it has been for the past seven years and continues to this day.

Posted by: lylepink | March 25, 2008 6:49 PM

bondjedi --

I don't post on the columbus board.

Someone else happened to choose the same handle there as I did here.

The person who posts there, makes posts against Israel. I would never do that.

I'm a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 6:40 PM

vammap, you're nothing but a filthy god***n liar. "She won in their states. Well you know what, you can't have it both ways." Guess what, genius? Whether superdelegates vote according to their constituents OR as the system is now ... OBAMA STILL WINS!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA! The only real choice left for the Klinton Kampaign Krew is: do they want their can of electoral whoop-ass in regular or diet flavor!

How do you want your nomination whoop-ass served vammap, or whatever sock puppet you are? Would you like the can of whoop-ass, or straight from the tap?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 25, 2008 6:40 PM

Thanks to a former post, read: /www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/25/creditcrunch.bearstearns ... which shows that ...
"More than 20,000 people ... to lose their jobs on Wall Street as the credit crunch bites ... over the next two years.

New York's Independent Budget Office ... estimates that profits on Wall Street fell by 80% during 2007 to $3.2bn - the lowest level since 1994.

"The economic situation is particularly precarious," said Ronny Lowenstein ... "If the problems affecting Wall Street and housing worsen, the recession will be deeper and the fiscal pressures on the city will quickly mount."

Then I read Obama's appeal to restore sanity written to the Board of Governors of the FRS since March 22, 2007 ... http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-year-old-letter-to-bern.php

.... And again I know that Obama is our last chance ...

We reject Obama and live in the 'former GREAT and MIGHTY USA'! The choice now is between a 'greater' depression with Clinton/McCain, or restoration with Obama - the choice is ours.

Posted by: dopera2004 | March 25, 2008 6:35 PM

"Obama is the right man at the right time. He can reinvigorate the American spirit and revive the respect of our allies. OBAMA IN '08!!!"

Obviously, a post meant for the Columbus message boards. Either you've been busted doing what everyone knows you are doing, or someone went through all the trouble of hacking into the WP website, bypassing all the important info (like the Clinton Camp's marching orders and talking points for CC), just to get your password.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 25, 2008 6:34 PM

There's a lot of hot air in here...and the general misnomer that the math works against Hillary, which is patently false.

Pundits have already declared her out of the race how many times already, now they want to end a very tight race by disenfranchising millions more voters, not just FL/MI.

That's a strategy to win, not a win for Obama.

The RULES that everyone keeps talking about require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment.

If in fact they should overturn their votes and support the candidate who won their state, for instance Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) would have to switch their vote to Hillary and do as Obama says, follow the will of their constituents, than how would that play out for Obama?

She won in their states. Well you know what, you can't have it both ways.

If this election is about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan does the exact opposite: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election.

The air out of the Obama camp is getting, shall we say, toxic...

Posted by: vammap | March 25, 2008 6:33 PM

Mr. Cilliza
at what point we are going to talk about the issues listed below:
*We are missing 27 days in the papers released by the Clinton's team
* Many pages are censored...and you do not seem to be curious and report this fact
* What about the tax returns?
* The one that is very curious, is the lack of effort to clarify the reports in the Canadian press about the alledged meeting between the Clinton's camp and the Canadian Ambassador; or the possible meeting with the Canadian Consulate in Chicago. The topic NAFTA in both instances.
* Lack of investigating spirit about the contribution to the Clinton's Library.
* And of course, White Water.

There are many mores, but let's commence with the short list.

Mr. Cilliza, please give us enough information so we could choose based in relevant and balanced information. After all we are talking about journalism and not about advocacy groups.

Posted by: PCM011 | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM

I am wondering why Chris Cillizza tries to support Hillary? I really do. I has been the opponent of her for a very long while of time and only since about a month ago I have become able to post my comments into his blog. Even he understands now that she has no chance, but why does he still try to support her?

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 25, 2008 6:16 PM

'So, you lefties have the answer to that, huh?

From a racist, con man who is preposterously inexperienced to a hideous trollop who lies and schemes at every opportunity - you people don't have much to offer, do you?'

this blog has descended waaay into the gutter, CC. ever think of a little monitoring? you know, delete the really hateful posts [which today is most of them}.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2008 6:14 PM

Clinton didn't win Texas, as Obama got five more delegates from that state than she did. They almost split popular votes there 50/50. It looks more, like her defeat than victory. Bill Clinton's intense campaigning is not bringing Hillary much of results; it looks more like vice versa. He campaigned intensively before Iowa, S. Carolina, and Texas. The results were negative however. It looks like he is not very much or sincere interested to get her the presidency. People on this web came up with the conclusion that svreader is Bill Clinton. Svreader is openly fighting for Clinton's nomination, but the lack of any truth in his comments, as well, as almost any sense, can only damage Mrs. Clinton's chances. I-personally thought that svreader is the clinical idiot because of such features of his behavior, but, maybe, he is staging his stupidity the same way, as Bill Clinton stages his enthusiasm. What is your opinion?

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 25, 2008 6:11 PM

Chris Cillizza definitely wins the "How Hillary Can Still Win" journalism award this year. The degree to which he will strain to find arguments supporting the Clintons is amazing. Yesterday's piece about Hillary's path-to-victory, despite all evidence to the contrary, was no exception.

Posted by: johnatbd | March 25, 2008 6:09 PM

If Barack Obama had been, at this point, as far behind in all the rules-based metrics of the primary race, he would've conceded and gotten behind the leader, focusing on winning back the White House and securing a liberal-leaning federal judiciary. It's like how he helped out Bill Richardson during the debate when Richardson was caught unawares. Could you imagine Billary doing the same? Well, it doesn't take much imagination, because right now, with virtually no mathematical possibility of actually taking the lead within the existing rules, they are seeking to destroy the rules and the party and anyone and everyone who gets in their goddamn way of their "right" to regain the White House!

Posted by: terry1960 | March 25, 2008 6:05 PM

Prior to Iowa, I was absolutely resigned to having Hillary Clinton as the anointed Democratic Party nominee. I supported, in order, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd ahead of Hillary, but I could live with Hillary, and figured she'd be a competent president, though I wasn't looking forward to re-living the 1990s. I don't know how many Hillary fans held a similar sense of resignation toward the other candidates. But now, I am not "resigned" to Hillary. I am disgusted by her and her husband and all her arrogant, rule-changing followers.

Posted by: terry1960 | March 25, 2008 5:57 PM

Whoever forged my signature, like Barry Obama, is glad to lie, cheat, and steal in order to win

You guys won't win, but you do deserve each other.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:54 PM

the only President that actually won for the Libs dodged the draft and went to Moscow instead. that is liberal military participation at its finest.

why can't you Libs just admit that you wish to surrender, roll over, stick your soft part in the air and invite your enemy to have his way with you. We all know it anyway. the truth will set you free. although I must admit, Obama has pretty much said this already.

Be gentle Osama!

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Obama is the right man at the right time. He can reinvigorate the American spirit and revive the respect of our allies. OBAMA IN '08!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:51 PM

zook --

Actually the Republicans were talking about McCain.

Why don't you try actually reading a post before replying to it???

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:50 PM

you'd think that the Libs would have learned that playing soldier is not a winning approach for them. remember Dukakais in the tank? Kerry saluting at the convention? Laughable and rolicking. now hillary is Rambo - dodging bullets and saving orphans.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:49 PM

Link to the article that svreader steals from without attribution:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

No mention of tenants freezing to death.

And for more information than you need to know about Tony Rezko:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/index.html

Posted by: mnteng | March 25, 2008 5:45 PM

Who would you rather vote for, the coke-fiend or the war hero?"

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 05:21 PM

I assume Obama is the coke fiend, although there is alot of that in Dem circles these days.

but who is the war hero? Are we talking vietnam or the bosnian freedom fighter, dodging sniper fire and saving the world? Kind of confusing with so many Liberal war heros running around. Of course, no one will think it is John Kerry anymore after that lie was exposed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:45 PM

I'm curious -- are the Clintons at all aware of how much their respect has fallen among a sizable portion of the Democratic Party, how much their "take them all down with us" approach to their failing primary campaign is hurting the Party, or how insanely narcissistic they've come to be seen by many who used to defend them?

I, like most the people I know (including three generations in my family) were supporters of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, despite his horrid personal behavior vis-a-vis Hillary and Chelsea. But we came to like Barack Obama, as a new voice who sounds as honest and non-calculating as Hillary sounds contrived and formulaic. Our support of Obama is not respected by the Clintons. We are, like Bill Richardson, "Judases." This sickens us.

They need to stop. The math is almost absolutely against Hillary Clinton gaining the lead -- within the existing rules -- against Barack Obama. All she and Bill are doing is making sure that we have a President McCain in January 2009.

Posted by: terry1960 | March 25, 2008 5:45 PM

Will dems nominate the show horse or the work horse?

Republicans have gone with the showhorse:

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/7065.html

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 25, 2008 5:44 PM

No, but Obama has.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:42 PM

It's now official...svreader has LOST it !!

Posted by: maddogjts | March 25, 2008 5:40 PM

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain gets the Presidency.

Republicans won't hold back like Hillary has.

Obama supporters have made bitter enemies out of Clinton supporters by their arrogance and by their rush to throw Bill Clinton under the bus, and by the joy they take when they repeat every right-wing anti-Clinton screed with such zeal.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:37 PM

I voted for Mr. Clinton- twice- and have only this to say to him. Go away! and take your wife with you. We realize that narcissism is an important part of the psychological make-up of politicians but you two take the cake. You had eight years to use the White House as your personal fiefdom and playground and most Americans had their fill. Democrats who wanted a change greeted your ambitious heir-apparent like a messiah, so ready were they to move on. But fortunately for the country the new guy has a past that included a crackpot preacher friend. And that may be enough to save us. Allelujah!

Posted by: mhr614 | March 25, 2008 5:36 PM

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain gets the Presidency.

Republicans won't hold back like Hillary has.

Obama supporters have made bitter enemies out of Clinton supporters by their arrogance and their willingness to throw Bill Clinton under the Bus repeat every right-wing anti-Clinton screed with zeal.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:35 PM

mark_in_austin:

I don't know if I can speak to overall percentages in PA, since I don't live anywhere near Pittsburgh or Philly. But your guess of 3% probably isn't too far off. I think I just see a little more of it here in the middle.

The underlying problem is not the overt racism, but the unspoken bias that I see here. I think it is more like "race fear" than "race anger", probably because of the dearth of diversity and, so, the lack of contact (PA-5 is 96% white and most of the minorities are in State College).

The WaPo had a good article on the racial divide in PA, which pretty much sums up the attitude of a lot of the older generation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032202205_pf.html

Posted by: mnteng | March 25, 2008 5:35 PM

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

The Liberal aganda in a nutshell. Make that a drindlshell.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:33 PM

jnoel: If the tenor of the coments I read here between Senator Obama and Clinton are any indication of what is in store down the road for both campaigns, then I am not very optimistic. It's getting ugly and way too personal and that is a bad sign.

---------------

If it were October, I'd be concerned. March? Not so much.

Lots depends on McCain's VP choice...a right-wing nut will change the dynamics again.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 5:33 PM

I am impressed -- some Clinton fans now sling mud almost as good as Hillary herself. Can you see her campaigning for Obama after he has been elected? I sure can't. She ain't THAT loyal to her party.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Martin --

As usual, you've got it backwards.

The Chamberpot is overflowing from Barry Obamam's BS.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:31 PM

Actually, it has been recently discovered that all liberals are quite kooky:

WASHINGTON - Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity - as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population - as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state - as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:30 PM

svreader (2nd request),

the next time your chamberpot overflows, please refrain from thinking it is art and posting it on these Web sites.

it is what it is ... and the redolence is annoying.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 25, 2008 5:29 PM

svreader (2nd request),

the next time your chamberpot overflows, please refrain from thinking it is art and posting it on these Web sites.

it is what it is ... and the redolence is annoying.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 25, 2008 5:29 PM

Posted by: jovitman | March 25, 2008 5:28 PM

rds --

Obama supporters are the cult.

Most Clinton supporters would vote also vote for Gore, Edwards or even Biden.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:26 PM

From the moonbat wing:

"I know plenty of folk who never claim the deduction because they believe one should not profit from charity in any way and that it should be completely anonymous."

I can just imagine the conversation:

Moonbat1: you know, I just don't think I pay enough taxes. do you know any way I could pay more?

Moonbat2: Well I found if you don't deduct your charitible contributions, then you still have to pay on that money earned. In fact, we have a group that gets together each week to discuss our charitable giving, how good it makes us feel and how we refuse to acknowledge it to anyone.

Moonbat 1: so you're the one at the Opera named anonymous. boy I admire you.

Moonbat 2 - It's not about being admired. It's about paying the government more than your fair share. We are Liberals and we believe that there is no amount too great to pay to Obama and his socialist takeover.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:26 PM

The polling suggests that a larger percentage of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama compared with Obama supporter who won't vote for Hillary. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not prepared to give Obama supporters and believe you to be a reasonable person. So simple question based on that data point whose supporters would you conclude are loyal Democrats and who are part of a personality cult?

----------------------------

Come November, those polls will be meaningless.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 5:25 PM

Posted by: rds748 | March 25, 2008 5:22 PM

"The nut with two boobs or the boob with two nuts."

That's awesome. Spot on as always zoukster. ;-)

Can i get a bumper sticker?

-------------

LOL.

Why bother?

Anyone looking in either of your cars will see one of the two.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 5:21 PM

GOP --

I'm a Democrat, but Republicans have the best bumper sticker of the election --

"Who would you rather vote for, the coke-fiend or the war hero?"

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:21 PM

"The nut with two boobs or the boob with two nuts."

That's awesome. Spot on as always zoukster. ;-)

Can i get a bumper sticker?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 25, 2008 5:18 PM

blarg writes
" A husband says that his wife is the best candidate. Is that at all surprising? Would you expect Bill to say anything else while his wife was in the race?"

I was pretty surprised when Bob Dole DIDN'T endorse his wife for the nomination. That put a pretty quick end to her participation in the process.

Posted by: bsimon | March 25, 2008 5:17 PM

Barack Obama is going to be the 44th President of the United States and all of the racists can tear their hair out when his name is mentioned alongside Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt in the history books.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:17 PM

I still don't get it. WHAT exactly is it that Bill Clinton did in 8 years as Prez? The only thing people can come up with is that he balanced the budget. Well, HE didn't balance it, he was just lucky to be in the middle of one of the greatest economic boom this country has seen. Everyone was making scads of money on the market which translated into larger tax revenues for the country. And Bill signed a number of measures to save money such as the Welfare Reform act that dumped a few million kids into poverty. To this day no one has pointed to one great accomplishment that he had during his administration. NAFTA? Welfare Reform Act?, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Defense of Marriage Act, Bombing Somalia, the Balkins, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Sheesh, this guy's legacy is that of a mediocre Republican. No wonder New Gingrich thinks Bill was a great president! I guess a lot of people are sucked in by personality. Me, I'd rather have a real president than one who plays one. That includes Hillary.

Posted by: oskar1921 | March 25, 2008 5:15 PM

Obama supporters don't know anything about either candidate.

If they knew the truth, they'd hate Obama and love the Clintons.

The've fallen for Obama's BS.

The right-wing has used them like Barry Obama used the Poor in his Chicago Slums.

He'll throw his current supporters under the bus just as fast as he did his original ones.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:12 PM

the moonbat weighs in with the typical moral vacuity.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:11 PM

Taking anyone to task for charitable contributions listed on their tax form is probably one of the lowest and most dishonest forms of character assassination. I know plenty of folk who never claim the deduction because they believe one should not profit from charity in any way and that it should be completely anonymous.

Charity has to do with the heart not the pocketbook.

Something none of us can judge.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 5:09 PM

The Clinton's are a sewer. And if you don't see it, you are as blind as the rest of the media.

I wouldn't vote for a Clinton if they were running against Karl Rove.

What's the difference.

Posted by: kenswann | March 25, 2008 5:07 PM

According to Hillary's campaign, Bill "believes very strongly she is the most qualified candidate for the job."

Think about that. A husband says that his wife is the best candidate. Is that at all surprising? Would you expect Bill to say anything else while his wife was in the race? His endorsement says nothing about Hillary's qualifications; it's based entirely on their relationship. I'm amazed that it's swayed so many people.

Posted by: Blarg | March 25, 2008 5:07 PM

Proud - Dems have two choices:

The nut with two boobs or the boob with two nuts.

What to do, what to do?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Obama Osama sat on a wall of lies, manipulation, deceit and race bullying.

Obama Osama had a great fall.

All the biased, misguided, leviathan media couldn't get Obama Osama up again.

Obama's campaign is now a flaccid husk burnt in its racism.

Obama should do the right thing and drop out of the race for the sake of party. Obama has already divided the party with his race-bullying, tried to assasinate the characters of renown Democrats, and has inflicted irreparable damage.

Obama, if you have any sort of character, you would drop out; but you have none, so you're going to be the roach that leads the Democratic Party to its demise.

The Fall of the House of Osama.

Posted by: Tenebroso | March 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Robert --

I call him Barry because that's his name.

Calling himself "Barack" is all part of the act he uses to put himself "above" other people.

Everything I post about him is true.

You and the rest of his supporters refuse to accept the truth, or even to learn anything about the guy you're supporting, except what his PR people tell you.

If we Democrats nominate him, we're going to lose by a landslide.

I hope you don't have to learn the hard way by losing us the election.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Chris,
You don't give former President Bill Clinton enough intellectual credit. When you say his comments in NC about wishing we could have a debate between "two candidates who love America" as more smoke than fire, you don't understand how clever and subtle the man is. Heck, Bill finds nuance in the word "is," so give him his intellectual due. Of course he meant to cast aspersions on Barack Obama's patriotism. Bill Clinton is too clever by a half. We Democrats need to exorcise ourselves of this Clinton possession of our party. Bill and Hillary are nothing more than vampires on the trusting working class of America. When the chips are down (NAFTA, Iraq, ending welfare as we know it) they go AWOL. In writing a column about Bill Clinton I don't understand how you can neglect to mention that he and Hillary are now worth tens of millions of dollars since leaving the White House. Yet they refuse to release their tax records. Who owns Bill and Hillary Clinton? Don't worry, Hillary promises to let us know after the primary is over.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 25, 2008 5:03 PM

wpost writes "I trust [Obama] will grow into the job and fundamentally restore and redirect this country positively."

In response, here's something I was just perusing...This is too good to not share:

"My problem with Obama and my fear of a potential Obama presidency is that his ostentatious plans for inaction may be more than just a clever political strategy. If you look at his record, Obama seems to lack much fondness for action.

His record is littered with evidence that he's a congenital ditherer who doesn't bother to offer actions that support his words. As a Senator, Obama has talked about bipartisanship but never actually done anything of a bipartisan nature.

In the Illinois state legislature, Obama had all those "present" votes.

Still more disturbing are some of the prescriptions for purported action that the Obama campaign has issued. In this month's American Prospect, Team Obama spoke with Prospect senior staffer Spencer Ackerman to outline the bones of what will be the Obama Doctrine.

I know, it all sounds very butch for a dovish modern Democrat--a genuine Doctrine! But unlike the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine or the Reagan Doctrine or even the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine mentions nothing so quotidian as backing up foreign policy aims with force.

If blustery testosterone-fueled rhetoric causes you unpleasantness, you might want to skip the following summation of what Team Obama has come up with for the Obama Doctrine:

They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root.

Out of an innate sense of kindness and charity, I'll overlook the contradiction between Team Obama's fierce desire to move beyond hollow sloganeering and focus on "dignity promotion." Instead, let's focus on how the Obama Doctrine isn't a plan and promise for action like all the Doctrines that have preceded it, but instead an empty piece of gobbledygook rhetoric."

From :
The Blathering Storm
Always choosing talk over action.
by Dean Barnett

find entire article here: (more good stuff!)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/919gxfus.asp?pg=2

Will dems nominate the show horse or the work horse?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 25, 2008 5:03 PM

svreader,

the next time your chamberpot overflows, please refrain from thinking it is art and posting it on these Web sites.

it is what it is ... and the redolence is annoying.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 25, 2008 5:03 PM

king of zouk paid well over 50% of his income in taxes last year. his spokesman said he gave as much as he could afford.

Obama said he could afford more.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:02 PM

Billary wants to be president with these nasty men around her. Not one woman.
She is a lier, a fraud and con artist.
Her tax returns will prove that they are making tons of money from Arab sources. Selling America out just like NAFTA.
Dynastic entitilement to the presidency is not what we want. Hillary and lobbist money are perfect together but it won't bring change. These super delegates should just end this crap. Edwards and Gore should just endorse Obama at the same time to drive the stake through her campaign's heart.

Posted by: stanjax3 | March 25, 2008 5:01 PM

It's ironic that Bill Clinton, the erstwhile 'first black president,' is now collecting votes from the people who would never vote for a black president in the first place. He used to be able to balance his white, black and Hispanic constituencies, but now he's found that his white and Hispanic fans have something big in common. The Clintons need voters who would rather have a vacancy in the White House than a black president, and they're finding them.

Posted by: roedel74 | March 25, 2008 5:01 PM

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford.

but YOU can afford much higher taxes. too bad you don't bring in over a Mil. I am so happy these Libs know so well what is good for us yet doesn't apply to them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:00 PM

svreader,

You need to quickly seek help. You have a serious condition that requires immediate medical attention. Are you off your meds? You have lost touch with reality and I hope you are not armed. It is always traumatic when your universe destroys itself in front of your own eyes and you cannot see it because of your blind faith in a devious serial liar like Clinton. Your arguments against Obama are like a thin gruel, weak and tiresome. Your desperation, like Hillary's, is pathetic. I would like to throw you a metaphorical lifesaver because you are in danger of drowning from the undertow of Clinton's sinking ship.

Posted by: clucas6305 | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM

jnoel: I hope you are right but the history of protracted and at times bitter primary campaigns such as 1968 and 1980 resulted in Dem Presidential losses in both times. It will be incumbent upon the big wigs within the party to prevent a political implosion, especially if there is still no winner by the convention. That would be truly bad news.

The Clintons are a mixed bag in my view. Indeed, they have built up alot of political capital within the Dem party but may I remind you that under Bill Clinton's Presidency, the Dems lost the Congress, most State Houses and Governorships. That is not an auspicious political legacy if you ask me. Also, I am very wary of political dynasties, especially within the Presidency. I think it is unhealthy for our democracy.

svreader: Doth protesteth too much. Your rantings and unsubstantiated allegations about Senator Obama remind me of Senator Joe McCarthy flailing a paper in the air and declaring that he had a list of known communists within the State Department he was going to reveal. He didn't as it turns out. Your belly aching is alot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Posted by: jovitman | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM

Sv Guy/Gal,
That's President Barry Obama to you. And what's with the insane drone, did he kill you mother or something? Perhaps Obama is not the source of your hate. calling him Barry relegates you to the stupid pool to begin with, the rest is sophomoric on a nice day.

Posted by: robertell | March 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Obama supporters have nailed their political coffin shut with their own words.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Uh, if Michele Obama were an ex-President, she would be subject to media scrutiny comparable to that of Bill. The more appropriate comparison would be to Cindy McCain.

Posted by: bsimon | March 25, 2008 04:21 PM
-----------------------
I agree, have not seen much of Cindy since McShame won, and nothing of Michelle since her 'not proud' line. I can't wait to hear what her view is and what she heard in the 20 years at that church.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 25, 2008 4:54 PM

Does America really want someone who is prone to hallucinations in the White House? Reviewing Hillary's methodical playing of the "Race card", and "The Perpetual Victim" against Obama; her inability to control her own campaign finances; and, her recent commentary on: Iraq; Pakistan; Energy Policy; her stated intention to confiscate the profits of American energy companies; the need for her to control the 14 Trillion $ American Economy from her White House Politburo, since she has declared the free-market to be a failure (this from a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" and Bimbo Containment Chief for Bill's White House Brothel); her Marxist statement in San Francisco: "We're going to have to take more from you, and give it to others for the common good."; Illegal Immigration; Taxes; Infanticide; Massive new Government spending; Multi million $ Senate earmarks for supporters of Hillary's Presidential campaign; Garnishing of your wages to fund her coveted Socialized medicine program; a fanatical advocate of confiscating all civilian handguns; and, the Clinton's history of emasculating the military, verifies that this grievously flawed woman would be the female version of the Jimmy Carter debacle that gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini who ushered in rampant Islamic radicalism; block-long lines at our gasoline stations; a severely hollow military; and, a record Misery Index. Only much worse. Considering all of Hillary's recent gaffes, e.g. "I voted FOR IT (referring to the Bankruptcy Bill); but, I was glad to see that it didn't pass."; her hallucinations over "Landing under intense sniper fire in Bosnia."; and, her increasingly frequent crying jags, one has to wonder if excessive use of Botox has affected her mental stability. It's no wonder that her campaign staff is shielding her from reporter and audience unscripted questions. The prospect of Madam Hillary as President; in a word: TERRIFYING. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | March 25, 2008 4:54 PM

wpost at 4:36P, that was a very kind post.

mteng at 4:39P, your report saddens me. It is hard for me, a Texan, to believe that race is worth more than 3% in an election outside the Deep South. But it is your regional take that illuminates my own lack of global scope, so I thank you even if you bear sad news.

How far outside my "3%" guess would you say PA falls?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2008 4:51 PM

white ppl need to come to terms with the fact that rev. wright was right. as much as I think Obama is a soft dude and i dont like him, he'll make things in america better for blacks and all other oppressed people including muslims and arabs.

look at the history of america. white ppl enslaved blacks, gave them HIV, AIDS, and STDS. why is that blacks have the highest proportion of people with HIV, STDS, the most people locked up. there is something wrong with system. the cia introduced crack in the ghetto, and forced our women into prostitution. the government continually keeps black people poor and ignorant.

some white ppl are finally seeing the truth, and white ppl need to realize that they are not part of the solution, but the problem.

i support rev. wright, and because of him, i support obama.

as much as i dont agree with how racist america is today, things will be corrected. interracial dating will equalize the number between whites and blacks with those with stds. maybe when white ppl start getting these diseases, they'll finally realize what black ppl are going through.

it is pretty funny. america gave hiv to black ppl, and now we're giving it right back to white ppl. hehe. u're stupidity will be your downfall.

Our time has come. 1

Posted by: DivanteJackson | March 25, 2008 4:50 PM

From "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" to "sniper fire," the Clintons are the two biggest compulsive liars the White House has ever known.

Electability? Zilch.

Posted by: Jumpy66 | March 25, 2008 4:48 PM

Its clear this is all a "game" to Obama's supporters.

Like Barry Obama himself, they're "high" on power.

The rest of America is stone cold sober.

They'll never elect Barry Obama to anything once they know the kind of guy he really is.

The truth will be the end of Chicago Barry Obama.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 4:48 PM

As an Iowa voter we heard all the candidates numerous times and in person. Obama caught on with people who had caucused before and brought in many new persons. Hillary bad mouthed the caucus system and relied on political connections, which aren't as strong here as elsewhere. And on March 15 we stuck with Obama and he increased his potential delegate share by nine and Hillary lost one.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | March 25, 2008 4:45 PM

scrappy --

Barry really is a really bad guy.

If he wasn't I wouldn't waste my time posting about it.

Please watch the news story from channel 5, and read the report from the Chicago Sun Times.

If Obama gets the nomination, Democrats will lose by a landslide.

I don't want to see that happen.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 4:41 PM

OBAMA IS A CROOK. He uses racism to bully his opponents.
OBAMA IS A RACIST. He defends his pastor's comments with the reply, my white grandmother is racist too.
OBAMA'S WIFE IS A RACIST.
Look beyond Obama's machinations, tricks, and manipulations. The most dangerous people are those who put up a charming facade. Obama is creepy charming, and his lies and true beliefs and intentions are finally being revealed.
SENATOR OSAMA SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

"Obama wouldn't have done so well in February if voters had known then about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. (which they would have, if the journalists covering the Obama campaign had done less cheerleading and more reporting)."

Posted by: Tenebroso | March 25, 2008 4:39 PM

bsimon --

Unfortunately, we'll never know how well Sen. Clinton could stand on her own as a politician.

But, what we can see is that President Clinton still brings a substantial level of excitement to the campaign, particularly in rural areas which normally do not warrant "rock star" treatment. The fact that President Clinton will be in town on Thursday is big news in these parts.

And, I'm sad to say, Gov. Rendell is absolutely correct when he says that there are white people in PA that will never vote for a black person for President.

Posted by: mnteng | March 25, 2008 4:39 PM

Americans get what they want in the end.
A small group of people deciding everything.
It's the lowest human choice to make.

It's easier to stay the same, than it is to become better.

Americans settle for the okkie doke every time. SLAVES TO THE RYTHEM of the press!

SHEEP!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | March 25, 2008 4:38 PM

Clinton is a hero? To whom, the intellectually deprived? He is a classless slug wtih no ethics, no integrity and no morals. Human debris who needs to crawl back under his rock.
To those who support the Clintons, you better hurry and fill out applications for your daughters to be White House interns. Old predator Bill will have a lot of time for them if the witch gets elected.

Posted by: LarryG62 | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM

Holding that a candidate has "lost", "can't win", "matematically" eliminated, etc, because they will not have more pledged delegates after all primaries are done in the Dem nomination battle, is disingenuous partisan propaganda.
Having more pledged delegates, but less that 2,205, MEANS NOTHING.
It is another way to interpret who "should" win, like who leads in the popular vote, who won the swing states, etc.
To claim that one candidate should quit because of this is propaganda.
Neither candidate can win the first ballot without superdelegates. How you decide who the super's choose? Leading in pledged delegates is one of the possibilities, NOT the "mathematical" certainty or "according to the RULES" wishful thinking of Obama partisans in the media.

Posted by: johnL1 | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM

wpost --
The guy you shill for isn't the kind of guy you think he is.
Read my posts and those of other people who found out the truth about him.
Wake up before its too late.
-----------------------

sv,

I passed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey in the 68 election when just a boy. I saw the Dem party self-destruct that year. I have been awake ever since.

I have completely researched Senator Obama, as well as the other candidates. In my opinion, he's the best we have right now. Far from perfect and a bit green, but with massive potential. I'm happy to roll the dice with him.

It wouldn't necessarily upset me if either McCain or Hillary eventually wins... I think neither will be equal to the challenges they will encounter, but anything besides Bush/Cheney and the Neocons will be a welcome change (although I'm still watching MCCain's dance with them) and it will give Barack more time to grow.

Should however Barack succeed in this election cycle, I trust he will grow into the job and fundamentally restore and redirect this country positively.

Your posts are factually empty and therefore meaningless to me, however much I respect your right to write them. Everyone has the right to self-express.

I am originally from Chicago and know all about Rezko and Barack's early work on the South side of Chicago. There is nothing there that alarms me. Nor do the aberrant words of his former pastor. I do not believe they impinge upon Barack's conscience at all.

His words about his grandmother bother me even less...I myself had a German-American grandmother whom I adored and still adore in memory. It wasn't until I was in my 20s that I had a crystal clear memory of her coming into the living room when I was a boy, planting herself in front of the TV and saying "Thank God someone finally shot that n*gger!" It was MLK. Do I adore her less? No, She was indeed a typical white women of her generation. When Barack said that, I had to laugh. It was so dead accurate (if politically boneheaded...another reason I admired him for saying it...sacrificing political gain for honesty).

I understand that you see something different. We see what we want to see.
All of us. Me included.

You seek to convert me and others to Hillary. I can assure you that personal attacks and your constant drip, drip, drip of negativity is not the stuff of persuasion. With all due respect, your mantras of "It's over" etc, are like the repetitious phrases of the mentaly unstable...they just become white noise.

I seek to convert no one. I am here simply to defend my candidate of choice and needle those who levy false charges against him or otherwise engage in silly ad hominem attacks.

I trust in the trajectory of humankind. History shows we always move forward (allowing for the steps backwards in times of transition). Bush et al have been a huge step backwards in human history...but our Creator uses even the poor choices of individuals in the evolution of all of creation. We may still be stumbling backwards ...or we might have a chance to regain our footing. I believe electing Barack is putting our foot forward again.

Could be wrong. I'm willing to take the gamble. Either way, I trust in the universe and the ever ongoing process of creation which we choose to either participate in or eschew, as best we see fit.

Political hysteria therefore seems unproductive.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 4:36 PM

Chris, you forgot the last "minus". As in the really BIG minus that will inevitably come in the general election where Bill will be all the "minus" the Republicans will need to defeat hilarious Hillary (they won't even need to use her own gaffs against her - just Bill's trysts).

Bill Clinton may be a "plus" with rural poor and uneducated Democrats but he's a very BIG minus with all of the rest of us.

(And I'm beginning to wonder about you, Chris. You're starting to look a little like a shill of late. And I used to look to you for such clear-sightedness. No more.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 25, 2008 4:36 PM

Svreader, I have told you in the past that I respect your admiration for Hillary...but this is gutter politics that you are doing. You are a person with probably an honorable past but just as easy as people will believe what I am saying about you with little or no facts some of those same people believe what you say about Barak with little or no fact. Just keep it classy my friend. I know you are capable of it.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 25, 2008 4:35 PM

Jovitman, you are right about your thoughts that the Clintons' receive preferential treatment. And I think they deserve that treatment because they have made connections in the democratic party not many others have. I think that is what has made the nomination race so fanscinating. I still tend to believe any candidate so close to the nomination would be fighting hard to secure it, despite what party heads might be saying. But I am willing to concede the point.

Now, A protracted campaign may leave some bumps and bruises, but I am not sure it will translate into devastation come the general. I think the convention will be a healing event for the Dem's, no matter the candidate. And remember, there is no such thing as bad press. The longer the campaign goes the more we hear about Obama and Clinton. McCain is a sideshow at this point.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 25, 2008 4:35 PM

The Hillary Clinton quote listed above "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend" is a point well taken. If Hillary loves Bill, she's pretty much stuck. Obama, however, chose to attend a church for twenty years where the principal minister gave racially divisive sermons and made statements about the U.S. that belong in some science fiction movie. That he would attend such a church for twenty years, regardless of Illinois politics, suggests that he has questionable judgement. It is particularly disturbing since he has run a campaign in which he claimed to be transcending race and yet he has immersed himself, and subjected his children, to a weekly diet of racial nastiness.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | March 25, 2008 4:34 PM

scrappy --

Read my posts. I've fought for civil rights my whole life.

I care deeply about other people.

Barry Obama doesn't care about anybody but Barry Obama.

He proved that in Chicago.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 4:32 PM

What America is witnessing - and paying attention to - is the unmasking of the left.

The left who would demonstrably rather climb a

Campaign 2008

Primaries & Caucuses

Candidate Quiz

recent posts

Stories by Category

Stories By Date

Related Links

More on The Fix

From The Post

BlogRoll

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Bill Clinton -- From Plus to Minus to Plus

Comments