The amount of time that Bill Clinton spends thinking about himself is astounding. Sadly, Senator Clinton's campaign is boiling down to one simple question from Bill Clinton: "Do you still love me?"

This time it's about America Bill.

"Bill continued, '[Obama] said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did ...'"
--I hate to point out the obvious, but I'm sure that the first thought (or only thought for some) anybody has about the Bill Clinton Presidency is sex scandal.  For all Mr. Clinton did, that is what he is known for, and that is his lasting impact on America.  So ...

Please we all knnow what Obama met....he meant to imply that Clinton's presidency was inconsequential.  So people would vote for him over Hillary.  

As a Democrat, I am really starting to hate Bill Clinton for trying to tear our party apart.  Any positive aspects of his legacy are GONE.

Do we really need to reprint what Obama really said?  No, we all know what he said.  Even Bill knows what he really said.  It's just like that you can always tell when Bill is lying -- his mouth is open!

What?! You mean Bill Clinton made another factually incorrect statement about Obama?  Bill Clinton went as far as to ENTIRELY mis-quote Obama about Regan?  Heaven forbid a democrat presidential candidate offer an honest assessment of a republican president... Never did Obama say he approved of Reagan and his policies, just that he was more transformational.  And that, without a doubt, is true.  Hillary herself even named Reagan as a role-model.

I don't believe it.  Bill Clinton never lies...

Gosh, did Bill actually mention that it's important "who has how many delegates"?  After his wife's supposed "win" in Nevada, one would think that's merely a technicality.

I wonder if Obama's campaign will ask the totally relevant rhetorical question of which Clinton is running for President.
I sure wouldn't wanna be the world leader who insults the theoretical President Clinton when the First Gentleman is in the room. He is liable to poke out somebodies eye with that wagging finger.

Bill may be helping in the short term to pick up a couple wins, but pundits agree he has been stepping over the line, and is probably hurting Hillary's campaign overall. see video clips:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Ex-Presidents traditionally stay out of their party's primaries.

George HW Bush DIDN'T CAMPAIGN for the 'Shrub'
Jimmy Carter ISN'T CAMPAIGNING for John Edwards
Neither did Nixon or Ford

Slick Willie isn't just campaigning, he's DIVIDING

Slick Willie was a part (or author) of the Clinton campaign's 'race baiting' campaign

The Clintons tried to dimisnish Obama and portray him as a 'Blcakc candidate'
He's not, he's an American candidate

Bill Clinton is tarnishing the Presidency
Just like he tarnished the Presidency when he brought impeachment upon himself
When he said 'I did not have sex with that woman'
HE DID HAVE SEX WITH MONICA !!

The Clintons will sink to ANY LEVEL of gutter fighting to get this nomination

Good luck in the general, if they do.....


Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive

Obama’s point was that the democrats should be the transformational party with the new ideas in 2008. If we democrats really want to be called the transformational party in 2008 then we need to nominate the transformational candidate.   If we democrats really want to be the party of new ideas then we need to nominate the candidate with the new ideas.  Hillary and Bill Clinton are neither transformational nor do they bring new ideas to the leadership of this country.  Barack Obama is the transformational candidate with the new ideas.

Bill Clinton is once again distorting Obama's words. He's once again making this election about himself. This election is about taking our country in a new direction. He is not conducting himself like a former president should.

The Clinton's are running the risk of suppressing Dem. voter turn out this November if their Bush/Rove politics of dividing the electorate and winning the Dem. nomination 50.1% to 49.9% succeeds. The Clinton's have left Obama with no choice but to take Bill on and question Bill's credibility on many issues including the definition of "is". The Clinton campaign speaks to what Obama will face if he's the nominee, let's talk about what Billary will face. Monica Lewinsky appearing on network television. Linda Tripp and the Monica's "stained" blue dress. Gennifer Flowers supporting Hillary. Reliving of the numerous rape allegations against Bill. The Jones girl from Arkansas. "I didn't inhale". Who killed Vince Foster. The utter failure of Bill's sending troops into Mogadishu. The recession caused by Bill's economic policies. Bill's failure to stop Al-qaeda when he had the chance. And last, fair or not, over 55% of Americans don't like Hillary and her nomination will energize Republican voters to turnout in huge numbers to vote for ABH, anybody but Hillary.

This is called desperation. Like Bob Dylan said "The times they are a-changin".
Move along Clintons.Your time has passed.

HRC - the hypocrite.  The following is from an article in Dec. 2007 about her meeting with newspaper editors from the Salmon Press.

"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

Yes, that's right, HRC listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.

Can someone please let the Clinton campaign know that the Democratic nominee will be running against the Republican nominee and it might be a good idea that Obama's campaign reaches out to Republicans and Independents right now?  So - stop knocking the Obama campaign for appealing to Republicans and Independents.  Geesh.

President Reagan was GOP. He did as they all do, make the rich richer and the poor poorer. So if Obama thinks that will get him my vote....WRONG! I had it better with President Clinton is office. Our economy needs someone to help the working poor and stop giving the bank to big business and the wealthy. So Obama try something else beside Reagan, because I didn't vote for him either.

As a Democrat, I am really starting to hate Bill Clinton for trying to tear our party apart.  Any positive aspects of his legacy are GONE.
Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:13 AM)


Jesse, as a Democrat you should hate Obama for saying they were the good party of ideas in last 10-15 years. Which means you were a dumb idiot in last 10-15 years while Democrats kept fighting for middle and low income class.

But your hatred of Clinton has blinded you. So there is no cure for you life. You are so blind with hate that I know nothing logical will impact you.

Well as much as I hate Republicans way of doing thing I have to agree with Obama. The Dems have been slow to and kinda playing it safe, one of the reasons I'm a Independent.I hoped that would change this year but a vote for Clinton is a vote for the same old thing. At this point Hillary wants to bring us back to the 90's, the only reason I would want to go back to the 90's is to take the two votes I gave Bill Back!!!!

Just in time....
What do they know that you don't ?


'....For Democrats, Obama the pick

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/20/08

According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three out of
four Americans are dissatisfied with how things are
going in our country, with just 24 percent believing
we're headed in the right direction. The deep
discontent reflected in those numbers have made
Democrats optimistic about their party's chances of
electing one of their own to the White House in
November.

However, the situation represents more than a mere
opportunity; it imposes an obligation on the
Democratic Party to offer the country a candidate who
can inspire the American people, a candidate capable
of addressing the many critical challenges, foreign
and domestic, that will confront our next president
and commander in chief.

At times of crisis, this country has always been
blessed with strong, even visionary, leadership. But
that has not been true for the last seven years. To
the contrary, on almost every front we are suffering
the consequences of slapdash, divisive leadership.

Economically, the country appears to be sliding into a
recession; internationally, our reputation on the
world stage has perhaps never been lower. Militarily,
our men and women in uniform have been burdened with
responsibilities that they lack the manpower to carry
out over the long term, and with the aging of the Baby
Boom generation and a soaring national debt, our
financial obligations likewise threaten to overwhelm
the resources we have committed to meet them.

In Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the
Democrats offer Georgia voters three candidates with
the experience, leadership and character to begin to
turn this country around. However, only two of those
candidates now harbor realistic hopes for the
nomination.

Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North
Carolina, has used his campaign to voice the growing
anxiety and fear of many in America's working and
middle classes. It's an important message, as recent
days have confirmed, and with economic troubles ahead,
the issues that Edwards has highlighted could prove
central in determining the outcome of the general
election.

However, judging from the reaction of primary voters,
Edwards' impassioned, crusading style may be better
suited to a House or Senate race than a race for the
presidency. He remains a distant third in most polls,
and his hopes for the nomination no longer seem
realistic.

That leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen.
Barack Obama of Illinois. On questions of policy, not
much separates the two. Their approaches toward health
care, tax policy, foreign relations and the
suppression of Islamic terrorism vary only at the
margins.

(In fact, that similarity probably accounts for the
dismaying pettiness of the disputes between the Obama
and Clinton camps in recent days. Campaigns have to
argue, and with little of real import separating them,
they are now arguing over the little things and in
some cases the imaginary things.)

The question, then, is which of the two candidates
would be more able to implement the policies they
agree upon.

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she
has the better grasp of official Washington, which is
probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she
has built an admirable record of success as a senator
that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official
Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.

Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband's
administration, she has too often chosen to play
within the Washington system rather than dare to
challenge its assumptions. And that's not the kind of
leadership needed at the moment.

The prime example of that instinct was probably
Clinton's vote last year in favor of naming Iran's
Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that
stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington
circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising
push toward military confrontation with Iran that was
unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set
aside Clinton's earlier vote giving President Bush
authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she
seemed to have repeated that mistake.

For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is
also one of the more reviled figures in American
politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and
she has done little to deserve it. But it exists
nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public
support she would be able to rally as president.

Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal
across many of the lines that have divided America.
That is a critically important attribute, because the
scale of changes that must be made to correct
America's course cannot be accomplished with
majorities of 50 percent plus one.

Different moments in history require different types
of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president
is matching the person to the challenge and to the
time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very
good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his
time.....'


'...Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics....'

Gee, I wonder why ?
'reviled' yes, reviled
She's red meat for the Republicans
(and MANY DEMOCRATS)


TURN THE PAGE

Obama '08

I read a post yesterday from Sam in Cleveland, OH that articulates a disturbing line of reasoning we're starting to see:  The last sentence of his post, which was decrying the naievete of Obama supporters, is copied here:
"You kids who are just entering politics and love Obama- and he is a good man- you should shut up until you learn some things."

Sam, I'm in my mid-thirties.  I don't know how old you are but I would say this:  we should certainly respect our elders but that does not mean blind respect.  I give respect where it's due, not where I'm told to.

So many Clinton supporters talk about how "the economy was so great under Bill."  You might want to take a look at who was responsible for the "glorious 90s."  It was those who are now the "under 50" demographic.  Absent the Internet explosion, none of us would be looking back on that time with such nostalgia.  It wasn't Bill's economic policies.

I think it's ironic that the very demographic who should be the most "experienced" are the very people being fooled by Senator Clinton's "experience" claims.  Neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton have true experience running the government.  But as Frank Rich pointed out in yesterday's NY Times, nobody does before they take the office. The amazing thing is that so many "over 50" voters have been duped thus far into thinking that Senator Clinton has so much "experience."  She has experience playing dirty politics.  That much is clear.  What else she brings to the table is far less clear.

BTW, Youth Voter, CA, save your breath.  We've all read your anti-Obama rants.  No need to copy paste them again.

Obama tried to show that Clinton's presidency was useless. That was below the belt and pathetic attempt at dividing the Democratic party.

Two-word review for Bill Clinton's recent activities:

No Class.

Tigers apparently don't change their stripes.  America is watching.  While a hard-core section of the Dem party may want this sideshow back in the White House, don't bet that most Americans do.  Dems who want to win in the fall may want to start considering how toxic this looks to those not part of the blinded faithful.

any of you Hillary supporter monitoring these comments sounds like Bill For presidnet. again tell me whats shes done for her 35yrs of service 7 are related to her yrs in the senate what about the other 28 or is this something you cant answer....not ready for a king and queen in the white house

When does Bill even let Hillary speak for herself anymore? Hillary is certainly a kept woman. She is nothing more then a facade as her husband runs for the Presidency - see Hillary handing out coffee in Harlem for details. Hillary is nothing but an empty shell used as a prop for her husband. This is where the '35 years of experience' comes from that Hillary always speaks about. It's Bill's 35 years, not hers.

Bill and Hillary have an agreement. Bill will get her elected this fall, and he gets his picks from the intern pool.

William Jefferson Clinton is NOT on the ballot in this election cycle.  
We have seen what has happened when a son tries to out do his father while serving as President of our country.
Do we want to see a wife trying to out do her husband in this job?
In this vast country are there only two families that are capable of governing our Nation?  If so we no longer have a democracy.  We will have appointed a new aristocracy.  What next?  George P Bush to be followed by Chelsea?
Please think about that before you vote!

Bill Clinton was a MEDIOCRE President !
Bill Clinton is NOT BELOVED

Bill Clinton enacted a 'Republican-lite' agenda
NAFTA, WTO, media consolidation, instant citizenship for Rupert Murdoch........ ad nauseum .....

Bill Clinton was responsible for the Republican takeover of the Senate and House

Srooy, Bill was NOT READY from day one...
(and neither will Hillary be ready)

AND, YES ......
HE DID HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN


TURN THE PAGE

Bill is a lying piece of garbage.  The Clintons will rip the Democratic party asunder- if they haven't already.  If Hillary is the Dem nominee, I am voting for McCain.  F--k the Clintons!  F--k their partisan politics!

Must all of you explain what everybody says?Guess what we can hear for ourselves---you waste your time and energy especially those that copy an entire speech or magazine article.Yes I agree everybody is getting nervous and mouthy

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and did not regret it.  
But I did regret having to defend him around the water cooler at work and then being let down by him making his own considerable accomplishments as President and the reputation of the Democratic party take a back seat to his own considerable failure to conduct himself as a mature adult. If Senator Clinton wins the nomination this will all come to the forefront and will become the unifying issue of a fractured GOP.
They are down now. The GOP has a plan and a hope with Senator Clinton as the nominee. They will be in uncharted waters trying to defeat Obama.
We need to NOT screw this up.

Obama's right.

There he goes again
Obama 08

Obama tried to show that Clinton's presidency was useless. That was below the belt and pathetic attempt at dividing the Democratic party.
Lifelong Democrat (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:27 AM)

----------------------------------------------------
You have it wrong!  Bill Clinton dealth the race card in this campaign.  He has allowed Hillary to hijack his presidential record/legacy.  If anything, it is Hillary who has rendered Bill's time in office as useless.  Obama has just been pointing out the facts.
If Hillary is the nominee, one can expect a sizable defection of people from the Democratic party.

I have to say, Obama needs to just stop with the Reagan thing.  He may think the Republicans were the party of ideas, but that is only because of the right wing radio and media would not let Democratic ideas be allowed to be explored, not because we didn't have any.  I think adding 23 million jobs, having a booming economy and balancing the budget, was a big change from recession, huge budget deficits, supression of liberal thought, homophobia, reverse direction of civil and woman's rights, massive military spending, the poor getting poorer, and massive crime. Pretty much what we have now in the whitehouse because people wanted to vote for the guy they liked instead of the person who was ready to do the job.  

The Clintons LIE with consumate ease. Bill Clinton was DISBARRED as a lawyer for LYING. The law community would not trust him to be an honest advocate in court. He is one of the few Presidents ever to be impeached and yet he is still given a pass in terms of honesty and integrity.

Go ahead..nominate Hillary. It's the surest way to have a Republican win the Whitehouse.

Edwards or McCain or Obama in 2008. We need some honesty and integrity in our commander-in-chief.

I'm really getting sick of Bill Clinton.

Obama is now triangulating by claiming he did not mean the Reagan had better ideas than Bill Clinton. This is just another Bob Johnson moment. He did not say it explicitly, but it is clearly what he meant.

If Reagan was as transformative as JFK and the republicans were the party of ideas, then it is obvious that he was complimenting them. He can't say now that the ideas were bad ideas because it makes no sense for him to bring it up in the first place if there were bad ideas.

I work with a largely Democratic staff, and more and more of us will not vote for Hillary, now -ever. Even if she wins the Primary, turning out votes for her will be difficult. I am on the fence about it, but I am being pushed very rapidly in that direction by Bill and Hillary's tactics. The Rovian strategy of divide and conquer may work for the sheeple in the Republican Party (I used to be a Republican until the Iran Contra affair) -but it is going to be devastating to the Dems who need strenght in diversity and unity to win.

I've already burned my Friend of Bill card, -He can go to hell. The only question is whether or not I can hold my nose long enough -enduring the Clinton stench to vote for her.

At this point -I'm leaning with the NO CHANCE IN HELL Dems.

Bill, if you're in New York why don't you just go back to Chappequa and "chill out" for awhile? I, for one, am really sick and tired of hearing from you. YOU are not the candidate! THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU, BILL!!

Go, Obama!!

Senator Obama should understand that hard-core Democrats have never been fond of President Reagan.  And in a Democratic primary, any positive reference to Reagan is not going to sit well with the Democratic base.  He comments would have been better served in a general, not a primary election.

I am so over the Clintons.  Bill, go back to telling lies about your sex life, you were much more endearing back then.  

To recap:  Obama makes factual statements regarding presidential history.  Bill Clinton distorts.

Do we want someone who observes and learns from ALL history (even Republicans) or someone who has to resort to distortions? (remember: depends on what the definition of "is" is?)

(Hillary) Clinton supporters who do so for her accomplishments seem to be few.  Those who want Bill back deserve what they get if she wins (and the rest of the country loses.)

Glad to see that when it gets tough that it will be Bill who will be running the White House not Hillary.

Bill Clinton has been a pathological liar on the National sceen for 16 years.  I voted for him twice but am now so disguted with him and his wife taht I'll vote for Mike Bllomberg if she gets the nomination.

What part of, "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.", don't you understand? That is what Obama said and that's what Bill Clinton quoted. Don't get blinded by your rush to defend your little boy. Obama chose to fight the men's fight - he needs to show what he is made of instead of whining with the help of the "media". Cut it out, stop piling on the Clintons!

Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.

On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama—even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."

During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice," as aides tried to end the interview. Then, in New Hampshire, he argued angrily that the story of Obama's principled position on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," a charge few reporters bought. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking African-American in Congress and officially neutral, found Clinton's tone insulting and said so publicly.


When the former president called Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat gave Clinton an earful, telling him that he bore some blame for the injection of race into the contest. In any event, both Hillary and Obama made peace on the race issue at the Las Vegas debate. The Clinton camp now fears that Kennedy is leaning toward Obama, according to the Clinton source, though Kennedy's office says he is making no endorsement "at this time."

Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

There is little precedent for a former president's engaging in intra-party attacks. In 1960, Harry Truman criticized the idea of a Roman Catholic president and tried briefly to stop John F. Kennedy's nomination. "I urge you to be patient," he told JFK publicly. But in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son's GOP primary opponent, John McCain.

Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary. "History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy, not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary.

Bill is showing how distracting Clinton(s) can be.  Do we really want Bill to have another term in the White House?  After Hillary's lose in Iowa I heard a commentator state that The Clinton(s) would be coming after Obama for him to watch his back and knees, whoa....how true!

Okay, so I am really getting tired of this crap from the former president.  We need to make a statement to Bill and Hillary Clinton -- so why don't we make the kind of statement that the Republicans will make in the general election should Hillary and Bill become the nominees of the Democratic Party:

lets all put on our stained blue dresses and show up at every Bill and Hillary event!!!

You gotta fight fire with fire!

OMG!!

Conventional wisdom... What conventional wisdom?

Conventional wisdom is that "begging for votes is usually ineffective. Especially begging for Republican votes, during a Democratic caucus... Bad timing, poor choice, you do that later Obama, not now... Poor thing.  

Considering the amount of fairly large political gaffs made by the Obama camp lately, one has to wonder if there is any "conventional wisdom," coming out of camp Obama...  

Well, they are starting to cry... but again, they are behind the curve, Hillary was first in that too.  Obama is going to have to figure out some things for himself.  We want a leader in the White House not a follower...

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):