Hillary Adviser Wolfson: Obama's Claim That Bill Is Fibbing Is A "Right Wing Talking Point"

Comments (286)

hisgirlfriday wrote on January 21, 2008 1:36 PM:

Oh helllllllllllllll no!

Bill was disbarred for his perjury! Bill Clinton lying is not a right-wing talking point. It is a FACT.

Now calling Obama's plan to address social security by raising the cap on social security taxable income "a trillion-dollar tax hike"? THAT's a right-wing talking point.

More hypocrisy from the Clintons pushing me further and further away from supporting Hillary in the general if only to purge the disgusting, lying, self-entitled Clintons from the party so I do not have to be ashamed to be a Democrat with them as the head of my party.

Georgia P wrote on January 21, 2008 1:38 PM:

Oh yes, this is something that Bill would never do! No, no, no, Bill would never resort to such tactics. Yeah right. The clintons are hypocrities. They are digging their own grave....

Keith wrote on January 21, 2008 1:39 PM:

Greg:

Please tell me you laugh out loud when he said that. Please.

Audacious_One wrote on January 21, 2008 1:39 PM:

Wolfson also repeated the claim he's made elsewhere that Obama's criticism of Bill was born of frustration out of losses in New Hampshire and Nevada.

Then why are numerous high ranking UNDECIDED democrats begging President Clinton to quiet down and pull back?

sue wrote on January 21, 2008 1:39 PM:

New Obama ad.

Inspiring:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1385609375

JEM wrote on January 21, 2008 1:40 PM:

This is the first time I've posted on here, but this disgusts me. It has now become a 'right wing talking point' to even suggest that Bill is playing fast and loose with facts in a political race? And after the Clinton camp, of course without a peep from Krugman or the folks at Open Left or MyDD, sends out thousands of leaflets aping right wing talking points on taxes and social security. Are you kidding me?!? As opposed to some, I put my beliefs ahead of any political party and will be sitting this one out in November if Hillary wins the Democratic nod through slime and blatant nepotism.

Eric wrote on January 21, 2008 1:41 PM:

They can't address Obama's charge, instead going for the schoolyard reverse taunt, "no, you're a liar!" That's pretty sad.

Thing is, the right wing attacks stuck, and in a major way, since Bill Clinton definitely did lie - her purjured in front of the whole world where a single moment of honesty would have changed the course of history for the better.

What's crazy is the last several weeks ahve proven the right wing smears, if harsh in invective, were absolutely right about the character of the Clintons. They will leave bodies in their wake. They are not nice people. They care only for themselves.

I am not cheered by yet another 8 years of mendacious government.

byteb wrote on January 21, 2008 1:41 PM:

Isn't today the anniversary of the beginning of the Monica Mess? For students of irony, I think it's somehow fitting that Wolfson picked today to characterize any talk of Bill Clinton lying a right wing talking point.

Common Sense wrote on January 21, 2008 1:42 PM:

Audacious_One:

Cause they are frustrated because Obama lost. Or they are spouting right wing talking points. Or, um . . . all we know is that it will never, ever, ever, ever, be because the Clintons were in the wrong. Ever.

I think it is safe to say that the words "integrity" and "responsibility" get no play in the Clinton camp.

debatepro wrote on January 21, 2008 1:42 PM:

They use the blame the victim for standing up for themselves strategy.

Clinton(s) - attacks Obama with lies (right-wing technique) obama responds (he must be using a rightwing talking point) Lie is a Lie... if he responds... it's defending the truth and fighting lies... if that is a rightwing talking point then we are all doomed.

Clinton(s) interjects race into the campaign... obama responds... he is playing the race card...

This is exactly what we all need if you want to live in a cantankerous society that encourages claims without data or warrants.

Ryno wrote on January 21, 2008 1:42 PM:

if the shoe fits, bill. if the shoe fits.

JEM wrote on January 21, 2008 1:43 PM:

Also, where are Al, Ted, etc on this? They need to stop pushing back in private and finally do so publicly. It is disgusting to see the standard bearer of the Democratic Party take such glee in attacking another Democrat during the nominating process.

jjcoop wrote on January 21, 2008 1:44 PM:

Are they all such douchebags? I thought maybe it was only Penn.

kjoe wrote on January 21, 2008 1:44 PM:

The Clintons will continue to give this response to all criticism because it works.

The media buy it, the people buy it. It is wrong, but it works.

I do not know what Obama can do.

I hope he finds a way.

Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:45 PM:

As a two time voter for Bill Clinton, I am getting more and more disgusted with him and Hillary's attacks of Obama.

They have distorted Obama's comments about Reagan. Obama said Reagan RAN at a time that American's needed a new direction. Because of that FACT - he was able to capture both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICAN votes.

Bill Clinton did NOT win by getting both Republican and Democratic votes.

They distorted Obama's stance on the Iraq war - parsing his words.

Their supporters are spreading wild accusations about OBama's name and his religion that's all been proven false.

Why can't the Clinton's --AND I MEAN THE CLINTONS --(apparantly Hillary can't run on her OWN record as OBama has to) run on Bill's record instead of stepping on Obama with personal attacks?

I'm so ashamed of them..They are the ones playing with GOP politics.

referen wrote on January 21, 2008 1:48 PM:

Noting that Bill Clinton tells lies is a "right wing talking point"???????

"I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky" was the truth????? Great stars above! Bill surrendered his Arkansas law license for nothing and perjury was never an issue in the impeachment.

Bill Clinton explaining to us how he actually (albeit very quietly) opposed going into Iraq, in spite of the fact that his wife voted for it. Yeah, sure.

David Geffen was right when he said "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." The worse thing about the Clintons is they don't even realize what they're doing. They'll say anything at all, no matter how much of a whopper, to win an election.

Seems to me they'd be just as capable of lying about WMD to get this country into war as George W. Bush is. Different party, same sleaze.

d matthews wrote on January 21, 2008 1:49 PM:

bottom line look up the definition of DLC ON WIKiPEDIA fro the short explanation.
do you want that (gop-lite) or something and someone ObamA, who really can bring about Real and Significant change.
as a woman, of course if the choice was between a man and a woman who would both be good for all of our futures i'd choose the woman.

but our only choice for real hope and change is a man.

i cant find what i and the country needs in the Billary tag team of a man and a woman.

Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:50 PM:

I think Bill's attacks are wearing thin in the electorate at large, personally. I guess we'll see, but I don't see any major movement for Hillary in the polls...in fact, pollster has Obama continuing to raise, and Hillary largely stagnant/falling, still.

In NH, it was said that the Clintons decided not to go negative b/c they were afraid of early blowback, since negative campaigning usually take a little way for the charges to stick.

But then they went negative anyway.

I think we're actually seeing the opposite here. B/c of Bill's and Hillary's stature in the party, their negative attacks are given immediate weight from the voters...but the longer they linger/go on, the more they start to be perceived as just same-old political slime.

So the outburst of negativity worked in NH and may have helped in Nevada (actually, it seems that the AFSCME just out-organized the Culinary Workers in Clark County, and Obama won everywhere else)...but in the nation writ large, it doesn't seem to be helping them at all.

I think they may end up hoisted on their own petard.

John Y. wrote on January 21, 2008 1:52 PM:

The idea that Obama uses "right wing talking points" is ridiculous. Accusing him of that is a textbook example of the Rovian politics of aiming at your opponent's strongest point. If anything, Obama has a better liberal record than Bill OR Hillary. I mean, Hillary wants a freaking flag-burning amendment for Chrissake!
I'm at a place politically that I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd be at: I'm sick to death of the Clintons. So please Bill, STFU and go away. You're destroying OUR party.

Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:52 PM:

The really sad part about all this attacking and reacting is....Hillary COULD have been a fine President. Instead, she and Bill are showing their TRUE colors.

At one point I was willing to vote for any Dem over any Repub. Now I'm not so sure.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Karen wrote on January 21, 2008 1:54 PM:

The Clintons, and all the morally challenged losers they surround themselves with, are a cancer and must be purged from the Democratic party forever. Hopefully we will do it now, in this primary season. If not, count me among the growing sea of voices saying that we will purge the Clintons from politics in November. The long term interests of the party are more important than their greedy, self interested power grab.

NoVa Dem wrote on January 21, 2008 1:54 PM:

This makes me sick!

I have voted for every single Democratic Presidential candidate since McGovern in 1972, but I am seriously conflicted about what I will do if Hillary is the nominee of the party.

I have so much respect for Barack Obama, and am disgusted to see the Clinton campaign turning the attack dogs (aka Wolfson, Penn) loose.

Good luck, Barack. Let's hope sanity and reason prevail.

anon wrote on January 21, 2008 1:55 PM:

Kos ha accused obama of the same thing in regards to kerry and gore.

obama the big cry baby! if you cant take the heat....

Tom wrote on January 21, 2008 1:55 PM:

This is why the whole "right wing talking point" charge is so ridiculous.
Just because the right wing called Bill on his lying in the past doesn't make it a "right wing talking point" for Obama or anyone else to do it now.

grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 1:55 PM:

Wow, just like their supporters, if you call the Clintons out on their lies, you are accused of being a Republican. Can the hypocrisy get any thicker??

No jackass, Bill HAS been lying and distorting Obama's comments, that is a fact. Calling Bill a liar is not a GOP trick, if he is lying, he is lying, that's it. Just because the GOP in the '90s called Bill a liar (oh, and they were RIGHT for once!!!) doesn't mean that everyone challenging Bill Clinton's truthfulness is a Republican.

And GOP talking points??????? Is this for real?! This coming from the same Clinton campaign who dropped mailers saying Obama is going to raise your taxes? This coming from the Clinton campaign that suggested that if you don't elect Hillary we may be attacked by terrorists?? This coming from the same Clinton campaign that suggested that Obama was too liberal on gun control to be electable?? Hillary is the QUEEN of GOP tactics and talking points, give me a damn break! This is so ridiculous it would be funny if so much weren't on the line, and if so many people weren't ignorant enough to believe it!

The hypocrisy is astounding...seriously...astounding.

Jake wrote on January 21, 2008 1:56 PM:

Oh, isn't this rich. Keep going Bill! Eventually everyone will see you for what you truly are.

Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:56 PM:

We've had 8 years of Vice President George HW Bush
We've had 4 years of President George HW Bush
We've had 5 years of Governor George W. Bush in Texas
We've had 8 years of President Bill Clinton
We've had 7 years of Senator Hillary Clinton
We've had almost 8 years of President George W. Bush

How many more years should we continue to believe that the Bush and Clinton families are the only ones that can LEAD OUR NATION? Must we experience another 4 to 8 years of the Clinton family running our country?

Whether you consider them good or bad years -- surely you have to wonder WHY do we feel the need to have these two families in Charge? Are there no other human beings capable?

Wake up America. You and I have been under a spell for over 28 years. Why must we have a King or Queen running our nation?

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

blackstar wrote on January 21, 2008 1:57 PM:

random Clinton Campaign Bullshit Autoresponse Generator Answer #2: "right-wing attack". at least they're renewing an old staple, now i'm just waiting to see when Answer #1: "it looks like Senator Obama is abandoning the 'politics of hope'..." comes up next.

why doesn't TPM do an ACTUAL story on this situation, e.g. an objective analysis of who is distorting whom? hey you never know, maybe the Clintons have this one right. but if they don't, and Obama's remarks are accurate, everyone would note that the Clintons believe factual statements about reality to be "right-wing talking points".

td wrote on January 21, 2008 1:58 PM:

Dear God, when do we declare the Clintons a cult so people can get help?

I've been a Democrat for 30 years. I voted for Clinton both times. I've told my husband for 10 years he was irrational in his Clinton hatred and most of the stuff he said about them was regurgitating Rush, but I'm rapidly starting to think I was wrong.

When this started I was for Obama but happy to support whoever won. Not anymore. I could care less about the party, I'm voting to support the country and Hillary will not get my vote if she wins the primary through republican tactics. America is BETTER than this.

Publicus wrote on January 21, 2008 1:58 PM:

For those watching at home, any suggestion, no matter how valid, that the Clintons are being less than forth right, will be dismissed as right wing talking points. Don't argue, just go with it.

Can someone hand me a barf bag?

Billybob wrote on January 21, 2008 1:59 PM:

The Clintons are such victims. Hillary is a victim of an unfair plan to allow caucusing in casinos. She is the victim of having her dedication to Civil Rights questioned. She is the victim of being born a woman. She is the victim of unfair media. Bill is the victim of people who question his honesty. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", anyone?) Please, dear God, make this never-ending drama go away.

Hillary as president would not be a victory for womens rights. It would be a victory for people who take no responsibilty for their actions because they constantly believe they have been wronged.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 1:59 PM:

New Obama ad.

"Inspiring"

Scientific wrote on January 21, 2008 1:59 PM:

Once again, the Clinton machine makes it clear - if you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not with us, you must be a right-winger. What a sick insult to American voters everywhere.

Pepp wrote on January 21, 2008 1:59 PM:

WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Bill got a blower and lied about it and therefore is lying about OBama. Reason number 5 Senator Obama is LOSING this competition.

La Wanda wrote on January 21, 2008 2:00 PM:

I saw Senator Obama at the Ebenezer church here in Atlanta. He kept saying "we"...He is from Hawaii, what does he know of my experience here in Auburn. The Senator needs to come out with a plan I can comprehend, not just generalities. Until then he's just more wind. Another revival tent.

Bil Clinton balanced the budget. Kept us out of major wars. Had some good s*x and doesn't preach to me. Senator Clinton was correct that I don't need false hopes, I have my own faith to get me by, I don't need another politician. My kids are plenty hopeful.

The Obama people need to get out more...all this anger is just like Sean Hannity and crew...

Jake wrote on January 21, 2008 2:01 PM:

This is how they act when competing with by all accounts a very honorable and inspiring fellow Democrat. Imagine how they will act when under fire from Republicans over the next four years.

No thanks. No freaking thanks.

John Petty wrote on January 21, 2008 2:01 PM:

It's always fun to see the Obamabots work themselves into high dudgeon.

It reminds me of the Manichaes of the first century. Our man is the epitome of all that is good and holy. The other side is pure evil.

You can tell they haven't been around politics very long.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:01 PM:

Can Hillary pull off a south carolina win???.... well thats not what the polls show but then again, they have been wrong before.

Arg poll: Obama: 45%....Clinton: 39%

Survey USA poll: Obama: 46%...Clinton:36%

Rasmussien poll: Obama: 44%..Clinton: 31%

Mason-Dixon: Obama: 40%.... Clinton: 31%

Insider Advantage: Obama:41%..Clinton:31%

Here is what i think:

Obama: 47%
Clinton: 30%

that will be the total when south carolina voters go out to vote.

DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 2:01 PM:

Sure, Bill is not a lier. On the other hand, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Sure, this isn't a dynasty. On the other hand, "I will not have some reporter thumbing through our papers. We are the president." This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I ever saw.

hmmmm wrote on January 21, 2008 2:02 PM:

Is Obama running against Bill?

grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 2:02 PM:

Pepp, no, actually, Bill is being accused of lying about Obama because he is lying about Obama, those are the facts, how about you pay attention a little bit before you post on here. No one is saying that the only reason to think Bill is lying is because he lied before. In fact, the Hillary campaign are the ones making the Lewinsky connection here.

JubleJohnson wrote on January 21, 2008 2:03 PM:

Eric wrote on January 21, 2008 1:41 PM:
I am not cheered by yet another 8 years of mendacious government.

******Eric it seems that's where we are heading,some Americans for whatever reason are willing to vote for HClinton regardless of the lieing & gutter tactics exhibited by the Clintons.In short it's up to us the electorate to reject this crap i.e:just don't vote for candidates that conduct 'emselves this way.With such tactics if HClinton is atop the ticket she won't need the votes of the many who find their tactics disgusting.

It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 21, 2008 2:04 PM:

It's time for all Democrats to think about the long-term prospects of the party. It's been a long time since US politics has had such a destabilizing convergence of economy issues, energy issues, and no clear leadership. Go back to the 1856 election and watch how the Whigs imploded and the Dems split, giving the "3rd party" candidate in the 1860 election the victory.

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, it's time to make the Clintons move on: for the party, which can ill-afford to lose this presidential election when it is for the asking and for the country, which can ill-afford the notion of concentrations of power than become entrenched and corrupt. In that sense, the Clintons are no different than the Bushes. Many of W's dealings were aided by the contacts that GHWB made while president (and before) -- leading to massive foreign corruption of US politics (see also, energy dealings with the Mid-East). The Clintons are a set-up for the same situation.

It's time for people to recognize that the world is very complex and that all politicians are human. Regardless of how pure the Clintons are (and I don't think they are), it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely. HRC can still fight for the country indefinitely in one of the most exclusive jobs in the country: the Senate. That should be good enough.

I urge everyone to vote for the candidate in the primary that has the most chance of derailing the "inevitability" of a HRC White House run in the GE. Already, too many people decided not to run in the primaries because of her perceived invincibility. This is not representative democracy, it's a sense of entitlement. Bill Clinton on the campaign trail shows little understanding that as an ex-President, he is a public servant of the American people, representing everyone... rather than just his wife.

one wrote on January 21, 2008 2:04 PM:

Is Wolfson wolfing? Is was earlier called shucking and jiving?
A post from another blog explains:
The following observed that Bill is over whatever top your prefer:

Newshour(PBS Mark Shields), Inside Washington(PBS); Fox on Sunday( The Whole Crew, Yes, Kristol too), etc. Diversity you say! On this one Josh was a bit slow on the draw. Narturally, all of these folks are not sucking and jiving, one might say!

Yes, I did forget Newsweek!
Finally, is Vernon Jordan in South Carolina, and if so why?

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:04 PM:

"Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 1:45 PM:
As a two time voter for Bill Clinton, I am getting more and more disgusted with him and Hillary's attacks of Obama."

Same here.

What is going on with Bill? Isn't Hillary still in the lead?

Coonsey wrote on January 21, 2008 2:04 PM:

BILL CLINTON BALANCE THE BUDGET???? Excuse me, but it IS Hillary that is running for President isn't it?

Oh...I forgot....she's just his PROXY.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

P.S.
Go to Obama's site - you'll see all sorts of actual PLANS and GOALs. He's ready and willing.

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 21, 2008 2:05 PM:

How much easier is it to call Clinton a liar than
to address what he says. The Republicans tried
to blunt the Clinton presidency be calling
him a liar. Obama, and his supporters, wants his
votes for the Iraq War, identical to Hillary's while they
have been in the Senate together, to be ignored.

Clinton's statements about Obama's record has been
closer to accurate than the spin given to
the Clintons' and their supporters' statements about
Obama.

While the three Democrats have very similar policies
as Paul Krugman has pointed out Obama is the least
progressive of the three thus his main claim to
the Presidency, besides his race, is opposition to the War
in Iraq. That is just not as clear cut as he and the Press
would like to make it appear.

blackstar wrote on January 21, 2008 2:05 PM:

I saw Senator Obama at the Ebenezer church here in Atlanta. He kept saying "we"...He is from Hawaii, what does he know of my experience here in Auburn.

The Senator needs to come out with a plan I can comprehend, not just generalities.

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

most of his use of "we" was the American "we", not the African-American "we". unless you don't think Hawaii (and Chicago, since he's lived there nearly as long) counts as America.

you need to look at his plans. they are readily available, often in great detail, on his website. you can obviously use the internet. i suggest you do so in a productive way, rather than decry the fact that a candidate isn't spoon feeding (perhaps force feeding?) you their policy.

ac-n-nc wrote on January 21, 2008 2:06 PM:

I am beginning to not like Obama very much at all. Also, his supporters are eerily a lot like republican supporters, mean and nasty while slinging right-wing slurs . To use right wing slurs, from "a vast right wing conspiracy to bring down a President from the opposing party' is wrong on many levels not the least of which, he (Bill Clinton) was the best President of my lifetime and some democrats are using phony arguments from a phony investigation against him. I let God judge his morals as you should also .

mari wrote on January 21, 2008 2:07 PM:

Why remind us of the Republicans calling him a liar in the 90s? Do they not remember that the Republicans were actually right and he had to eventually go on national television and tell the entire country that he had been lying to them repeatedly? Not to mention lying to a grand jury? Why remind us of that? This is the same kind of crap he said in the 90s when he was lying! He whined and said the GOP is trying to smear me, they are making up liieesss! Ooops, turns out you were lying Bill...and apparently you still have the same strategy: If you lie, and people accuse you of lying, claim evil right wing conspiracy.

Lol, apparently the lying is a bit pathological.

Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 2:08 PM:

On the one hand I think the Clintons have shown that they are indeed quite experienced at attack-dog politics. They've been making the argument that this experience is a point in her favor, and it certainly seems to be helping her win the nomination so I guess I can't disagree.

On the other hand, even though I am a passionately partisan Democrat, I don't think I'll be able to vote for Hillary in November anymore. Hard for me to believe, but I just don't think I could stomach it after what I've seen the past few weeks.

Ji wrote on January 21, 2008 2:09 PM:

Wolfson:

I'm a Democrat. If your boss (is that Bill or HRC, sometimes I forget...) gets the nomination, I may have to cross party-line (Bloomberg run, perhaps?) and vote for a 3d party candidate (or Mitt Romney--if he's the nominee--though I'm not a very big fan).

Here's why: I'm tired of machine like politics, I'm tired of the smears, and most importantly, I'm tired of Bill and HRC mischaracterizing/lying about Obama. Wolfson, do yourself a favor, ask yourself if you're the Democrat; ask yourself if you are the one using Republican methods to win the nomination.

Go Obama!

Nigel Aimes wrote on January 21, 2008 2:09 PM:

I'm a strong Obama supporter (though I'll vote for Clinton if it comes to that). I like Clinton's wonkishness and work ethic, but I'd feel queasy about a return to the 90s. I also think it's pretty sucky that Obama effectively has to campaign against two presidential candidates.

That's why I'm thinking his Reagan remarks might have been a deliberate attempt to goad Bill into a rage. Remember, he said that Reagan changed the trajectory "in a way that Bill Clinton did not."

Now, to someone with Bill's massive ego, that's gotta hurt. He's already been outspoken and passionate in Iowa and NH, and suddenly to have this presumptious upstart, this whippersnapper belittle his presidential record. How dare he?

And then Obama goes on to disparage, yes disparage, the 60s and 70s, and says he's not as "invested" in that generation as some of those ... er, well, hippies. I mean, those old fogies are always saying it's a big deal (eg Camille Paglia). But Obama, he's all, whatever.

So the big dog goes just over the top (as do much of the liberal blogosphere, from authentic dirty long-haired hippies like digby to those close to the times, like Rick Perlstein, to those younger activists who subscribe to its combatant view of politics). After all, these are our foundational dogmas he's trampling all over.

So Bill finds a reporter and lays into him. And Obama lets it fester for a bit, while everybody realizes he's the kind of guy who'll tell the home truths to the ultimate liberal base: the bloggers (and Paul Krugman).

And hopefully, Bill will spiral very publicly out of control, tarnishing his reputation and Hillary's campaign.

It's a high-risk strategy for Obama, but no one ever said he wasn't audacious.

bvd wrote on January 21, 2008 2:10 PM:

Yet one more reason why I don't think I can vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. Up until a few weeks ago I would have - always have voted Dem for president since 1976. Always. This year? Not if it's her/them. I can't stomach them anymore.

Republican talking points? The Clintons have learned something from the Repugs - how to fight like lying, vicious, slimy, evil bastards. Well, since I'm not part of the Obama campaign I can do it too.

Hey Wolfson, and all you Hillary supporters? Can you guarantee us all that Bill has kept his dick in his pants the last 7 years? Can you guarantee he can keep it in his pants for the next 5? REALLY? YOU CAN???

Because he was stupid enough to do it time and time again as governor. And after being outted as a serial adulterer in '92 he was stupid enough to do it again in the White House. So I don't for a moment believe he hasn't/won't do it again. And if it comes out that's all it would take to send the country into another downward spiral, paralyze Hillary's administration and hand the WH over to the Repugs again.

How's that for Republican Talking Points? They're coming from a lifelong Democrat. One who will bolt the party for the first time ever if she gets the nomination.

But of course, the Clintons are more important than the Democratic Party OR our country.

awrbb wrote on January 21, 2008 2:10 PM:

Why should we care what any campaign manager or pollster has to say? Talking points are not news.

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:11 PM:

I marvel at all of the Clinton haters. Does anyone not remember past Bush?! Criticism aside for his personal issues, Clinton did a lot for the country--such as cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr.'s deficit.

Your Republican-like zeal for ABC is going to land you an inferior candidate like Edwards or Obama who will not survive against McCain or Huckabee.

I see reports today that even Edward's aids do not see him winning a single primary--not even his own home state! I hope he is excluded from future debates so we can get back to policy discussions, simply between Clinton and Obama.

And I wonder with Obama, what is going to come out of his ties with Rezko? Will this simply sit quietly now and then pop up later, say, if he becomes the party candidate? His rush to give the monies away doesn't change his culpability, nor make him look any less guilty (even if only by association). Consider this, you can point to Hsu and others with Clinton but people are so used to these attacks that they don't mean much any more. But hearing Obama with same IS new and at first glance, unless he can play a race card or something similar, I don't see him shaking it off.

BTW, about playing the race card. The more it gets played, the worse Obama does. A devisive Clinton wins any day over a devisive race-based candidate.

Finally, I wonder about all of the ABC talk and viciousness expressed, that truly sounds more Republican than Democratic. What are you all going to do if and when Clinton wins the nomination instead of Obama? Are you REALLY going to sit out the election? Are you going to instead vote for Huckabee, McCain, or Romney?

evie wrote on January 21, 2008 2:12 PM:

It's "interesting?" It's completely expected. What campaign have you been following?

It's the media! It's the Obama campaign! It's the VRWC!

We'll see just how far they go with this talking point. It's a dangerous, dangerous issue for them. Even their most ardent supporters know that Clintons are liars. We just never thought they'd use the tactic against a good Dem.

I suspect this talking point will go the way of, "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?"

jim wrote on January 21, 2008 2:12 PM:

Anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush is part of the Vast Conspiracy of the Liberal Media. Sound familiar? The Clintons have really just become carbon copies of the Bushies.

slomike wrote on January 21, 2008 2:12 PM:

These comments seem written by Rushbots. We are in a campaign. Sift through charges and counter charges. Hillary can do the job. Bill did the job. Reagan was Bush without a Republican legislature. I'll take a straying functioning president and a forgiving spuse over publicly sanctimonious, compassionate Kunbaya do nothings every time.

Jen wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

Well... this is discouraging... yet another example of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"....? My goodness, it must be vast if Obama is somehow now a part of it...

These clowns will not be content until they have squashed the heart and the soul of the Democratic party.

Note to morons... put a sock in it! Please!

trishb wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

I'm sooo switching to independent if Hillary wins the nomination. I don't know which is worse, being associated with nasty Clinton campaign tactics, or being associated with the way too large chunk of the Democratic party who constantly lie (or maybe they really are that stupid and don't know any better, it's hard to say) and smear other candidates to help Bill and Hillary get back into the White House. Really I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat right now for a few reasons, and I refuse to be associated in the future with such ignorance or liars.

Dearest wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

If they were brilliant, I'd say that the billaries are running a campaign a la Karl Rove. They are not brilliant, but the tactics, the meanness, the lies, and the ideology are rather similar to the Bush campaign in 2000.

JimS wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

Not Fair!
Why is everyone so mean to Obama. He is so nice. I loved him since I saw him on the cover of GQ. Would Hillary ever be on the cover of any fashion magazine? I rest my case.
Please please please be nice to Obama. I know the Pope will put him on 'fast track' for sainthood as soon as he is dead.
He is so nice.

Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

I look forward to the next debate, when I hope someone ssks Obama what exactly he thinks about Ronald Reagan. Maybe we can settle that issue once and for all. He had a chance to settle it this morning, but he chose another route.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:13 PM:

The Clintons will discover the effects of this kind of campaigning come November. Mr. and Mrs. Piggy can go to market, while Obama's toes can stay home.

RaymondA wrote on January 21, 2008 2:14 PM:

Greg--You did not pin down Wolfson on the matter on which Bill most clearly lied. Bill said that the Obama campaign ran a radio ad asking Republicans to switch parties "for a day" and then switch back. That is a complete and total falsehood, and Greg allowed Wolfson to misdirect by referencing the isolated precinct captain. Bill Clinton did not stop at saying that "an Obama supporter" urged Repubs to switch for a day, he said that the Obama campaign ran radio ads to that effect. There are no shades of gray here; that was a simple lie. Don't let the sharky Wolfson get away with it.

Tom wrote on January 21, 2008 2:16 PM:

Your Republican-like zeal for ABC is going to land you an inferior candidate like Edwards or Obama who will not survive against McCain or Huckabee.

LOL. Put down the Kool Aid and step away from the computer.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:17 PM:

Moment o' pedantry: Bill Clinton was disbarred for lying under oath (which he admitted). Not quite the same thing as perjury, which requires that the statement be material to the proceedings. Clinton has never been convicted of perjury.

wglad wrote on January 21, 2008 2:17 PM:

If he loses the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama may owe that loss to a single day, when, offered the chance to shut down Hillary Clinton on the war issue, he chose instead to interject his race into the campaign. Responding to Mr. Obama's comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and thinking on her feet, Mrs. Clinton let the Obama/King comparison stand and associated herself with Lyndon Johnson. At that moment, the Obama campaign could have tied Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq and her style of governance to President Johnson's failed adventure in Viet Nam, permanently destroying her with the Democratic anti-war base and establishing Mr. Obama as the peace candidate. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to characterize her remarks as denigrating Dr. King. It's ironic that Mr. Obama's downfall may be his inexperience, not in office, but on the campaign trail.

Keith wrote on January 21, 2008 2:18 PM:

I see the Hillbots are out trying to reinforce this message. On its face, most rationale folks think its a stupid argument they are making. But let's all step back for a moment and remember that whatever we think of the Clintons, they are extremely bright folks and they are very good at what they do. So there's a reason they've adopted this counter-intuitive strategy.

Perhaps they think they will bait Obama into a full blown argument about what was said. That it will distract him, much like the lawsuit in Nevada, from the organizational realities on the ground. Maybe they just believe that it will resonate with the Democratic base and play into the notion that Obama is a Republican in drag.

Maybe it's all those things, but there is definitely a method to their madness. I don't have any answer, but the question is what aim is served by trotting this out today....

Bill wrote on January 21, 2008 2:18 PM:

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but never voted for Bill - couldn 't bring myself to stoop so low as to vote for someone who cynically used the execution of a mentally-impaired African American man (i.e., Ricky Rector) to advance his first presidential campaign. I've had it with his assumption that he has the 'right' to participate in the campaign with personal attacks on another candidate - Obama - to advance his wife's candidacy. He has a responsibility as a former president to step back. He's an exceptionally selfish and self-centered politician. Why in the world would anyone want him back in the White House, albeit as "first gentleman". For him (and for Hillary it would seem) politics consists simply in what he/she can deliver - politics as nothing more than bureaucratic servicing of constituents - how depressing. Obama seems to have some richer understanding of the possibilities of politics.

Mike Phillips wrote on January 21, 2008 2:20 PM:

Is there anything that isnt a right wing talking point?

dbh wrote on January 21, 2008 2:20 PM:

Hey Greg, you didn't pin him down at the apparent lies? You didn't make him back up Bill's statements about the war. This is he said/he said journalism, no?

mandy wrote on January 21, 2008 2:20 PM:

The Clinton campaign makes me ashamed to be a Democrat. I used to respect Bill Clinton, despite his personal foibles. But, now, everyone from Sen. Clinton to President Clinton to the increasingly slimy surrogates they have surrounding them have really left me disgusted and angry.

We've had a president for the last 8 years who will not listen to reason and cannot acknowledge his own mistakes. We do not need another one.

The Clintons have illustrated that winning is the most important thing to them, no matter what the cost, no matter how insincere or dishonest it requires them to be, and no matter what it does to the Democratic party. As a woman, I wish I could proud that the first viable female candidate has the possibility of winning the presidency, but in reality, Sen. Clinton's campaign has done nothing to further the positions of either Democrats generally or women, in my opinion. In fact, she probably harms both in the long run. She relies on her "bad cop" husband and slick men in her campaign to do her dirty work, and then hurls baseless accusations at the one candidate who truly has a chance to unify the country and bring a new generation of Democrats to the party. It's shameful.

DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 2:20 PM:

"I marvel at all of the Clinton haters. Does anyone not remember past Bush?! Criticism aside for his personal issues, Clinton did a lot for the country--such as cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr.'s deficit."

Tell me again, which Clinton is running for president? It's an election folks, not a time machine. The 90's are in the past and it's time to move on...

Michael's Mom wrote on January 21, 2008 2:21 PM:

DON'T BE FOOLED!

They don't believe it. They say it because everyone will go ape shit about it for days on end, again sucking up the media air while they tend to the shenanigans under radar.

This is provocation meant to distract from what will be a nasty campaign to steal SC. They don't care how they do it, but you just wait, they will try to pull off a Southern style rig of SC so that Obama is left to contest the voting irregularities or not. They mean to show him his place, and they mean it seriously.

IGNORE! Look at the weeds not the forest!

LDuncan wrote on January 21, 2008 2:22 PM:

Watch for the Clintons to start getting really really nice to Obama if there comes a point when their polls tell them they are going to win. They will want him to serve as VP to repair the astounding damage they have done to the Clinton brand in the black community. Four weeks ago I would have said Obama should take it out of loyalty to the party. Now I say the Clintons don't deserve to have Obama launder their filthy brand of politics.

brad wrote on January 21, 2008 2:22 PM:

Jesus, I almost forgot about this. Every time you call either of them out on a half-truth, it's a "right wing talking point".

What next, is Hootie and the Blowfish coming back? Is Sugar Ray releasing a new album? What other long forgotten annoyances await?

Jim J wrote on January 21, 2008 2:23 PM:

Lordie, I haven't heard this many nasty Monica jokes since Free Republic circa 1998. I was under the impression this was a liberal blog. Sorry to have bothered anyone; I'll be on my way now.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 2:23 PM:

The echo in here is deafening.

Jeezus.

lombard wrote on January 21, 2008 2:23 PM:

wglad wrote:

"At that moment, the Obama campaign could have tied Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq and her style of governance to President Johnson's failed adventure in Viet Nam, permanently destroying her with the Democratic anti-war base and establishing Mr. Obama as the peace candidate. Instead, Mr. Obama chose to characterize her remarks as denigrating Dr. King. It's ironic that Mr. Obama's downfall may be his inexperience, not in office, but on the campaign trail."

Yes, that would have been an ingenious parallel and one that might have worked far better. And, she would have walked right into it. Instead, he resorted to old fashioned pandering and damaged his credibility as a "new" kind of politician.

Kefa wrote on January 21, 2008 2:23 PM:

Matthew....Don't you know this is the Obama network.....the Official Obama Network. Lol.

JPL wrote on January 21, 2008 2:24 PM:

According to the http://www.ajc.com/ President Clinton was the only audience member who did not stand to applaud Mayor Franklin's speech at the MLK service today. Wolfson will probably have more explaining to do.

Publicus wrote on January 21, 2008 2:25 PM:

I think that's right Michael's Mom. This response is designed to inflame the media and the netroots as we argue over whether or not this is a dumbass or valid argument (it's a dumbass argument). Just like we argue the last week over whether Clinton had anything to do with the lawsuit, or whether Obama said the things the Clintons said he said (he didn't). All of which served as a distraction to what was happening on the ground.

Now we'll see if the MSM can resist the nice shiny object they just pulled out of the box.

ga medic wrote on January 21, 2008 2:25 PM:

I voted for Clinton too, and thought he was a great president. He had his terms, and he is done. What I don't like about how this campaign is evolving is how Hillary lost in Iowa, and it seems like Bill is bailing her out. He is the one causing all the publicity and getting the attention. I don't know if that is what is translating into votes or not. It does seem to me that Hillary got into a jam, and her husband is saving her.

I have some hesitation in voting for Obama, because his experience is limited. I do know that he has many specific policies on his website. (Honestly, more than I could process) The argument that he is all happy speeches is false. I haven't decided yet who I will vote for, but I don't like the way things are going.

DRinOH wrote on January 21, 2008 2:25 PM:

Here's my favorite: "Hillary can do the job. Bill did the job." That's some awesome logic.

"Reagan was Bush without a Republican
legislature." Again with the criticism of Obama for saying Reagan was effective when she has it up on her own site that Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.

Note also that he said Reagan was transformational - not in a good or bad way - which is certainly true. Ever heard of Reagan democrats? Also, he said Republicans were the party of ideas - not necessarily good ones - which also true since Dems haven't passed significant legislation since Bill cost us both houses of the legislature early on in the 90's.

It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 21, 2008 2:26 PM:

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:11 PM:

I marvel at all of the Clinton haters. Does anyone not remember past Bush?! Criticism aside for his personal issues, Clinton did a lot for the country--such as cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr.'s deficit.

Yes, I remember the Clinton years:

a) The government took in HUGE revenue because of the stock market tech bubble. Remember all the paper millionaires? This, more than anything, got the budget under control. (Presidents like to claim some control on the economy but in truth, they don't (except for the recent follies of W spending US treasure in Iraq in a pointless struggle). However, I was very happy that the recession of '92 helped defeat GHWB -- but I didn't think GHWB caused the recession.)

2) I remember the paralysis of government and the shut-down. I remember Bill abandoning most things and developing triangulation to work with a hostile Congress. A Congress that was elected to help curb the budget. Triangulation is good once you get into office. HRC applying triangulation to get into office means she has no point of view she finds worth defending.

3) I remember the government derailed by a stupid impeachment trial *caused by Clinton*. As a Democrat who twice voted for Clinton, you have to realize that had Bill C developed a decent working relationship with Congressional Democrats, he wouldn't have had the GOP all over him like that. Nixon, who committed actual crimes, had more support from his GOP relationships for a longer period of time!

Yes, I remember the 90's. I did very well financially. And I still don't want Hillary (or Bill) back. She has yet to apologize or explain her vote on Iraq (like Edwards did). We don't need that kind of polarizing arrogance in the White House again.

If the Dems can't find someone besides a Clinton to rally around, the GOP gets my vote (unless it's Huckabee who truly scared me).

At this point, it's important to send a statement that we follow non-dynasty politics. Eight years was enough for George Washington, it should be enough for the Clintons.

NamelessFaceless wrote on January 21, 2008 2:26 PM:

I second the call for an objective analysis of who's in the right. I've heard enough (justified) complaining about how, in a Democratic v. Republican contest, the Republican throw out a lie after lie yet the press treats it as he said/her said. TPM, do your readers a favor and instead of just reporting what lackeys say, evaluate the truth of their statements. Don't be like the mainstream media that you so deservedly skewer.

Near as I can tell, this one isn't even a close contest. Bill Clinton made a bunch of statements that contained a series of half-truths, lies, and weasel words (technically true but used to deceive). But hey, if I'm wrong, by all means have the analysis to set me straight.

Not only that, but the Clinton camp has been operating like the GOP. It seems that if there's one thing Hillary Rodham Clinton has learned in all of her "experience" its how the Right Wing attack machine works and how best to emulate it. (See, for example, the abortion mailers in NH. Once even Hillary's backers learned the truth about Obama's position, they expressed remorse at complained that they themselves were deceived by Clinton.)

Enough of the he said/they said. Get the facts.

PS--Does anyone else find it disgraceful that Bill Clinton would debase his position as the leader of the Democratic Party and distinguished former President to attack a fellow Democrat? I mean, he was against the war (he says so, so it must be true, right?) yet he didn't make a peep when the lives of our soldiers were at stake. But somehow being a partisan hack taking down Obama with falsehoods and lies is a worthy enough cause to speak out?

Jack in Atlanta wrote on January 21, 2008 2:27 PM:

While I agreed with the Article, the black woman who stated she saw Obama at Ebenezer caused me to respond. She initially started criticizing Obama for waying "we," and not having a clue to her life in Auburn. Not two sentences later, she is saying how "I" do not need hope, "My" chlidren are fine. On MLK day, she really has missed the mark. She is like the doubters who were at the Mall on Washington when King gave the famous speech. They missed it then, and she is missing it now. How sad it is when this woman is unable to see that Barack is what MLK was dreaming about 40 years ago. I realize that she is not sleeping, but rather in a coma. For those of you who are not comatose and still shopping around, wake up and look to the future. Put old wine in new skins. I dare you.

lombard wrote on January 21, 2008 2:28 PM:

awrbb wrote on January 21, 2008 2:10 PM:

"Why should we care what any campaign manager or pollster has to say? Talking points are not news."

That is the most sensible thing I've read here in weeks.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:28 PM:

LDuncan wrote on January 21, 2008 2:22 PM:

Watch for the Clintons to start getting really really nice to Obama if there comes a point when their polls tell them they are going to win. They will want him to serve as VP to repair the astounding damage they have done to the Clinton brand in the black community. Four weeks ago I would have said Obama should take it out of loyalty to the party. Now I say the Clintons don't deserve to have Obama launder their filthy brand of politics.

If He says no....he will be forgotted...have a voting record.....someone else will take his place....he will be 9 years older. He'd better suck up and say yes to Madem Prez.

Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 2:29 PM:

RaymondA,

True, the radio ads in Nevada did not say to switch only "for a day". They learned their lesson on that after the video 'Barack The Vote' Democrat for a Day ads targeted for Florida last year, and the earlier Nevada flier. The implication is still there.

The overall point remains that Obama is going after Independents and Republicans to make up for what he lacks in support from Democrats. That is a legitimate strategy, but don't expect lifelong Dems to be happy about it.

RaymondA wrote on January 21, 2008 2:29 PM:

Let's do a summary of the right wing talking points Hillary regularly uses.

Number 1: If Obama is elected and the terrorists strike, like on 9/11, we should fear he won't be ready. (That was Cheney's exact argument in 2004 against Dems).

Number 2: Fixing social security by adjusting the payroll tax (rather than cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age) would require a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class." Wrong. Obama has a tax credit on payroll taxes for low income folks and is proposing an increase only on incomes over $200-250,000.

Number 3: Voting for the Levin amendment, which would have required Bush to return to Congress if he could not get security council approval for the war, is -- Hillary really said this on Tim Russert (twice) -- "giving veto power to the UN." Of course, Levin was still giving the US an opportunity to reject the UN security council, but Hillary wants to sound like a Repub on foreign policy, so she labeled the Levin amendment one giving the UN "veto power."

Number 4: Talking to foreign leaders of enemy states is a bad idea, because they can use those meetings for propaganda purposes.

I am sure there are more.

Cubstr wrote on January 21, 2008 2:30 PM:

Really? Why is it that every time Bill or Hillary, or one of their surrogates brings up something that O-Bambi says, (and puts their considerable spin on it...)it's an ATTACK?? Quit yer whining! what do you think is going to happen in the general if this no-spine mama's boy gets the nomination? Are the Republicans gonna be all nice because it might hurt his feelings? Really?

If you're so offended by the Clinton's brand of politics, why don't you just go and vote for your candidate instead of spending all of your time blogging about how unfair it is. Oh, that's right you did, and LOST THE LAST THREE PRIMARY CONTESTS! HA!

jds wrote on January 21, 2008 2:30 PM:

How on God's green earth do the Clintons (yes, plural- is there any doubt that they are BOTH running?) expect to win the general or get anything done if elected?

I AM SO SICK OF PARTISAN BULLSH!T- REPUBLICAN AND DEM!!!

Screw the Clintons. They don't care about ANYBODY or ANYTHING but getting back in to the whitehouse.

Their "Rovian" tactics of distorting someone's statements or record are EXACTLY the CHANGE Obama has referred to! Sick, old, tired, politics.

NO MORE ROVE, NO MORE CLINTONS.

Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM:

NamelessFaceless, you are right. Factchecking is definitely in order.

Rgo wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM:

i am alone when i hear a highly articulate Obama giving speeches and frequently tongue-tied in roundtables, debates, etc

Andy wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM:

The funniest thing is "A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," he said.

Obama got an equal number of delegates in NH and one more delegate in NV. A tie doesn't equal a convention win.

paDem wrote on January 21, 2008 2:32 PM:

How much of this is coming from Hill and Bill, and how much of this is just Wolfson being himself?

I'm developing a growing and intense dislike for the man. As with Mark Penn (where HAS he been lately, by the way, shoveling horse crap in the Bronx?), Wolfson as the public face of the professional staff strikes me as being, shall we say, something of a negative? Actually, he's having a hard time not being a jerk, most of the time.

Ruthless and willing to do "whatever it takes to win."

Just like the boss.

JR wrote on January 21, 2008 2:32 PM:

Sadly, I'm not surprised. When Andrew Sullivan raised his problems with Hillary Clinton on Bill Maher's show, Wesley Clark immediately accused Sullivan of using "right wing talking points." Marina Navritilova - sitting between the two - even seemed shocked at the rapidity and ferocity of Clark's assertion.

Granted, Sullivan's a conservative but how about the gentleman in Iowa who, raising questions on her Kyl-Lieberman vote, was accused by Sen. Clinton of using right wing talking points.

At a political gathering here in Chicago, when I aired why I - a lifelong liberal - could not vote for Sen. Clinton, was, yes, told I was using right wing talking points.

If Sen. Clinton's such an extraordinary candidate, why is her campaign utilizing slash-and-burn tactics rather than simply running on her allegedly-exemplary record? And why is a former President further denigrating his office by doing her dirty work? Clearly, the restoration of the Clinton Presidency is more important than comporting oneself with even a modicum of dignity.

Mark F. wrote on January 21, 2008 2:33 PM:

The Clintons are incredibly dishonest people and they're running a filthy, dishonest campaign. I'm getting so sick of the attacks and the nonsense about Hillary's "experience". She's got exactly 7 years of experience. That's it. The rest is Bill's experience (although, from the look of the campaign so far, Obama is running against Bill--not Hillary). God help us if Hillary ever needs to lead this country and Bill disagrees with her. We all know who will win THAT argument.

jd wrote on January 21, 2008 2:33 PM:

after what Clintons have gone through because of the republican smear machine, you might think that they would agree to bring a clear,fair and positive politics to the history...at least,if they really change something...

I don't think that wll happen with Clintons. brace yourselves, we are going to have another 8years-or 4-of bitter,angry,depressing, let-us-forget-what-bush-did/or let-us-move-on clintons if they are lucky enough. in reality, we'll have McCAIN. thanks for the all the fish!

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

A short follow-up. Hillary Clinton is in the campaign to win. She will rightfully do whatever it takes to win. The Democrats will equally face a Republican in the fall that will likewise do whatever it takes to win.

Edwards is already out, even if he won't admit it. Almost like Thompson's quitting speech but forgetting or not able to quite get all of the words out.

Now for Obama, I do not have any hatred for him. But as I wrote, the more he either pushes race or it becomes the issue, he loses. This isn't a racist issue at all. It is simply that if this is the only thing he offers or is preceived to offer, then he stands no chance. And yes, unfortunately, he can be painted into this position because of his inexperience and his own comments--such as not being a COO and thinking union-hating Reagan was a role-model or whatever he said or is saying (the exact words don't matter as simply picking Reagan over 2-term Clinton, a Democrat is one of those I'll remember that moment until I die things).

Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win.

Scientific wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

To JimS:

Grow up. No one's whining in a childish fashion. Obama has the right to defend himself against inaccuracies spouted by his competition. Enough with the silly, cynical comment that no one can ever say anything bad about Obama. Please. He knows what game he's in. He just wants to get the truth out. Nowhere in politics is it said that a candidate can't defend false claims about themselves or their record.

Bill R. wrote on January 21, 2008 2:36 PM:

Bill Clinton has so much integrity! In fact he thought it was more important for him to get oral sex from a young girl than it was to uphold the office of the Presidency and honor. He betrayed all of us! I volunteered in his campaign and defended him when the right wing was saying he had character problems. Well, he proved them right! His credibility is shot. He should stick with philanthropy. He is a moral sink hole and should stay out of politics.

Bret wrote on January 21, 2008 2:36 PM:

Why can't anyone question Obama's record without being called names? It is like a cult or something. This guy hasn't done anything worth noting in his life, yet he is the second coming? Bill is not lying he is telling the truth, do you think Obama invoked Reagan for nothing? He was trying to get republicans to help him win Nevada. He is a fraud. How can he say he is a uniter, when the only people he's managed to unite are black? Women, whites, Hispanics, and Jews are supporting Hillary. Why hasn't his messaged gotten him a more diverse following? He needs to stop whinning and answer some real questions.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 2:37 PM:

'Bill Clinton made a bunch of statements that contained a series of half-truths, lies, and weasel words (technically true but used to deceive).'

Is Obama's voting record re:war spending not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?

Is Obama's overall voting record not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?

Did Obama not contrast Bill Clinton's presidency to Rayguns in from of a conservative editorial board?

Is that a 'lie'?

Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 2:37 PM:

I am not sure of many things in this life, but I would bet my bottom dollar that Hillary is not going to pick Obama as her VP.

As far as racial healing goes, there are other black politicians, John Lewis and Andrew Young spring immediately to mind, who are Clinton supporters and just as qualified to be VP as Barack Obama.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 21, 2008 2:38 PM:

Oh, I almost forgot to say....

Greg Sargent has again proven himself to be a more than willing accomplice to this nonsense.

Cubstr wrote on January 21, 2008 2:38 PM:

Andy wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM

"...Obama got an equal number of delegates in NH and one more delegate in NV. A tie doesn't equal a convention win."

Why was it then, that when Obama "Crushed" Hillary in Iowa (Obama received 16 delegates; Hillary received 15; Edwards received 14), it was such a resounding defeat for her? Now it's a delegate race becuase Obama has lost the last three (2 contested) primaries? Looks like the O-Bambi crowd has been taking spin lessons from Wolfson...

JoeCHI wrote on January 21, 2008 2:38 PM:

Wolfson rocks!

denis wrote on January 21, 2008 2:39 PM:

Two points:

1) It is very concerning to see posts and talk to long term working in the trenches democrats that are saying they will not vote at all or will vote for a republican if Hillary is the Democtratic candidate.

2) We are not currently in a race for president. We are in a race to determine who will represent the Democrats in the race for president. As I understand the current process the only thing that matters is delegates to the national convention. Looking at CNN Delegate Totals, Obama has won or tied in the delegate count each of the three completed races. So who is the winner? Can anyone explain why this is not a regular talking point by anyone in the media?

dstein wrote on January 21, 2008 2:39 PM:

Howard Wolfson (from Ari Berman's The Nation article on Hillary Inc):

A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch.

ARE THESE THE FOLKS WE WANT IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNMENT? MORE CORPORATISTS HELL BENT ON WORKING FOR THE POWERFUL OVER THE PEOPLE? WE WILL NOT GET CHANGE WITH THE CLINTONS. THEY DELIVERED NAFTA, TELECOM ACT OF '96 AND HELPED EASED THE BANKING MERGERS. WE'LL GET MORE OF THE SAME.

HIllary for Real Change wrote on January 21, 2008 2:40 PM:

Barack is in a political battle. No one is going to give him the nomination. His campaign is playing the same game as every other campaign. He simply is not good at it because he lacks EXPERIENCE! John Edwards correctly stated that running for president is difficult, BUT SO IS BEING PRESIDENT!! Barack lacks the experience to beat Hillary or the CLINTONS! How do you expect him to take on the issues of the day? Terrorists do not care about his whining on morning televisions shows, and they are not impressed by impressive speeches!!

wwjb wrote on January 21, 2008 2:40 PM:

Matthew, fact check:

You might want to take another look at the 90s and see how much Bill strayed from the Reagan-Bush policies, because it wasn't a whole lot. He supported conservative economic policy by pushing deregulation, NAFTA, and slashing social assistance ("welfare reform"). He did produce a budget surplus, but in all fairness a large part of that was via fiscal conservatism dictated by the Republican majority in Congress. Slashing social programs also helped him cut the budget down. Anyone who thinks that Bill was running the show by himself in the 90s needs to review the history books because nothing happened without the Republicans having their fingerprints all over it. Bill was a fiscal moderate-conservative at best, and he got a bit economic boost from the dotcom boom.

You say that Obama or Edwards are the inferior candidates who will not survive against McCain or Huckabee, that is a funny viewing of reality. Turns out if you actually look at the polls, every Democrat kills Huckabee, that isn't hard. But when it comes to McCain, the likely Republican nominee, both Edwards and Obama do best against McCain, Hillary on the other hand LOSES BIG TIME! All polls confirm this, and so does common sense. But hey, I don't expect a Hillbot to come on here and make assertions based on logic or facts, so whatever, I'm happy that you know how to type and can give us your unsubstantiated opinion and try to pass it off as something that didn't just come out of someone's ass. Heckuva job buddy!!

On the Rezko thing, there isn't much there. It is actually an old news story (for those of us who pay attention), and Obama has long since maintained that it was bad judgment to have any contact with the guy whatsoever. However, Obama did nothing illegal, and Rezko isn't being investigated about anything related to Obama. There is nothing there. I always find it funny though to have a Hillary supporter trying to dig up ethical dirt on Obama's past, when their own candidate has more skeletons on her (their) closet than anyone running for president on either side. Hell, I don't even have to go way back into the past and try to make mountains out of nothing to bring up more unethical crap fromm the Hillary campaign. One word: Hsu. She got tons of illegal contributions from corporations from this guy, who she knew was bad news because he had a warrant out for his arrest from years ago when he was under investigation for similar types of fraud. Yeah, shady financial dealings anyone? And then when they try to bust him, he skips town! A fugitive again! That isn't the distant past, that is THIS campaign! And there are PLENTY of similar shady financial dealings in the Clinton closet that puts any questions about Edwards or Obama to shame. One more for the road: Bill pardoning felons for money. Niiiccee. So the hypocrisy of trying to attack Obama on ethics is really striking. Yet another example of the Hillbots throwing stones from a glass house when they have nothing else. Trashing on other candidates is never going to make your candidate any less dirty, and it is never going to erase the Clintons' long history of shady financial dealings. Hsu hasn't been through the spotlight, the media brushed it under the carpet, and I guarantee that if she wins the nomination, the Hsu thing, the pardons thing, the Clinton library mystery contributions and every other little scandal throughout her "35 years" will be spread all over the media. To think anything else is to be absurdly naive.

On the race card, of course it helps the Clintons and hurts Obama, why do you think the Clintons played it in the first place? Duh?

You people are so ridiculous if you think that Hillary has ANY chance against McCain. You people are so naive if you don't understand what having her on the ballot would do to our congressional chances when the Republicans come out in record numbers to defeat her. You people are really so shortsighted and so naive when it comes to politics...you just have no idea how backwards everything you say and do is, and how much the Clintons' actions are hurting the party, and how much damage it will do to the party if she our nominee. It is just so frustrating to see the train speeding toward the edge of the cliff, and the lemmings propelling the train are too ignorant and hopelessly stubborn to listen to reason, facts, or take any notice of the rapidly approaching cliff.

I really don't want to be in that "I told you so" position when we have a President McCain and we get our asses kicked in Congress...but that is where we are heading. And I hope when that happens all you Hillbots will take a moment to remember how naive you all were, and how you lied and misled and attacked Obama all to get us a losing candidate. I know you won't though, just like I don't think any of those assholes who elected Bush kicked themselves for voting for him after the consequences became undeniable. That kind of awareness just doesn't occur with that kind of person.

Alright, whatever, thats my two cents, now go ahead and lie and whine and attack and insult and distort reality some more, I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 21, 2008 2:42 PM:

Waaaahhhh! The Clintons are picking on me!

Hey, just you wait until it really hits the fan over Obama's political sugardaddy Rezko. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Buck up, Obama. That goes double for your dewy-eyed supporters.

Steve Johnson wrote on January 21, 2008 2:43 PM:

I'll try not to repeat what's been said. There are a lot of voters who will vote on the perceived personal character of the candidate. What if the Republicans nominate McCain? Think about it.

Keith wrote on January 21, 2008 2:43 PM:

Cubstr:

Good point. I don't think this was an attack and anyone categorizing it as such is buying into MSM's framing this as a fight. Similarly, Obama disputing Clintons statements as not consistent with facts, is not an attack. Although one correction, there's only be one primary (NH) and one other caucus (NV), both of which Obama lost the popular vote. Obama was not a candidate in Michigan, so your math is a little off.

The larger issue here is that the Clintons are using the media, I think, to distract away from things happening on the ground. In New Hampshire, it was the two mailers (SS and pro-choice). In Nevada, the discussion of the lawsuit covered the organization of outside unions to flood the strip at-large sites that were being challenged (recall Clinton had far more union support than Edwards or Obama).

I think what they want to do is frame Obama's response as sour grapes. Certainly the HRC supporter response all seem to be within that frame (e.g., whining). This is a classic strategy to paint him (Obama) as weak and not up to the challenge. Of course if he doesn't respond, the attacks carry more weight (if it's not rebutted, it must be true). Hence the dilemma for the Obama campaign.

And folks, all the arguing in the world isn't going to convince HRC supporters that the Clintons are anything but the nation's saving grace. They believe that contrary to all known facts, you can step into the same stream twice. As matter of fact, that's the sole premise of their campaign.

It's not 1992. It's 2008.

lombard wrote on January 21, 2008 2:44 PM:

Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 2:35 PM:

"Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win."

Well, the more likable claim is highly subjective and appears to be a minority view. And, I wouldn't say smarter, either. Both of them are very intelligent leaders. But, I agree 100% with the rest of what you wrote and that is why I support her.

Rodney Harrison wrote on January 21, 2008 2:44 PM:

Yeah.

Let's make sure we take up for the boob that wants work with Republicans in order to bring this country together. People. There was Reagan, then the centrist Clintons, and now we need Democratic representation. Hillary is not out there espousing centrist rhetoric, Obama is. He will never, ever get my vote. EVER. If anyone knows how to keep the democratic majority in congress it is the Clintons, because they were there once and they understand the mistakes they made. Bill was once a golden boy, just like Obama is today. He went in and lost it. I bet my money that Hillary understands how to keep the Democratic majority, build it and utilize it (and that she will). I don't want another naive Golden Boy heading into the White House and losing it all.

fisharcade wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:

Two points: When Bill said THAT woman INSTEAD of Monica Lewinsky (view the press conference yourselves)everyone everywhere should have known he was lying. Fixing the deficit hardly compensates for Bill's unraveling of FDR's America, for bombing Serbia and sending missiles to the Sudan, Baghdad and elsewhere for CNN footage. One more point, it's because of his disrespect for the office that we have the present clown.

Kitty wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:

Oh- so now 2/3 of the Democratic party has joined the "vast right wing conspiracy"?
Are the Clinton people living in their own parallel universe?

willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:

'He supported conservative economic policy by pushing deregulation, NAFTA, and slashing social assistance ("welfare reform"). He did produce a budget surplus, but in all fairness a large part of that was via fiscal conservatism dictated by the Republican majority in Congress.'

And there you go...

Bad things...Bill did it.

The Good things...only cuz republicans were in congress.

See how that works, 'liberals'?

goldberry wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:

Judging by the number of references in this thread to the Lewinsky investigation, I'd say that wolfson was dead on.
I also now know who the Republican trolls are. ;-)

duncan wrote on January 21, 2008 2:46 PM:

"The Clintons are incredibly dishonest people and they're running a filthy, dishonest campaign."

You Obama supporters are pathetic. All over the lefty blogs I see such vicious, hateful BS written by so many of you. Of all the various supporters of candidates, the right wingers and the Obama supporters on the left sling such hysterical, vitriolic spew. Are you all just overly hormonal 18 year olds, or just emotionally-intellectually delayed? what will you do if Hillary wins the nom? Probably pout, take your marbles and go home. After filling the blogosphere with hysterical profanity first, of course.

jds wrote on January 21, 2008 2:46 PM:

Cubstr,

Oh Really???

Let's imagine the Clintons during the general election. Since they will be running against the "vast right wing conspiracy", we can certainly expect "right wing talking points", from the right, can't we? The CLINTONS are the ones not ready to run against the republicans if they can't come up with a better defense than that.

Bill and Hillary will go down in flames if accusing their opponent of "right wing talking points" is their only defense. That's not gonna work when they really ARE running against "the right". I anticipate the Clintons going down in flames anyway, should Hillary be nominated, because there are SO MANY groups that will spring up (swift boat style) to take down the Clintons.
Obama has led a clean, gentlemanly campaign. Hillary ain't seen nothin' yet. If Hillary is nominated, we can all get used to hearing about blow jobs, whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, and Bill's lies/impeachment from the "vast right wing conspiracy" for months and months.

Bill's distraction of claiming "right wing talking points", will fall flat and sound pretty funny if they end up actually running against someone from the right.

It's Clintons who aren't ready to run against the republicans if their only defense is "right wing talking points". Good luck with that.

GordonsGirl wrote on January 21, 2008 2:47 PM:

Anybody who thinks Clinton would even consider Obama as VP is out of their mind. After spending those famous 35 years living in the shadow of her husband, she's not about to do the same with her VP.

Also, considering Bill Clinton's recent behavior, I'm sure anyone left interested in the job as Hillary's VP is seriously reconsidering (with the exception of Vilsack). The only person who could be happy in the position is someone happy being a pseudo-First Lady as we know who the real Vice President will be.

As a voter, I'm increasingly concerned that a Clinton 44 administration would be a co-Presidency. Considering that, as a former President, Bill gets daily briefings, does anyone really think she can keep him from trolling around the West Wing? If a world leader does not immediately fold to his wife's desires, will Bill be calling said leader personally to persuade him to see the Clinton way?

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:47 PM:

"Why was it then, that when Obama "Crushed" Hillary in Iowa (Obama received 16 delegates; Hillary received 15; Edwards received 14), it was such a resounding defeat for her?"

Because the Clinton campaign was saying Hillary was "inevitable" and other were just wasting their time campaigning.

And Obama won. In the end, it will be the delegate count that matters, and not those cosmetic "superdelegates," who will end up going whichever way the wind blows.

conspiracy of the "right" wrote on January 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

Makes you want to join the right wing... just to refute this!

willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

'One more point, it's because of his disrespect for the office that we have the present clown.'

Um...

hanging chads, are the reason we have the present clown.

Nevermind that progressive fav Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton the entire campaign.

'It's Bill's Fault!!!'

???

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

Oh I see. Obama is now part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are dishonest, paranoid and ethically bankrupt. Their win at any cost, Bush-Rove, divide the nation campaign has gone too far. Americans concerned about the future of the nation need to speak out.

The Bushes and the Clintons are the same. This nation needs to put them in the past....fast.

M.h wrote on January 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

Bill Clinton and Bush are both punks.

We can do better then those two losers.

Bill should zip his mouth and his pants.

Bat Guano wrote on January 21, 2008 2:50 PM:

"Waaaahhhh! The Clintons are picking on me!"

Do I smell Republican provocateurs in here? The tone, the disingenuousness... it all seems so familiar.

lombard wrote on January 21, 2008 2:50 PM:

Rgo wrote on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM:

"i am alone when i hear a highly articulate Obama giving speeches and frequently tongue-tied in roundtables, debates, etc"

No, you are not, and that is why I switched from Obama to Clinton last Fall. He was overshadowed by Clinton, Edwards, and Biden. However, I do think he has improved in that forum and I give him a very slight victory in the last debate.

RFK wrote on January 21, 2008 2:50 PM:

Bill Clinton would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever lie. About anything. He's a one-man truth factory. How dare Barack aim his right-wing gutter politics at Bill's blameless, virginal reputation?

paDem wrote on January 21, 2008 2:51 PM:

Memo to Howard Wolfson:

All you seem able to do lately is attack your opponent. When are we going to get some detail on that supposedly sterling "expderience" Sen. Clinton keeps hinting about. Will this include finally releasing all those records of this "experience" from the Clinton Library.

In the meantime, until you can start talking with specifics about what your candidate's "experience" is and how it's appropriate for these times, please knock off the slime campaign and kindly STFU.

Sincerely, Me.

dcshungu wrote on January 21, 2008 2:51 PM:

Greg Sargent wrote: Pressed on whether there were any point at which Bill's conduct would come to be seen by the campaign as a liability, and asked if there was any campaign discussion of this possibility, Wolfson replied.

"A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," he said.

Wolfson did put that rather very well. There is clear evidence that Bill is helping: she has won the two contests in which Bill was actively engaged in campaigning for her, including pulling a rabbit out the hat in NH. But the clearest evidence that Bill is helping is that the media have now gone on over-drive about it, with their verdict already rendered: Bill is hurting [had to turn off the tube on Sunday because it simply got out of hand]. When the media's consensus on anything involving Hillary is Y, you can bet that the truth is closer to X or even -Y. The only thing that is hurting Hillary regarding Bill's involvement in her campaign is the doubt being raised by the media about whether he is hurting or helping; but that is really their whole purpose, isn't? Hillary has the biggest gun of them all in her husband, which the media see as an unfair advantage that she must be deprived of. But if Bill is hurting Hillary and he sinks her chances for the nomination, why is that the media's concern? That is why I have no illusions about the media's motive in raising this canard...

I think that the media need to pull back a bit on this because it is truly uncharted territory: (a) No woman has ever had a realistic chance to win the presidency before, (b) there has never been a woman candidate for POTUS with her husband as one of her surrogates (Edwards has Elizabeth and Obama has Michelle, both very vocal, why can't Hillary have Bill?), and (c) no candidate has ever had a former POTUS as both a spouse and a surrogate before. Instead of considering these "firsts" and pondering them, the media have already decided that Bill's involvement is wrong, but are they adequately equipped to deal with it rationally? The evidence so far is that of the usual echo chamber not unlike that which led to their disastrous and embarrassing 2008 NH primary predictions.

"A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination," Wolfson said. Well put...

Lonny wrote on January 21, 2008 2:52 PM:

Hillary is a right wing talking point. Booga booga booga.

Rick wrote on January 21, 2008 2:52 PM:

zip your pants - I mean your mouth Bill.

freddy wrote on January 21, 2008 2:52 PM:

It's interesting to follow shifts in campaign rhetoric. If Obama wins South Carolina, he must follow through with a new message. Wolfson calls out Obama on right wing talking points? Throw that right back in his face. We will have had twenty years of Bush/Clinton style politics. The White House is not a legacy. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is not change, it is inertia. Bush/Clinton/Bush/OBAMA. That is a change.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 21, 2008 2:53 PM:

I am not sure of many things in this life, but I would bet my bottom dollar that Hillary is not going to pick Obama as her VP.

Indeed, dear Dawn, this is one point one which I can unalloyedly agree with you. Neither one would offer the job to the other, and neither one would take it in the impossibly improbable event that such an offer were made.

GordonsGirl wrote on January 21, 2008 2:53 PM:

Great points, Denis, especially #2. The truth is that Obama is winning the vote in rural areas. He may not be getting the majority of working-class white in the metropolitan areas but, head out to the ranch and farm land, you'll find an Obama majority. This is how he won the delegate count in Nevada and why he got a fair share of same in New Hampshire. My take is that the media is concentrating on these more urban areas, undoubtedly influenced by the Clinton-backing political machines. I'd also venture a guess that this is why we've seen Obama endorsements from Senators is midwest farm states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri) and why Dem leaders is states like Montana have said Clinton on the ticket is a serious liability to the rest of their Democratic slate.

Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 2:53 PM:

Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win.

LOL, what a balanced take. And you argued so well for it.

I'd point out that the only person injecting race into the matter here is you, and no matter how hard you may insist that Obama's campaign injected race into the national discourse, pretty much anyone who can see beyond their nose before their vision is obstructed by Clinton blinders realizes how much that directly contravenes reality.

Or I guess Obama made Bob Johnson say those things, right? And Shaheen too?

And I guess Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emmanuel, they're just getting played by Obama.

Sure.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:54 PM:

Say what you will of Clinton, but at the end of the day she is more likeable, experienced in politics, is smarter and better prepared, and willing to do what it takes to win.

Say what I will? Okay.

More likeable? Bwhahahahahahah!

Smarter?

"I can't pretend that I had any idea then that he would be a serious presidential candidate _ that would have been a crazy thing for anyone to project at that stage of a career _ but he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard for whom Obama served as a research assistant.

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012600970.html

More experienced in politics? Not in running for elective office herself.

Willing to do what it takes to win? I certainly agree she'll do or say absolutely anything if she thinks it will help her win, but, honestly, all snark aside, she's shown again and again that her vision is too limited for her to correctly gauge what's in her own best interest. Like, for example, voting for the AUMFI to show how tough she was and that terribly ill-advised "now the fun begins" speech.

As to Wolfson, I'm delighted to see him taking a leading role in the campaign again.

P wrote on January 21, 2008 2:54 PM:

If the Clintons win the nomination, I'm writing in "Sen. Barack Obama" on the line for President. I wish the Clintons would go away.

Karen wrote on January 21, 2008 2:55 PM:

So you have to be a Republican now to be disgusted by the Lewinsky mess? It's not like it was an affair among adults on equal terms. It was an abuse of power. Monica was a 21 year old intern and he was her boss, who was also under investigation for sexual harassment at the time. Of course, we know what happened next -- the Clintons lied and set about to destroy this young woman, effectively ruining her life. How any woman can consider herself a feminist and still vote for Hillary after her part in that scandal is beyond me. Somebody needs to start talking about the danger that lies in having Bill back in the White House, where no one can tell him what to do and he has no accountability to the American people. You can't impeach someone who hasn't elected, after all. Democrats wake up! If the Clintons get back in office we will lose all the progress we have made in growing the party the past few years. Say goodbye to Congress.

Bret wrote on January 21, 2008 2:55 PM:

If Obama thought he won Nevada, why did he run home to IIlinois, before all the votes were counted? His feelings were hurt because his buddies, the media, told him he was going to win. They did the same thing in NH. He can't take degeat. Hillary is a soldier. She is tough as nails. That is the kind of president we need. He didn't even thank his supporters in Nevada. Hillary would have congratulated him, if he had won, and thanked Nevada. That is a leader who has class. He will commit suicide if he loses SC. The media and everyone is once again telling him he will win. Hillary knows how to go out and go door to door and talk to people. He doesn't want to work for it, he feels it should be given to him.

DemInColo wrote on January 21, 2008 2:56 PM:

I'm with you, jds.

I'm middle-aged, and have never voted for anyone other than the Democratic candidate in a presidential election. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, thought the Lewinsky brouhaha was trivial garbage, and thought Hillary was unfairly criticized and demonized from the day her husband was elected. I was happy to see her win a New Yok senate seat.

That said, I see now that while the Republican hate machine was roaring, underneath all that vitriol lay an ugly kernel of truth. The Clintons don't care about the good of the country; they only care about being in power -- and when they get there, they have no problem screwing over those that helped them. ("Don't ask, don't tell", anyone?) They have no integrity and will stop at nothing: there's no lie they won't tell, no reputation they won't smear, no sleaze they won't spread. They embody all the things I've long hated about Rove and his ilk, and I won't support them any more than I would support him.

I'll vote for any of the remainin Democratic candidates for president at this point, save for Hillary Clinton. If she's the nominee, I'm voting either for McCain (if he wins the GOP ticket) or for a third party/independent candidate.

lorelynn wrote on January 21, 2008 2:56 PM:

LOL - I'm going to cut and paste this thread as proof positive that Obama's online support is coming primarily from Republicans. Man alive, I can't believe this.

No wonder Obama's support from liberals is falling. This thread is a rightwing echo chamber.

tangolin wrote on January 21, 2008 2:56 PM:

I do love that Hillary supporters accuse Obama supporters of being intellectually delayed, yet they are the ones who can't understand the simple logic of Obama's Reagan comments. But nooo, Obama supporters are the dumbasses. Yeah, that makes plenty of sense.

Is it opposite day?

NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 2:57 PM:

Dadgummit. Anonynous at 2:54 is me. Sorry. Just got down on the recent mysterious influx of anonymous posters, and went and did it myself again.

fisharcade wrote on January 21, 2008 2:58 PM:

Are you are a working class person in America? You're phugt!
Are you a middle class person in America? You're phugt!
Are you rich in America?
You're not phugt, you're doing the phugging!

GordonsGirl wrote on January 21, 2008 2:59 PM:

Oh, Bret, get a grip. The reason Obama went home to Chicago is because he has two young daughters - 6 and 9 - with whom he has precious little time. Don't damn the man for having his priorities straight... He saw a window where he could be with his family and he took it.

Kurgon wrote on January 21, 2008 3:00 PM:

People, what kind of banana republic do we live in when South Carolina is using e-voting machines so easily hackable that a starting tech at Best Buy could hack them? And the chain of custody is so disastrous that people take them home and "sleep over" with them?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5579

WTF???

The USA truly has become the world's laughingstock. We are a banana republic, pathetic. No other modern democratic nation uses these machines! We need paper ballots that can be hand-counted by many hands, full-stop!

kay wrote on January 21, 2008 3:00 PM:

I'm for Obama but c'mon guys! Politics are rough business. If he can't handle Billary, then he can't handle the Republicans. Wait until they start showing us pictures of his family in Kenya. Poor. African. Super dark. Wait for the attacks on his church. Non-racist white Americans will pause at the prospect of a proud black man from a strong black church. White Americans know nothing about this kind of man and when fully revealed they will fear & resent his audacious feelings of equality. Black strong & brilliant men constantly mask themselves for fear of enraging white people who see arrogance in unashamed black excellence. I fear he is too good for this country. He's too smart. He is literally too good for what this country will do to him. So I say let the Clintons have at him. Let him get a sample of what Republicans will give him. When the GOP gets finished with him he will long for the good old days when "shucking and jiving" seemed an insult. You did read the Rove piece that turned Obama into a mere "trash talking" & "lazy" basketball player? You think Clinton will rally the Republicans? Wait until the hard core non-voting racists come out to vote for the first time. They'll come down out of their Appalachian homes & backwater shacks and shake the foundations of this country. People will wonder where these voters have been all of these years. The Clintons are just scratching the surface. Let's see if he can bring an A game to the fight for the Free World. Whining won't cut it.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 3:01 PM:

That's it guys. Get ready to revisit the wonderful parts of the 90s again. Think we can't lose the Senate or even the House in 2-4 years? Think again. Oh, and if you think we'll be getting the attendant unprecendented economic prosperity with a Clinton Restoration, well I've got a Wall in China I'd like to sell you...

But hey, Hillary supporters, you can be comfortable to know that you're feeding one of the best political machines out there. No question about that.

I like Bill campaigning for Hill. He shoots them both in the foot, and reminds us about the big ugh. Oh--and legacy? Well, let's put it this way. The best thing for Clinton's legacy was being followed by the Worst President Ever. The worst thing for Clinton's legacy has been the campaigning he's been doing for his wife. Seriously.

Of course, the mere notion of a Clinton Restoration is a moot one, since she has absolutely no argument over McCain, should he be the GOP nominee. Experience? LOL! Iraq? You couldn't squeeze a pin through the difference between Hillary and McCain on Iraq, since she's compelled to pander endlessly. Integrity?? ROTFLMFAO!!!

Bret wrote on January 21, 2008 3:01 PM:

The republicans are trying to help Obama, because they do not want to battle the Clintons. They are scared to death and praying that Obama gets the nomination. He thinks Bill is picking on him now. The republicans will be 10,000 times worse, and they will surely lie. He can't take the heat and it hasn't even gotten hot yet.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 3:02 PM:

I understand it perfectly. Obama says that the Republicans were the party of ideas for most of the past 10 - 15 years in that they challenged conventional wisdom and that Reagan changed the nation and not necessarily in a way that Obama agreed with.

All of that says to me that Obama is sucking up to the Republican right. Reagan didn't change the nation - he simply engaged in classic con artistry and paved the way for a lot more corrupt assholes to join congress. If that's changing the nation, then Obama is even worse than I thought.

Clinton challenged conventional wisdom when he balanced the budget and created jobs by raising taxes. Clinton challenged conventional wisdom when he pushed for an increase in the minimum wage and produced the lowest unemployment rate in history. I know of nothing Republicans did in the past 15 years that challenged any conventional wisdom whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 3:03 PM:

goldberry wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:
Judging by the number of references in this thread to the Lewinsky investigation, I'd say that wolfson was dead on.
I also now know who the Republican trolls are. ;-)

Could it be we are "celebrating" an anniversary of some sort today? One that involves the said Lewinsky? Could that be why it's being brought up in these threads?

TELL ME GOLDBERRY, D'YA THINK?

John McCutchen wrote on January 21, 2008 3:03 PM:

How pathetic

How grotesque!

The Battling Billaries have beoome parodies of themselves.

A regular SNL skit of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and "That Woman" speeches

Kurgon wrote on January 21, 2008 3:03 PM:

People, what kind of banana republic do we live in when South Carolina is using e-voting machines so easily hackable that a starting tech at Best Buy could hack them? And the chain of custody is so disastrous that people take them home and "sleep over" with them?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5579

There's even been talk circulating around about the Clintons having tried to put someone up to hack one of the machines in South Carolina-- apparently an anonymous tip from an employee with the company. Now, I question the accuracy of this offhand, but the very fact that such talk really does have legs is an indication of how pathetic a failure our democracy is. Again: OUR DEMOCRACY IS AN ABJECT FAILURE WHEN WE CANNOT EVEN RUN ELECTIONS RIGHT! People in SC: Go to the governor's steps if need be, and insist on paper ballots, counted by hand.

The USA truly has become the world's laughingstock. We are a banana republic, pathetic. No other modern democratic nation uses these machines! We need paper ballots that can be hand-counted by many hands, full-stop!

frankly0 wrote on January 21, 2008 3:03 PM:

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

I don't care who wrote it or what was said. I don't have to read it.

Such an article pretending to "integrate" all these concepts from physics in any useful way is knowable, a priori, as an utterly pretentious crock of shit.

NamelessFaceless wrote on January 21, 2008 3:05 PM:

Oh willyjsimmons, your tripe is exactly why we need a fact-checker. It would have been helpful to your case if you actually addressed the parts of what Bill Clinton said that were lies.The questions (for reference seen at your 2:37 PM post). For giggles, lets go through your questions and see why they, at best, are tangential to the matter at hand.

"Is Obama's voting record re:war spending not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?"

No. But the point Bill Clinton was trying to make with his "fairy tale" comment was to call into question Obama's anti-war credentials. Obama was very clearly against the war at the beginning (you know, by publicly calling it a stupid war and all). Obama's votes to fund the war are orthogonal to his position against the war. Being against the war does not necessarily mean that you think the best resolution you can achieve is to defund it, which, potentially, would require leaving in an unwise manner. Getting out responsibly is what Obama--and the other Dems who opposed the war but chose to fund it--are trying to achieve. So, Bill Clinton was trying to confuse the matters (these would be "weasel words" for those playing at home). Oh and do Clinton's votes for funding mean she is pro-war?

"Is Obama's overall voting record not almost identical to Hillary's?

Is that a 'lie'?"

They are close, but I don't see anyone complaining about this. I didn't say Bill Clinton never told the truth. Its just rarer than it should be.

"Did Obama not contrast Bill Clinton's presidency to Rayguns in from of a conservative editorial board?

Is that a 'lie'?"

You again miss the point entirely. Sure, Obama compared their presidencies. Clinton, however, lied when he sai