Gee, I didn't know Bill was running for his third term.

PRESIDENT CLINTON IS "ABSOLUTELY" CORRECT, WITH THEASE STATEMENTS. WE NEED HILLARY TO TAKE CHARGE IMMEDIATELY, FROM DAY ONE TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. A NEW CHANGE ,WITH "QUALIFIED" PEOPLE TO RUN THIS HUGE BURAURACY. hillaryclinton.com , we can not afford to have a rookie Senator running this country.

Boy Billary never learns.. Thats a lesson we should have learned from the 1990's too.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are very much alike.  Obama needs to revisit Bill's presidency.  Bill also had lofty dreams and rhetoric that far surpasses Barack's.  He was also much better informed and could speak to issues with great facility and energy but he soon realized that rhetoric cannot purchase unity.  

Bill would never have become president without Hillary.  Hillary and Bill are a team but Hillary is the smarter, wiser, stronger and more stable part of the team.

She will make the best president America could ever hope for.   She is the HOPE of 08.

Barack brings excitement and emotional appeal with his rhetoric but not hope.  Barack talks unity but brings division;  he talks about turning the page but reaches back to old establishment endorsements; he talks pure but fights dirty/Chicago smack down; he talks big but offers nothing substantial;  he lies when he says his health care will cover everyone;  he thinks you are gullible as he woos you with his pontificating....  The picture Barack paints of himself is so much larger than the guy he is.  He cannot transition into the man for the job in 08.

Hillary the HOPE of 08  :)

 

That's odd. Bill Clinton mischaracterizing Obama's words.

He STILL hasn't learned to shut his mouth.  He never will.  This sounds like the biggest case of HIS ego over the issues: "look at what I did in the 1990's and tell me it was great."  So?  Hillary wasn't president - you were - so how does that make her have your experience?

And doesn't he get that was 15 YEARS AGO?  He makes Hillary look so OLD!

I notice that many of you sound angry and baffled by fellow Democrats who don’t share your enthusiasm for bringing the Clintons back to the White House.  Weren’t those the good old days?  Since I am one who definitely does not want to build a bridge back to the last century, I can offer one perspective.
 
Bill Clinton managed to leave office with favorable poll ratings, which was a personal triumph for him.  The Democratic Party didn’t fare quite so well, however.  There were a number of missteps and road bumps along the way in addition to the failure on health care. When he took office in 1992, we had 57 senators, but only 45 seats remained in Democratic control when Bill left office.  In 1992 we controlled the House with 266 members, but had lost 55 seats and control of Congress by the end of Bill’s second term.  We had to run the presidential race in 2000 hobbled around the ankles by a stained blue dress, and as you may recall that didn’t work out so well for us.
 
As I remember it, Bill Clinton had a whole lot to do with putting George Bush in the White House with both the House and Senate controlled by the Republican Party.  While a president Gore would likely have put together an international coalition and confronted Bin Laden in Afghanistan, there is just no way he would have wrapped his arms around the wacky Iraq invasion scheme that the neoconservatives had been pushing for years before 9/11.  This sequence of events places responsibility for the whole tragic, sorry mess squarely on Bill Clinton’s shoulders.  Iraq is as much Bill’s legacy as it is GWs.  Hillary’s Iraq war authorization vote is just the icing on an already thoroughly unappetizing cake.
 
Yes the economy was strong.  The notion that the president is somehow ‘managing’ the economy, though, is really pretty silly.  The economy runs in cycles, and looking back now we can see that a bubble was building in Silicon Valley that would burst soon after Bill left office.  More noteworthy was the way that he embraced many of the objectives of big business and Wall Street in the push for globalization and deregulation.  Many of his policy choices served to deepen the economic divide and consolidate corporate power.  The Two Americas gap that John Edwards was talking about didn’t just develop over the last seven years.

And how many of you remember President Clinton’s One America Initiative?  You know, the one where Bill was going to “lead the nation in an effort to become One America: a place where we respect others’ differences and embrace the common values that unite us.”  Don’t feel bad.  Nobody else remembers it either.  That’s hardly the way I would describe the state of the union he left behind.  He also ducked on issues like global warming when it became difficult to push forward.  Maybe we would have lost many of those battles at the time, but it’s pretty tough to win a fight unless you start one in the first place.  I could go on (and on and on) but I won’t take more of your time. I hope this helps shed some light on why we aren’t all anxious to march forward into the past.

There he goes again, outright lying about what Obama said...

And I'd like to say as an Obama supporter, I find Shuster's comments absolutely disgusting, and think it would be entirely appropriate for MSNBC to fire him.

I'll give Bill Clinton his dues.  He did some good things while in office.  But a lot of the good times of the 90's was due to factors that were not of his doing, and will not be repeated anytime soon (Tech boom, internet boom, etc).

Bill Clinton has proven to be a "world-class change maker".
Hillary Clinton has not.  The only thing she's "changed" is her stories, tactics, and voice as needed in her quest to win.

You go Bill! WE LOVE the Clintons! Hillary Clinton is going to be a GREAT President! Bill is a bonus, badly needed to be our wonderful ambassador to the world, where Bill & Hillary are known, respected, beloved, and MISSED! Bill is a wonderful asset to Hillary. They are simply the greatest political team in history!

VOTE SMART, VOTE HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT! She is clearly the most experienced, most qualified, most politically skilled, with the best grasp of domestic & international issues in the race of any party.

It's time for Sen. Obama to gracefully exit the race. He's destroying our chances for victory in November. Obama is simply unqualified to be President and is unelectable.

The 24/7 corporated owned media promotion of Obama should end now. They promote him because they know he can't win. Rethuglicans are positively gleeful at the prospect of Barack Hussein Obama as the nominee. The name alone sends shivers of delight down their spines.

VOTE SMART, VOTE HILLARY! Let's not squander our best chance of victory in November. VOTE HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, Obama never did say that the 1990s were no better than the past 7 years.  Nothing even CLOSE to that.  And the worst part is that Bill Clinton knows that.  He knows that Obama is saying the 1990s could have been even better (and the future can be even better than the 1990s were) if we eliminate or minimize devisive politics.  Clinton is consciously lying when he portrays Obama the way he did today.  The media has an obligation to point this out.  Clinton is doing exactly what he did with the Regan thing.  Intentionally distorting for political gain.  THAT is why the 1990s weren't as good as they could've been:  Clinton is not an honest broker.  He is slash and burn.  He is get away with what you can.  He is a man who fiddles with words ("I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman").  People should point this out.  People should ask Hillary CLinton if she endorses Bill's interpretation of Obama's position.  Is there not some duty for the media to bring these things to attention?  I think so.  And Obama should point this all out VERY forcefully right away.

It is more important obviously to have a world class change maker.

Someone who for example, graduated from college and went to work changing things for the better on the streets of the Southside of Chicago,

Someone who for example, turned down extremely lucrative jobs and maybe even a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship to keep trying to make things better for people at the lower end of the social spectrum,

Someone who for example, did not "go along" for political reasons on the war in Iraq but instead stood up against the possible negative political consequences (remember Max Cleland?) and said

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war.  A war based not on reson but on passion, not on principle but on politics."  Barack Obama fall 2002.

Someone who for example fought  for immigration reform on the floor of the Senate instead of staying out of the floor work and just casting a vote

Someone who for example has the integrity to raise money for his campaign without taking it from special interest PACS and lobbyists and

Finally and most importantly, someone who has the brilliance to understand he cannot do it alone, but instead calls on the American people to help him make our Country better for all of her citizens.

A world class change maker, Barack Obama.  Yes we can!  Obama '08.

I don’t want Barrack Obama to be the next President … BUT … I believe that the man deserves a FAIR SHOT for a change. This man does not deserve all the mud getting slung at him by Clinton supporters, each of whom is one, if not all, of the following; racist, sexist, nationalist, naïve, or living proof that our education system is falling apart. I’m a republican, and though Obama doesn’t have my vote, he has my respect and my morale support.

Clinton supporters on firstread:

“His middle name is Hussein!” – Yes, along with probably 8 million people or so in the world who never bombed a market or burned a flag, just farmed land trying to feed their families.

“What about Rezko?” – What about Norman Hsu? Clinton can match ANYONE step for step and then some when it comes to sleaze. When it came out that Rezko was crooked, Obama donated most of the contributions to CHARITY. When it came out that Hsu was crooked, Clinton gave the money BACK. Shut up.

“He was raised as a Muslim!” – Yeah! Who cares that all children’s upbringing is subject to the influence of environment and parents! What kind of reliable 6-year-old doesn’t stand up and FIGHT THE POWER! You’re an idiot. The choices he’s made as a responsible Christian adult are what matter.

“He can’t win in November!” – C’mon. Are you serious? Obama has a shot. Clinton, not so much. So if that’s your only argument in favor of Hiltary, hop over the fence (Since you’re so good at helping illegals do it).

And these are just the four that have been bugging me the most the last couple of days. Now I realize that the vast majority of people who DON’T like Clinton see these detractors as morons, but the fact that they’re secluded in their own little world of ignorance is appalling and confusing. So to the Clinton supporters: do YOUR PARTY a favor and the next time you get an email about dirt on Obama from your half-retarded little buddies why don’t you hit the reply button, do a little actual thinking, and let them know that they are ill-informed.

<<Clinton told a New Orleans audience today that his wife's main rival has made "an explicit argument that the '90s weren't much better than this decade">>

Wow, back in the limelight for less than a week and already he's lying and distorting.  Yes, this does remind me of the 90s.

I remember MSNBC (especially Matthews) doing the same thing to Al Gore that they are now doing to Hillary and that worked out ever so well didn't it?  Barack Obama has mostly won red states and they won't vote for him or any other democrat in November.  So keep it up MSNBC and you will elect John McCain and then pretend you tried to warn us.

Unlike most Obama fans, I actually read his plan on his website. It surprises me how little substance his plan has. Here is his tax change plan. Only two items. One, give $500 to each working person (but not saying how to pay for it). Two, let IRS prepare your tax return.

If the world is as simple as he thinks, we don't need a president.

Oh-- and I forgot to mention, someone who worked for 15+ years as a corporate lawyer can hardly claim the title of world class change maker.  There is nothing wrong with being a corporate lawyer; but such an occupation certainly does not lend itself to achieving change.  In such an occupation, your clients are paying you to keep the status quo, or make it even more financially advantageous for them.

Perhaps Senator Clinton should redact her argument about herself as a change to exclude those 15+ years when her primary occupation was with a prestigious law firm representing corporate clients.

Which of those choices is Hillary supposed to be?  We know she's not going to be a world class change maker... so I guess that must mean...

Clinton is spot on.  Obama is a johnny come lately, babe in the woods who would be a risky bet in the general, and even a riskier bet as Commander-in-Chief.   Obama is green.  He isn't ready to be President the fact that he can't see it himself means he is either arrogant or naive.

Which good changes could he be talking about?  Voting to authorize the Iraq War?  Or voting to approve "enhanced" interigation techniques?  Or voting against an amendment that would disclsoe 10,000 earmarks as compared to 500?  You are certainly right Mr. Clinton those are changes... Changes for the worse

Which of those choices is Hillary supposed to be?  We know she's not going to be a world class change maker... so I guess that must mean...

...And he's right, Bill!  Because the people who weren't involved in the fights in the past haven't built up the opposing party's rage to the boiling point, nor has it left those people saddled with the past's baggage and garbage.  Nicely put, Mr. (yes, you are!) Former President.

Good, every time Bill Clinton makes news, Hillary loses another vote.

The most important thing is for a democrat to win in November.  The fact is that Sen. Obama is more likely to defeat Sen. McCain than Sen.Clinton. Obama attracts independents and some moderate republicans - she does not. Indeed, there about 5 polls in the last few days that all demonstrate this point.  (For example, the new Time magazine poll shows Obama defeating McCain while McCain defeats Clinton.)

The republicans are nominating McCain, who is clearly the strongest candidate they could have in a general election.  We should do the same.  

What is lacking in Bill's argument is that his policy choices and behavior during the 90's created a context that allowed a Bush administration to be (re)elected by this nation. Today whatever "progress" he claims to have made has already been severly diminished by the current administration.

That wasn't so bad.  I happen to disagree with him but I don't see anything there worth reporting.  It's probably a sign that he's slowing regaining his "boys" after having them severed after South Carolina but nothing there to get upset about.

forget about change vs. experience, gender vs. race, substance vs. inspiration and all the other ridiculous ways the media is trying to spin this primary.  The #1 question for democrats is who has the best chance of beating John McCain, and that is almost certainly Obama.  We can't take the risk of running Hillary, when her negatives are already so high that she is LOSING head to head match ups against McCain

The Candidate Who Can Win: Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton with Independent voters and can beat John McCain in November

On the day that John McCain became the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, a Time poll confirmed what voters and polls have consistently demonstrated in the last few weeks – Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November.  

In all six of the most recent general election head-to-head match-ups, Obama does better than Hillary Clinton against McCain by an average of more than five points.  In four out of the six, Clinton loses to McCain.  

From Time Magazine: The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for Time, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground." [Time, 2/7/08]

The truth of this statement is reflected in the results from the contests we’ve had so far.  In critical swing states that Democrats need to carry in November, Obama has beaten Hillary Clinton among Independent voters by crushing margins.  In Missouri, he won them by 37 points (67-30).  In New Mexico, he’s winning them by 39 points (63-24).  In Arizona and New Hampshire, he won them by 10 points (47-37, 41-31).

On Super Tuesday, in six red states that had primaries or caucuses for both Republicans and Democrats, Obama won and got more votes than the top two Republicans combined.  These states – Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Carolina – account for a total of 53 Electoral College votes.  In Idaho and Kansas, where there was no Republican primary, Obama won at least a three-to-one victory over Clinton.  Obama has shown such a strong appeal with Independents that even John McCain’s Texas media consultant Mark McKinnon recently confirmed that he would not work against Obama if he is the nominee.  

On NPR today, President Bush’s chief political strategist Matthew Dowd said, “The other thing that I think John McCain has going for him is if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination   I know there’s a lot of conservatives out there that said they wouldn’t vote or would vote for her but I think she’s the most unifying force for John McCain out there right now, not himself.”  He went on to say later in the interview, “I think if you gave the strategists and people around John McCain some truth serum and asked them to say who they want to run against, in a minute they’d say Senator Hillary Clinton. They think that she’s polarizing; she’d motivate and unite the base of the Republican Party.  She’s not a generational difference and a change of a figure, she’s a bit of throwback to the past, like to a degree he is.  Against Senator Obama it’s a much more difficult task.  It would be a generational campaign, the new versus the older.  Somebody that had a distinct stand on Iraq versus his stand on Iraq.  I think Senator Obama is a much more difficult race and there is not any vitriol from the conservative and the Republican base against Senator Obama.  They don’t sort of dislike him to there core like they do Hillary Clinton.  I think they would much prefer, the McCain folks, race against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama because it’s hard to compose a strategy against a new guy like Barack.”  [NPR, 2/8/08]

Bill Clinton had a great run as president.  He lucked into the internet boom which itself created optimism and pushed the economy along.  He did put into place plans that assisted that boom; nobody can deny that.  But his enjoining the U.S. in the WTO and NAFTA has led to the tremendous loss of blue collar jobs that followed his administration.  Further, his polarizing method of governing amplified the partisan stalemate in Washington.

Hillary Clinton cannot run on Bill's record without also accepting the criticisms of that administration - since it was part of her "35 years" of experience.  And one of those criticisms is that we have lost much of our manufacturing base because Bill Clinton served the interests of American corporates rather than American workers.

The libraries are still open,so just watch the hate laced anti-Hillary bots descend,right along with the anti-Obama bots.Ahh,if only literacy were a requirement of a posting,things would move much faster.If I vote for Hillary,and I'm white,it's being labeled racist.If I vote Obama,and I'm black,it's okay?I seem to be missing the point,but I will defend each of you the right to vote your choice,to the death.Can EVERYONE,both sides,tone down the racial bigotry?It truly lessens each of us.Peace.

What a surprise!  Oh, and were the "good times" of the 90s because of Bill Clinton.  Anyone who thinks that is ignorant and naive.  The only thing he did that was good in the 90s was FINALLY admitted that he was a lie and a cheat.  Do we need really need to have that in the White House again?

Bill Clinton taking credit for the economic boom of the 90's is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

I voted for Bill in '92 because his fresh spirit would hasten the inevitable return to a good economy.  I'm sure he was a factor.

The internet boon occurred on his watch too.  But I don't think he could take full credit for that.  It was technology itself.  But if he does, he has to take credit for the internet bust too.

Bill and Hillary are trying to sell themselves as a fresh approach again.  

Sorry folks.  They WERE the fresh faces back then.  They're the establishment now.  That's how you boast the "35 years of experience" slogan.  

"A World-Class Change Maker"...doing what?  She held the unelected office of First Lady.

By the way, Hillary, nice of you to make the trip to New Orleans and deliver the message yourself.

The 1990's were good years.  I think everyone that lived through them would agree. Where was Barack Hussien at this time that he doesn't know this?  Do we want someone as President that doesn't remember or didn't pay attention?  I DON'T THINK SO.

Why not give Hillary a chance and let her use her knowledge to help us on the enconomy and healthcare issues.

GO HILLARY

The weasel just can't keep his mouth shut. He never will. The problem is that he's at least under some scrutiny now, and some pressure to shut up. What will happen if Billary is elected. He will have no accountability and can talk without any chains. We know his wife won't reel him in. Sounds like another White House that will not have any accountability. So if you liked the past 7 years, wait for the next 4 under Billary. Yikes!

What he's saying is absolutely true, but your headline here makes it sound like "oh no, here we go again.."  The 90's were great.  No matter what Bill did PERSONALLY, when it came to running the country, he did just fine.  Save your hatred for the current president.

Bills and Idiot , he needs to go hang out at his girl friends house until this thing is over.

Oh please, here is Bill Clinton's real motivation with Hillary's campaign: a legacy that matters. If you look at pure basic economic statistics: inflation, income, interest rates, employment, Obama is correct. There is not much difference between the 90's or the 00's.

Seems to me that's a pretty good outcome considering we've seen an unprecedented terrorist attack on our soil and two huge overseas wars in that period. Clinton himself had the nerve to say he wished he had been president on 9/11 because it would have made him more significant.

It is time for the Clinton Restoration project to come to an end. Let Hillary go back to legislating in the Senate (her carpet-bagging prize for enduring Bill's sex scandal). And let Bill go back to trading influence for donations to his library and foundation.

We need new leadership, we need Barack Obama...

One day someone will have to tell me what Hillary Clinton has changed other than screwing up health care and helping change Congress into Republicans.

Do you suppose the prosperity to which Bill is reffering had to do with the bumper crop of White House Interns that he personally mentored?

Am I hearing this right?  Is Bill reaching so far back as to pat himself and his former self on the back as being an awesome President?  Good for you, Bill.  Remind me, did you really inhale or what?  You were a laughing stock half of the time, don't pretend it didn't happen.

I for one loved the balanced budget and the higher employment as well as 8,000 new cops on the streets, and Bush squandered it all.

Of course, Obama never did say that the 1990s were no better than the past 7 years.  Nothing even CLOSE to that.  And the worst part is that Bill Clinton knows that.  THus, Clinton is lying. He knows that Obama is saying the 1990s could have been even better (and the future can be even better than the 1990s were) if we eliminate or minimize devisive politics.  Clinton is consciously lying when he portrays Obama the way he did today.  The media has an obligation to point this out.  Clinton is doing exactly what he did with the Regan thing.  Intentionally distorting for political gain.  THAT is why the 1990s weren't as good as they could've been:  Clinton is not an honest broker.  He is slash and burn.  He is get away with what you can.  He is a man who fiddles with words ("I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman").  People should point this out.  People should ask Hillary CLinton if she endorses Bill's interpretation of Obama's position.  Is there not some duty for the media to bring these things to attention?  I think so.  And Obama should point this all out VERY forcefully right away.

Give me a break!!!

Gee MSNBC!  Hillary should be really happy with you.
You just gave her a free hour commercial free on TV.
Last night you aired her biography followed by John McCain's.  It is very interesting.  Seems like you have decided this election for us!  Nora just mentioned that Obama is speaking shortly.  It will be interesting to see if you carry his whole speech.  

How can any american feel comfortable giving so much power to one couple.  It's just so strange.  This country cannot be so closeminded as to really believe that only two people named Clinton can help this country.  We're a democracy, not a monarchy. And I have faith that in this entire country, at this time, there can be someone else who can as president work to better our nation.  

Has anyone thought about the constituional crisis that it will be if we have two sitting presidents in the White House?  We see already that Senator Clinton is running on her husband's record, not hers. We need someone tto challenge the status quo of Washington and truly unify this country...Barack Obama.

Every time something comes out of this man's mouth it is an attempt at spin, at best, or an outright lie. Does any intelligent voter need anymore evidence to become convinced that the politics the Clintons represents is obsolete, self-serving, ambitious, and all about them. Not about the citizens of this country but rather their greed, and ambition. The Clintons have absolutly got to go - now - for this country to raise it's level of politics. I am sick and tired of their BS and I won't take it anymore.

I am the embodiment of the polls some of you are citing.  I live in a swing state, am an independent, and believe in three things in a president:  mainstream pragmatist on this issues, unifier as not just the president of a party but of a nation, and moral integrity.  Obama has my vote if he gets past "the machine," but if not, me and thousands like me will hand Hillary a humiliating defeat to McCain in November.  And boy, won't you raging Democrats be sorry you let this one slip through your fingers.  Remember, before a shot has been fired in the general election, 50-51% of this country, depending on the poll you read, state that they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.  I would have never voted for Romney under any circumstances, and a Romney victory was probably Hillary's only path to the White House in November, but that possiblity is now thankfully gone.  

Bill was great in the 90's.  He and his AG were go busy trying to define sex that they allow ENRON, WORLD COM, and others steal millions from investors and enployees.  You can't blame Bush because these happened during the time Bill was our CEO.  They were discovered soon after Bush became president.  Also Bill has to remenber Terrorism was not an interest of his or he would have taken care of Ben Ladin when he was offer the man two times.  Terrorism was allowed to grow without interruption.

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