It's an original situation. But it would have been a lot better for our democracy had Bill Clinton used his 'political capital' speaking out when the Bush Jr. mobs were running rampant over the Constitution than he is for the particular and political gains of his wife. But then I guess any Al Gore or Jimmy Carter style speaking out would have been damaging for Hillary's political future.

I agree. He is playing the role of the VP nominee, but it is not appropriate for him to do so.

And now HRC's spokesperson says that Obama's complaints are "Republican talking points?" I am growing increasingly unhappy that I ever defended Bill Clinton and am quite trouble at the prospect of him re-entering the WH as first spouse.

Clinton hurting the party?

No more than Obama is with his 'unity' talk.

Which republicans translate as:

'Get exactly what we want because the Dems are the ones who should be doing all the compromising!'

If we want to 'go there'.

Throwing that restraint out the window in a Democratic primary will do enormous damage to his reputation

Meh. Hillary being elected president would balance any harm to his reputation a hundred times over - in a way it would be a sort of ultimate vindication.

"But even as he's got that right, he's also got a responsibility to the millions of Democrats -- and Americans -- who worked on his campaigns and fought in his battles, who sacrificed and toiled so he could have this place in our polity, and who expected he would use it to push for progressivism, not just for his family."

Ha!

Dream on.

"Meh. Hillary being elected president would balance any harm to his reputation a hundred times over - in a way it would be a sort of ultimate vindication."

Yup. For Bill, this is all about getting the opportunity Gore denied him in 2000 by distancing himself from Clinton, the opportunity to win a third term.

The calculation for Bill is that the benefits of winning will far exceed any detriments from acting the fool.

Appeals to his better self will continue to fall on deaf ears.

This is why dynasticism is a bad political idea. Ask Republicans how the concept has worked out for them.

No wonder dems lose so many elections. Whaa whaa whaa, quit your whining and get busy helping out your candidate!

Don't kid yourself. The Clintons are about themselves, not the party. Clinton spent no political capital opposing the worst administration in recent history. Now he is spending it to get his wife (a perfectly OK Senator but fairly weak Presidential candidate on her own merits - would Chuck Schumer be a good candidate for the Dems?) the Democratic nomination by shamelessly attacking the opposition. The only bright spot is that if the Clintons lose either now or in November, we won't have them to kick around anymore.

william jefferson simmons:

If the democrats own the presidency AND the congress, compromises will go OUR way, not towards the republicans. I understand the last 14 years have been traumatizing, but you need to think outside the box. Post-2008, "unity" will mean unity around a progressive agenda if the elections go our way. And thats the kind of unity we want, right? (and if one more person says Obama doesn't have a progressive agenda, I will stab a pencil into my thigh. My life is in your hands dude.)

Back to the original topic, Bill has been lying about Obama. Period. If Bill's defenders want to argue that hard-ball politics are necessary to win, that is a legitimate case to make. But nobody can claim that he has not been purposely deceptive. Its one thing for campaign staff to do this shit, but quite another for an ex-president.

Don't kid yourself. The Clintons are about themselves, not the party. Clinton spent no political capital opposing the worst administration in recent history

I take no pleasure in saying I agree wholeheartedly with ikl

"and if one more person says Obama doesn't have a progressive agenda, I will stab a pencil into my thigh. My life is in your hands dude."

I don't believe it'll kill you. And despite the Lebowski reference, I'd like to hear your report about what the effects are. So...

Obama doesn't have a progressive agenda.

'If the democrats own the presidency AND the congress, compromises will go OUR way, not towards the republicans.'

You 'hope'.

Me, I have no desire to 'hope' that republicans will 'see the light' and start doing the right thing.

'But nobody can claim that he has not been purposely deceptive.'

Isn't Obama's voting record post IRAQ AUMF virtually the same as Clinton's.

Cuz that was the gist of Clinton's criticisms re Media framing of Obama's war stance.

How is Clinton 'lying'?

What he owed to all of us was to use his stature to speak out against the worst of Bush's actions. Against the war, against his gutting of habeas and the Fourth Amendment, against his turning the Executive Branch into Tammany Hall or the Daley machine writ large, against his inaction on global warming...these are the things a former President should have used his bully pulpit to denounce.

He didn't. (Gore did, and that's why if Gore ever does run for President, I'll walk barefoot over crushed glass to help get him elected.) I think he let the home team down in a major way, but at least there's an argument on the other side, an argument that ex-Presidents should stay above the fray, and this explains and defends Bill Clinton's absence from the debates of the past seven years.

Or there was such an argument, until now. His current behavior has shredded that argument.

He let us down, plain and simple. Screw him.

This man sold pardons before he left office! Can there be any doubt he doesn't care about what people might think is proper or improper? He counts on enough people making excuses for him. And the lie he told today -- that he and Chelsea passed by a man who said to another man, "if you vote for Hillary you will be fired" -- I mean come on, like so many of his lies, it's so broad and crude as to be only believable by a child. Talk about fairy tales. Such patent lies show great contempt for the public. He says, as he has all his political life, "here, eat this crap." This is your hero, democratic party, this is your god. Behold him.

So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton's are being too mean to him?

Pass the smelling salts!

Someone needs to inform the Obama's that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.

All of the candidates have spouses who are strongly advocating for their respective spouses. Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.

Further, whatever the media thinks about Bill Clinton is irrelevant. Ultimately, it's for the voters to decide.

And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem to support the notion that Bill Clinton is OK by them.

Today, Greg Sargent asked Howard Wolfson if Bill Clinton was a liability. He replied, "A few more liabilities like New Hampshire and Nevada, and we'll win the nomination!".

This is the Bill Clinton who executed a retarded guy and bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant at moments when he thought it would help politically.

And at this point it's double or nothing: if she loses it'll be blamed on him; if she wins it's a history-books redemption: guy who cheated on his wife helps make her President of the US of A.

Part of his role right now may also be to draw heat away from her. I think Obama has to hit back but it'll be hard, and the Clintons have a lot of good will in CA. This game is really about positioning for Super Tue right now.

(It's also interesting to see folks like JoeCHI rationalizing toward total amorality: because Republicans do nasty things, dirty tactics are apparently justified for anyone.)

"This is the Bill Clinton who executed a retarded guy and bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant at moments when he thought it would help politically."

One and one.

Billy Ray Rector is an example of Clinton's fecklessness. The Sudanese bombing was a good faith mistake.

Clinton may have gone off the rails, but that doesn't mean we have to.

It's time for the Clintons to go, but correct history is still useful.

"And at this point it's double or nothing: if she loses it'll be blamed on him"

Without getting into the morality of HIS tactics, I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. As much hatred as there is out there for HER, she will be blamed. As opposed to blaming him for her loss, the line will be that even with the unfair advantage of his help, HRC just couldn't pull it off.

It has to be a good 15 years since I heard the name of Billy(actually to correct the record) RICKY Ray Rector mentioned, the man who famously said he would save the dessert part of his final meal for later. That wasn't fecklessness on Clinton's part. He left the primary campaign briefly to coldly preside over the execution of a clearly very retarded man. It was doing WHATEVER it takes, WHATEVER. Thank you for bringing up an early unmistakeable sign of who Bill Clinton was and is.

NOW Democrats are concerned about Bill Clintons actions.

That is a laugh riot.

------JoeCHI says: Pass the smelling salts!-----

Obama was simply discussing factual events in the campaign, now whining occurred. He didn't have a pity party for himself and cry the way Clinton did in NH.

THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY DO THE CLINTONS FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE A HIGH-TECH LYCHING OF OBAMA.

Why isn't Bill out there spending his time telling us about all the great work Hillary was doing running his Presidency. Why isn't he telling uis about all the vast experience she was gaining running the government when he failed to mention it in his biolgraphy...and in her's coincidentally.

"will do enormous damage?" That's an awfully optimistic reading. I'd say "has already done enormous damage."

I would also say that, no, his capital isn't his to do as he likes. Much of it belongs to the entire country, who, for instance, continue to pay for his protection. If he wants to wave this, wave his pension, wave federal payment for his library, then yes, fire away black man, Bill!

also, his attacks on obama are all the more shocking compared with his silence over bush in 2004 and the war in 2003. There might not be so many problems for Hillary to fix had Bill decided to get off his lofty ex-president perch in 2003 and and 2004.

"(actually to correct the record) RICKY Ray Rector"

Noted.

Perhaps Bill could tell us more of the softer, private side of Hillary rather then spending his time attacking a fine black gentleman.

He could tell us of Hillary's understanding and support when he told her he was spending his days in the oval office sodmizing the hired help.

He could regal us with her private discussions about how important it was to empower women in his government, like Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, etc. etc.

The fact is the Clintons have allways campaigned by tearing down the other guy, not by building up and providing leadership for the country.

'There might not be so many problems for Hillary to fix had Bill decided to get off his lofty ex-president perch in 2003 and and 2004.'

What?

Bill Clinton publicly comes out in opposition of the war, and the Bush administration does WHAT exactly?

If the rumors are correct, Daddy Dearest himself told Jr. not to do it...

I don't care if Bill Clinton puts his reputation where the sun don't shine. The key point here is that many genuine Democrats will refuse to fight for Hillary because of her association with race baiting, vote-rigging, sliming opponents. That's the end result of Bill's rabid idiocy. Not to mention the talking points and lines of attack which his obnoxious presence opens up for Republicans. Do you really want to hear Hillary defending her husband in debates against McCain? Do you really want to hear the Karl Rove demolition of the Clintons as corrupt, perjured, perverted? Whatever you may think of the race for the nomination, if Bill thinks he hasn't screwed Hillary for the presidential race, he really needs to start working with reality.

Over the past seven years, Clinton has largely checked his criticisms of Bush and bit his tongue in order to retain his role as a statesman.

You know, this is what's most frustrating to me about this whole "Bill the attack dog" thing. Clinton didn't mutter a PEEP worth noticing when Bush was mangling our nation. But Obama, whose singular offense seems to be running on a Democratic platform fundamentally quite similar to Hillary’s, and light-years better than Bush’s? Yeah, Clinton has no problem going after him.

It would be bad enough if he’d just been silent and gone to his farm the way Washington did. But he was worse. Name a Bush catastrophe of the past 7 years, and you'll see Clinton was either silent or even an enabler.

When Bush was stealing the election in 2000, Clinton said nothing.

And then Clinton said nothing when Bush failed to go after Osama bin Laden for his attacks on the USS Cole. He said nothing when it became absolutely clear in mid-2001 that Bush was totally ignoring the threat of terrorism.

Clinton spent years actively enabling our country's greatest foreign policy blunder in Iraq—not just the invasion, but defending the logic of the invasion and the importance of Iraq over Afghanistan well into 2004.

When it came to Katrina, Clinton was an embarrassment. On Wednesday September 1 Clinton was a willing prop in a photo-op with Bush at the White House--literally, holding a joint press conference with the guy as trapped people were dying in the convention center and Superdome (it was the next day that Bush went down to the Gulf Coast and congratulated Brownie on the heck of a job he was doing).

On the tax cuts for the rich, on energy legislation, on issue after issue, crisis after crisis, Clinton did not say "look, I gotta break the 'elder statesman' role and engage in some political debate here--this is really bad for America and we gotta do something different."

When Al Gore was breaking his silence to demand a different direction on Iraq, when Jimmy Carter was condemning Bush's failures...Bill was quiet until it was clear Bush's approval was in the low 40's for good..

And now he shows just how cheaply he values his 'elder statesmanship,' going after Obama in the cheapest, crassest, sleaziest political attacks.

Because hey, it's not our nation that's in trouble, but his wife's political fortunes.

How dare Clinton suggest that Obama's RHETORIC is a threat to our nation? That if, god forbid, Democrats frame their message in a way that's appealing to moderate Republicans and independents, we're somehow in danger of weakening the Democratic Party and compromising on the values that will improve America?

You know, if Clinton's RECORD was one where he'd actually been standing up for either America's long-term interest, Democratic values, or the Democratic party over the past 8 years, instead of so frequently standing with Bush, I'd find this argument a lot more compelling.

Bill Clinton's RECORD of staying close to Bush while condemning his fellow Democrats for his family's short-term political gain is a lot more threatening to Democrats than Obama's RHETORIC of laying out Democratic priorities in a way that isn't alienating to moderate Republicans.

Well said Steve C. I also would support a single payer that could reduce healthcare spending as in France. The one thing that makes me fear this though is the position of many democrat posters here on this borad

The above post by me was an error should have been:

It is difficult to like Bill Clinton but remember, he governed well. It is OK to hate the person you vote for. Politicians are not our friends but our allies. And we all know the difference between friends and allies.

anonymiss - Exactly.

Name one other man significant other who would remain publicly impartial in a contest involving their spouse.

It's his wife. End of story. No one has a problem when Michelle Obama riffs about the insufficiency of electing just any ol' Democrat. Nor should they.

Further, Clinton has every right to jump into a party primary and to campaign vigorously for his preferred choice. Primaries are inherently about choosing a political party's leadership. For the reason you (Ezra) already mention - that Bill Clinton as former President is a kind of party leader/elder statesman non-pareil -- he has already come under implicity attack from Obama for representing an "old and busted" set of policy prescriptions and political methods.

So, bottom line, yes, Bill Clinton is perhaps the foremost Democratic Party elder, but precisely because of that he (and his candidate wife) come under a unique track and level of attacks. Clinton's justified in returning fire.

"No one has a problem when Michelle Obama riffs about the insufficiency of electing just any ol' Democrat."

I apparently missed the Michelle Obama presidency.

I believe the next act in this drama involves Obama leaving his calling card inscribed

"to Bill Clinton posing as a somdomite"

Queensberry rules, anyone?

"I apparently missed the Michelle Obama presidency."

as did I HRC's widowhood

When was Clinton ever a progressive? What do you think the DLC is? It's not a progressive outfit. It's where the war mongers in the Democratic party go hang out. Do you know why Bill didn't speak out on the Iraq War? It's because he was for it. Just like his wife. If Hillary is such a liberal, why did she volunteer for Goldwater?

anonymiss:
Why do you think some of us call Clinton the best Republican president of the 20th century?

Forget the damage he may have done to his image. If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, he has now made himself completely useless for the general election. He can't credibly tout Obama after slagging him the way he's done during the primaries.

That's not just expending political capital. That's utterly invalidating his role as the party's elder statesman.

I think this thread is a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with the democrat.

First, everyone's complaining about Clinton not doing enough to stop Bush's transgressions. Why don't you take a look in the mirror and at your neighbors.

What did you do to stop the Bush adminstration? Did you work on a campaign regularly? Did you rally and gather people in your neighborhood and make a call to action? Did you organize a rally, a march, a letter writing campaign, a google bombing,etc,etc?

I bet in the best case scenario a few of you spent an hour making phone calls a couple of times. Maybe you should get off your ass, stop commenting on blogs, and dedicate yourself to the changes you seek to make. Complaining doesn't restore the constitution.

The reason why democrats lose is because conservatives are more politically active and better organized.Further, conservatives keep their eye on the target. At the end of the day democrats win by beating republicans, not by beating other democrats.

Second, politics and governing are two completely seperate issues. Governing is ideological, a movement to enfranchise your political beliefs. Politics is war, you play to win. It's a bare knuckle fight to convince people that you're right and your opponents are wrong. Complaining that your opponent is "being unfair" when she's, allegedly, spinning your message doesn't convince voters to vote for you. We know what dirty politics is,push polling to say that your opponent supports experiments on unborn babies. Calling your opponent's record a fairy tale is hardly a low blow.

The more Obama supporters and "lets all get along bloggers" complain that the Clinton's are being "too tough" on Obama, the weaker his chances are in the general.

First, none of us are former presidents. There's a higher expectation of political activism out of someone whose life's work was political.

Second, it doesn't matter whether it's a low blow or not. Like you said, Democrats win by beating Republicans, not by beating other Democrats. A former president should not delve into negative campaigning against a member of his party during the primary. There's a bigger, more important target than getting his wife in the White House: getting a Democrat in the White House.

"First, none of us are former presidents."

Speak for yourself.

Hey Petey, have you read Obama's first book? I don't mean this as a taunt, I'm just genuinely curious if thats one of the differences between those of us who trust Obama's progressiveness and those who don't. Even 15 years ago, Obama's argumental style involved saying nice things about his opponents and making small but highly symbolic concessions even as he maintained an overall progressive position. I read his book in 2005, and my initial impression was that this would be an effective strategy to winning moderates over to the progressive cause. So I knew this about him before the campaign started and wasn't surprised to hear him make the comments that have so angered you and others. I was predisposed to see Obama's comments in one light, but others were caught off guard and, in my opinion, have blown up his small concessions into a charge of broderism.

anwyays, i always get sick of these never-ending arguments for a few days until i come back for more. my only hope is that my thigh wound turns gangrenous and that i remain in a fever-induced delirium until after the primaries are over......

I see Bill's anger as being incredibly counter-productive. Obama's biggest selling point to many is that he's got the 'vision' thing and promises to try to move beyond the angry rancor we've lived with since the GOP started dumping on the Clintons in the first place. If someone is attracted to Obama for that, Bill's bitter swipes are just going to make them even LESS likely to vote for Hillary.

Petey, dare we ask which president you are? From your general tone, I would have to infer Andrew Jackson.

I read his book in 2005, and my initial impression was that this would be an effective strategy to winning moderates over to the progressive cause

The mistake in this line of thinking is the assumption that there are large swaths of 'moderate' or 'independent' voters who are skeptical of Democratic policy prescriptions but who can be won over via rational, persuasive argument.

The truth is that most Democratic policies enjoy incredibly broad support, but most 'swing' voters are using their reptile brains come election season.

Obama would be good at persuading, say, a bright, rightward-leaning law student that government-guaranteed health care might be a good idea. He wouldn't be so good at winning the vote of people like my baby-boomer aunt, who in 2004, and I quote, "was going to vote for Kerry, but then he said he voted for the war before he voted against it."

Remember the (probably made-up) anecdote about Adlai Stevenson, who, when a supporter said to him "You have the vote of every thinking person," responded: "Yes, but I need a majority."

What the Clintons are doing to Obama right now is the same kind of thing that will put the White House in Democratic hands come January 2009. Obama seems allergic to mudslinging, and that's his fatal flaw.

Jason C, what a fine analysis. Your reptile brain is working overtime. The only thing you missed out is that Hillary isn't going to be in the White House in 2009 or anytime. She was hated by 50% of the USA before she began, and now she has alienated at least 20% of the Democrats. Those numbers don't lie, Jason, and they mean a whipping at the polls. Of course, you have the privilege of telling us that the Hillary-Titanic can just shrug off a few icebergs. Please, feel free to try. It may even be amusing.

listen and learn, people...this is a master class in winning the Presidency...the only Democrat to win it twice in most of our lifetimes...

Bill Clinton has taken more hits than anyone, besides Hillary...and what did they both do?

Pick themselves up and fight back...true Democrats want a fighter, not some whiner...

GO Bill...fight with everything you have got...

and keep your eye on Hillary...because the fight you see in her is the strength she will use to get this country back on track in a progessive and positive direction...

I could not be prouder of these two fighters

...way back in 1992 that was the quality I loved in Bill Clinton...I thought "FINALLY, the dems have a fighter and not an apologist...and I was right...this man knows how to beat the Republicans and the MSM at their own game...

He leaves them in his dust...all the 'groupthink MSM and bloggers' chirping away saying the same thing and trying to itimidate Bill and he just keeps on going and knows just what he is doing...and keeps winning…

"And, on some level. it's his reputation, his capital, his right to expend it as he sees fit."

This "its all MINE!!!" attitude toward the presidency and the democratic party is a large part of the loathsomeness of the Clintons.

i can almost hear the nefarious laughter of cheney,bush and friends at a dinner party.
could they have masterminded this any better?
i dont think so.

Never think they fight for anything except themselves. Their most important weapon is the thorough detective work they get done on opponents. Looks from tonight's surprising move by Edwards against Obama that the Clintons have threatened him with revelation of some affair. The name "Rezko" came out of her mouth for the first time. Waiting for "Vignali" to be spoken by him. Remember him? THe drug dealer given a last minute pardon who in return gave Hugh Rodham 400,000.

S said: I could not be prouder of these two fighters

Where was Fighting Bill in the lead up to the Iraq War? I know where Obama was. I know where Al Gore was. I also know where Hillary was, which is a reason I ain't voting for her.

The Clintons are fighters, but only for their own survival. They try to avoid unpopular stands. They like to keep their contours sleek. They are, essentially, sharks.

A nice pair of sharks to have on your side sometimes, but sharks nevertheless.

i wonder what al gore thinks as he watches the clintons in this campaign.
i can only imagine.

>Throwing that restraint out the window in a Democratic primary will do enormous damage to his reputation.

Only if Obama wins, or Hillary gets the nomination and loses in the fall. But if there is a President Hillary, not so much, no. And that is what he is determined to bring about.

The only thing you missed out is that Hillary isn't going to be in the White House in 2009 or anytime. She was hated by 50% of the USA before she began, and now she has alienated at least 20% of the Democrats. Those numbers don't lie, Jason, and they mean a whipping at the polls.

Hillary isn't "hated" by 50% of the country. (And where are you getting that 20% figure?) She has relatively high unfavorables, as you would expect with someone the public is so familiar with. Do you really think Obama's unfavorable ratings won't be as high or higher by the time November rolls around? After we've heard about his black nationalist church and Jew-hating minister and Muslim background and all the other smears that the GOP attack machine will pelt him with over the course of the campaign? Think the American public won't be inclined to believe the worst about a man with brown skin and a foreign-sounding name?

It's ugly but it's true. You seem to be betting on the enlightenment of the American people, and that's a sucker's bet.

Hillary is better positioned than Obama with respect to key demographics - women, older voters, Hispanics. An eight-month smear campaign will eat into Obama's numbers with independents, and the result will again be a very close election that turns on a few hundred thousand votes in Ohio, Florida, etc.

But mostly, Obama has not proven to be a very adept campaigner. He's been outmaneuvered at just about every step, and is hanging on by a thread - if Edwards drops out or drastically fades, it's probably over. We'll see what happens, and maybe Obama can turn it around. But the campaign was pretty much his to lose after Iowa, and he's in the process of doing just that.

Do you really think Obama can Kumbaya his way to the White House?

i wonder what al gore thinks as he watches the clintons in this campaign. i can only imagine.

Please - Al Gore is as capable of taking the low road as anybody else. Ask Michael Dukakis and Bill Bradley.

What anonymiss said.

For those that missed it, here's a highlight:

On the tax cuts for the rich, on energy legislation, on issue after issue, crisis after crisis, Clinton did not say "look, I gotta break the 'elder statesman' role and engage in some political debate here--this is really bad for America and we gotta do something different."

When Al Gore was breaking his silence to demand a different direction on Iraq, when Jimmy Carter was condemning Bush's failures...Bill was quiet until it was clear Bush's approval was in the low 40's for good..

But mostly, Obama has not proven to be a very adept campaigner.

This is correct. All of the whining about how the Clintons are "twisting Obama's words" when it is pointed out that Obama can't control his own message just shows that Obama allows himself to be defined rather than defining his opponents.

For a few days after the Iowa caucuses, I started to think that maybe I was wrong, maybe Obama's "high minded rhetoric" was actually what people wanted and maybe I had underestimated Obama after all. It's turning out, however, that Obama is just as weak as I thought he would be, and the "old rules" of campaigning still apply to Obama as much as they have to any other candidate.

In this case, the first candidate or candidate's supporters who start publicly calling for his opponent to "call off the unfair attacks" loses. That's what we're seeing here. And it's happening because Obama got blindsided by the unfair attacks before he was able to do the same to Clinton.

And, on some level. it's his reputation, his capital, his right to expend it as he sees fit.

No, wrong. Bill needs to serve the country and his party, not just himself and his family. That's what patriotism is about. What everyone is condemning Bill for is correct-- the guy can be vicious when he's fighting for himself and his wife. When it comes to bringing to bear the full force of his attack machine against Bush and the Iraq war... not so much. That's extremely disappointing, and the country is the weaker for it, but if Obama felt that this was going to be a problem to have the Clintons back in power, maybe he should have come up with a better strategy to deal with them.

I agree with Tyro. The Clintons' lies and distortions about Obama's statements just show that Obama isn't ready for prime time.

Or something.

Maybe after February 5 Obama can get back to the Senate and actually do something. I wonder if Obama thinks he can get away with ducking votes for another four years.

Bill is irrelavent.. Hillary will lose. Im listening to wat Obama has to say.. and working to help him get elected. He has the best plans for the country, has a better style of leadership, and will help make the country a better palce.

Thats all I need to know.

Until hillary comes out with something substantive to say, thats it.

One does have to wonder why Bill felt the war called for restraint but his wife's campaign doesn't.

Dirk: "One does have to wonder why Bill felt the war called for restraint but his wife's campaign doesn't."

I think Bill and Hillary are operating under the assumption that non-Hillary supporters will fall in line behind her, especially once the Republicans have settled on one of their odious candidates. If Hillary wins, Obama will make a great speech at the convention. She'll probably give him a nice mention in her acceptance speech as well. The real fact of her unelectability would not settle in for the campaign until about September.

Hillary just can't win. Her negatives are too high, and she's a much easier target than Obama or even Edwards. Bill will only get more embarassing, and this will tarnish memories of his administration among the public, as it probably has for democrats in the primary. People who have convinced themselves that she's a bruiser who can dish out the pain remind me of people who thought Kerry was unassailable because he won the three purple hearts.

The most charismatic candidate usually wins the election. It wasn't John Kerry in 2004 and it will not be Hillary Clinton in 2008.

It's almost like BJC is fighting for another term in office..

I don't think immigrants, gays, and the very poor could survive anymore BJC/HRC triangulation.

The Clintons' lies and distortions about Obama's statements just show that Obama isn't ready for prime time. Or something.

No, it's Obama response to their "lies and distortions" (some of which actually are true) which shows he's not ready for prime time.

I don't understand some of you Obama people. Do you really want to see Obama waltz through the primaries without withstanding negative campaigning? Don't you want to see how he holds up in the face of attacks? Even if Bill and Hillary did hold their fire, the Republicans won't.

I enjoy seeing the various defenses of Bill Clinton that come from the HRC camp, and spread to his defenders on the blogs. The new word is "passionate." An attractive word, suggesting ardor, romantic love, etc. Just remember that Bush was passionate about toppling Saddam, Mussolini was passionate about "uniting" Italy, etc.

Responsibility doesn't flow one way. If the Democrats want to trash Bill and his wife, they lose double. For what? An Obama? Some fantasy created by the Democratic anti-Hillarys and anti-Bills. I say up the stakes. If all these claimed progressives, liberals and pundits...want to risk it all for Obama, then play for the win. But the loss will be that much more devastating.

You will lose many many of your base who love the Clintons and will rightly blame an Obama nomination on the stupid elites. I would encourage Clinton to abandon Democrats altogether for their disloyalty. Screw them all in their arrogance. Let all the divisive minorities stew in their self righteousness. Only Bill brought us the Presidency twice. Internalize that or prepared to lose big time. And I support him all the way. The Dems deserve destruction if they are too stupid to fight for one of their own who has proved his bona fides.

Further, get off this crap about being above a certain type of partisanship for an ex President. He should actively use his full power on behalf of his wife. And if Dems have a problem with being loyal, then fock them. These were the same people who were never loyal when he was President. It was Democrats who failed to enact Hillary's healthcare. Stupid Democrats allied with Rethugs. Because Dems controlled Congress then. So I blame Democrats for that failure. And I will blame these same obtuse Democrats if Hillary is not the nominee. They are losers...weak losers...and are offended by a fighter like Clinton. They deserve to choke on their bland and mendacious rhetoric...Clinton has done more for African American than anyone, including the money he raised for Katrina. And then all the other charities of his that have made a huge difference. But Democrats have no loyalty...so in the end, they deserve what they get. They imagine themselves as ideologically pure or something...what a crock.
Go Hillary. Go Bill.

And if Dems don't nominate Hill, the Clintons should not give their all to Dems any more.

"No more than Obama is with his 'unity' talk.
Which republicans translate as:
'Get exactly what we want because the Dems are the ones who should be doing all the compromising!'"

I actually interpret Obama's "unity talk" at this point as maning "unify the electorate," which (hello out there people?) you kind of need to do to win an election...

Not sure Obama can make it, but *Clinton* is clearly a practiced sell out. Actually, I don't see how Obama can have been a community organizer in Chicago *without* coming face-to-face with the ravages of Clinton's sell outs. Which is probably the source of his instinctive rejection of Hillary's feudalistic-garnish your wages mandate to buy insurance, for which he's taking quite a bit of abuse.

You know, things look really different down there, people. Ever have the government come garnish your wages?

Also, Obama can't talk about a lot of this without seeming "too black." I know Clinton probably still thinks the down and out vote is all tied up either way, but he needs to watch it because it's exactly *his* fat white ass that's sitting on the powder keg that will blow up the Democratic Party.

I kind of think that would be a good thing.

Personally, I came into this campaign disliking Hillary but with a kind of fond nostalgia for Bill. I still don't like Hillary, and now Ive gotten really sick of Bill as well. Their smears on Obama have pissed me off to no end. They are driving a whole generation of young people away from engagement in Democratic politics with their cynical negative campaign against Barack.