The battle for South Carolina

Jaycee, Ventura, California — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:20:20 GMT

You might argue that Ralph Nader and his 2% army of strategically impaired progressives put GW in office, and you would be correct. But the 2000 election should never have been close enough for the Greens to do irreparable damage to every cause they thought they were promoting. Bill Clinton bears full responsibility for the debacle of the past seven years. Al Gore should have been able to run on the record of the Clinton presidency and win easily, but instead had to distance himself. Bill Clinton let us all down badly with his baffling lack of self-discipline, and wrecked Hillary’s chances of winning the White House in the process. This business of being battle-tested is just goofy. In fact, she is damaged goods and if she gets the nomination we will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don’t take my word for it or rely on the polls that reveal her dangerously high negatives. Just talk with people outside your circle of Democrats. I’m sure you have a large number of acquaintances and extended family that will not even consider voting for a Clinton. I certainly do. Obama would have a shot at them, but when it comes to Billary the game is over.

The battle for South Carolina

adam/Brooklyn New York City — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:42:39 GMT

Does anyone know if Bill is taking an intern with him to South Carolina? Lets hope not, the Democratic Party can't afford anymore Clinton Scandals. We don't want that circus back in town.

The battle for South Carolina

Nashville_fan — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:49:30 GMT

Glad to know that the real candidate will be representing "the Clintons" in South Carolina. I guess the "Hillary I know" has morphed into the "President I knew". lol

The battle for South Carolina

MG, St. Louis, Mo. — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:52:39 GMT

Please ADemocrats lets pick a transformative candidate for President. At this point in our country's history we need new vision and new blood. The one sure thing that will unite the splintered Republicans is Hillary Clinton. The more heated bipartisan bickering in Washington began with the Clintons, continued through this current Busch adminstration and will only get more stalemated if we bring back the Clintons. I am a firm beliver that we got W because of the mess the Clinton's left his presidency in. Gore couldn't run on the clinton recore because of the disgrace the clintons brought to the white house. Do we really wnat them back or do we want to put the Democrats on a new trajectory that brings in so much new blood, energy, independants and republicans over. Think really hard about this and what a new candidate with fresh blood can do for Democrats and America.

The battle for South Carolina

Mary — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:13:32 GMT

Mr. Clinton is not just the spouse of a candidate, he is the EX-PRESIDENT. The Clintons NEED to get into the White House one way or another. Shame shame on them. They will never get my vote. Mrs. Clinton is running on his record (what ever that is) and he is running as if THIS was his campaign. WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT AND WHO WILL BE THE PRESIDENT?

The battle for South Carolina

Scott — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:16:25 GMT

It was a great debate last night.

However, the reality remains that Senator Clinton is going to get the nomination. Women (and particularly women over 50) have shown that they are not only going to vote for her NO MATTER WHAT but that they are going to show up in huge numbers. She has also shown that she will win the Latino vote by a large margin. What do those 2 things add up to? Huge wins in the biggest primary states on February 5 and the nomination.

At the end of the day? Women over 50 will be cheering and patting each other on the back, saying "you go girls" and "we showed them." And, America will as bitterly divided as it's been the past 4 years. At best, she may eke out a victory in the fall--the margins will be razor thin and the Dems will likely lose House and Senate seats due to the "Clinton drag" (Hardcore Dems hate to admit it but it's true--America does not want more of this drama and there WILL be a drag when Republicans and Independents show up to vote against more of the Clintons).

So, what will a President Clinton be able to accomplish with an even smaller majority than currently exists? She'll be able to make some modest changes in Iraq. Think her much vaunted "universal" healthcare is going to get through Congress? Think again.

Democrats, and particularly those women who have been flocking

The battle for South Carolina

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:17:01 GMT

Obama said last night he did not know which Clinton he was running against. It does not matter Barack, they are interchangable. Bill is staying behind because he is more popular then his wife is. Hillary is a cold, uncaring, know it all who thinks that just because her name is Clinton, she should be treated like the queen. She offers nothing as far as solutions and all she can do is get herself elected so my party can come back and take over congress in two years, just like her husband did.

The battle for South Carolina

Celticfire, erin, wi — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:28:05 GMT

Damaged Goods, Indeed! The experience base that Hillary and Bill continue to mention is all myth. The destructive behavior -- on both their parts -- doomed Bill's legacy and prevents any opportunity for Hillary to even consider a third term. Its not that we don't recall their 8 years in the White House --- it was a bloody nightmare which prevented Al Gore from having a truly memorable presidency.

So thanks, Bill and Hillary, thanks for Whitewater, Travelgate, Monicagate, Impeachment, political division established and continually promoted to this very day by the Clinton Attack machine, and extraordinary presidential paranoia.

This is coming from a life long Democrat -- one of many who will vote for anyone but Clinton. Bill and Hillary, you are both damaged goods and we can and we must do better.

The battle for South Carolina

Tina L. Vargas. New York, NY — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:49:43 GMT

I totally agree with Jaycee. The idea that the Clinton's are battle-tested is correct, but why? While I will admit that some of the vitriol directed at them in the 90's was a concerted effort by Republicans, the fact is that the Clinton's gave them the ammunition to shoot at them. Right of victory in 1992 instead of consolidating his power and getting together with the congressional democrats that had a majority the Clinton's misread the political landscape and went on their own. Very telling that the two things they did at the beginning of their Presidency was "Don't Ask Don't Tell" a flawed policy that to this day has had terrible consequences for our armed forces. The fact that we lack translators and throw out of the armed forces people capable and willing to serve as a result of some gotcha policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" says alot. Secondly, he sent Hillary on a secretive Don Quijote quest to fix healthcare. Notice the years 1992-1993 no preparation, no consultation with the majority congress, no outside public relations to move the country towards finally fixing probably our most intractable problem. We are still waiting as a result of that critical failure. The congressional democrats always felt that they were not part of the Bill Clinton presidency, he was too busy triangulating everything. In the meantime his personal weaknesses plunged our country into a period of recriminations and gave the Republicans what they needed. They were able to portray the Clinton's and democrats and immoral, opportunistic politicians that did not have the best interests of our country at heart. I am not agreeing totally with their characterization but alot of it rings true. I for one am suffering from Clinton fatigue, can't stand the thought of the Clinton's being around in charge for another 4 or 8 years. This is the man that looked straight into the nation's eyes and lied! Lied over sex for haven's sake, how demeaning and pityful for our country. I for one will never, never vote for another Clinton.

The battle for South Carolina

Kevin B, Eastern, PA — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:55:30 GMT

As a registered Green I can say Jaycee is mostly correct in her statements. I stand as an example of how the Dems can either pull me into the tent or kick me out by nominating Hillary.

BTW, Nader is deciding in the next few weeks if he will run. If Hillary is nominated and Ralh runs, I WILL support him. I can not stand behind a Clinton. Not after NAFTA and WTO. The Dems better get their head out of the sand or else lose me and other like me when they should be adding a new wing to their tent.

The battle for South Carolina

AAH, Houston, TX — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:55 GMT

It is war of words when it comes to clintons. I hope that the Clintons realize that the dirty politics that they are playing with fellow democrat can cost them in the general Election. Given last nights' debate, I would vote for the republican candidate over Clinton. I admired Bill Clinton when he was president and I used to wonder why some people disliked him. He cleared my doubts and I can clearly see that the clinton do not care about party loyalty when it comes to their self ineterest. Bill Clinton should refrain from personal attacks or he might cost his wife the presidency.

The battle for South Carolina

rafael childress, brooklyn, ny — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:24:31 GMT

Whether one speaks in terms of the dangers of a dynasty, Clinton fatigue, or Hillary Clinton's inability to win the general election, they all add to the same thing: The Democratic party cannot afford to take a chance. Indeed, Democratic Senators from red states are backing Obama, what more proof de we need? Whether right or wrong, the Clintons are disliked by half the country, who would not vote for them under any conditions, and even if she did win, the anitpathy toward her would make governing by consensus virtually impossible.

People from my generation are tired of the baby boom age old fights. The fights of the 1950s-1990's created hardened views along ideological fault lines that seem difficult if not impossible to overcome. Senator Obama's generation and those that follow are free of those deep wounds. We actually get along with one another. What brings us together is stronger than what separates us. Our parties include people of all colors, classes and religion. And sure one can make the argument that were it not for our parent's travails, we wouldn't be where we are today. But we are here. You taught us well, now its our turn to lead.

The battle for South Carolina

Scott, Ft. Lauderdale, FL — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:28:21 GMT

I couldnt agree more. America has no shot of electing a Democrat if Hillary Clinton is elected by the Democratic party. People detest her at an unfathomable rate, and they will flock to the polls to keep her and him out of the White House. I have never heard the venom coming out of peoples mouths as Hillary forces. Can we all just realize the most important point, we can not have this revolving door of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. This is ridiculous, time for a NEW direction for America, Obama is the only candidate to offer that up to us.

The battle for South Carolina

Sandra, Richmond, VA — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:37:39 GMT

Obama has had to move from the "high-ground" to a defensive strategy because of the "double-teaming" of the Clinton duo. If he doesn't respond, Obama looks weak; if he fights back, he gets criticized. I prefer to see him stand up to the Clintons.

B. Clinton is taking on the role of the "attack dog" that the VP candidate usually takes in the National campaign. He may be a "supportive spouse", but the fact that he is the former President carries much more weight than the usual spousal support.

I continue to support Obama, and had hoped that I could bring myself to vote for H. Clinton, if she got the nomination. However, how on earth can a VP or a Secretary of State in a potential H. Clinton Presidency possibly compete with Bill as a Co-President?

Neither one of them "lost" last night, but I can't see them joining on a ticket. Edwards has passion but lacks the ability to pull the party and the country together. He stayed above the fray last night because he is really no longer in the race and the other candidates have no real need to jump on him.

As for Hillary an SC, now she can go off to other states and leave the SC attack-dog stuff to her "loving" spouse Bill. I wish Obama could just compete with Hillary!

I had appreciated Bill Clinton as the global Statesman as former President, but no more.

Still shighly supportive of Obama as uniter. I will have a very difficult time voting for Hillary if she AND BILL win the nomination.

The battle for South Carolina

rodeo, ellensburg, wa — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:43:37 GMT

As a moderate Republican woman, I'd LOVE to be able to vote for Hillary; she's the smarter, more compassionate and more honest Clinton. Staying with the philanderer won her major points in his term; letting him dominate her campaign NOW is a mistake and I agree with Jaycee. Most folks I know feel that Hillary is the Republican's best shot at the White House this year.This will, however, open the door for talented women in both parties to emerge, and that will have to be her contribution to American history. Sorry.

The battle for South Carolina

henry — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:47:23 GMT

Hillary and Bill Clinton are displaying exactly what will take to accomplish change beginning next January. Cunning is an asset, not a liability. Remember, folks, the onslaught of bare knuckle tactics the right levied against them in the 90's. And what happened? This country prospered! Think the right will again fight dirty? You betcha! Hillary has both the tenaciousness and ability to re-introduce prosperity in and respect for America.
Obama? Great guy. Greater risk.

The battle for South Carolina

ben, Chicago, Illinois — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:06:18 GMT

I am a lifelong progressive voter and a contributor (albeit small) to the Barack Obama campaign, But I will vote for McCain, and possibly other Republicans, over Hillary.

The battle for South Carolina

SJBETZ, SLC, UTAH — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:21:37 GMT

I think the fact Hillary has left the state and left Bill to do her "dirty" work speaks volumes. She can stay above the "fray" so to speak, focus on the issues and sends her husband out to "yell at the neighbors". Is this really the "woman" we want to send into the White House? I am a woman and am all for a real, upstanding woman candidate who has created her own path and isn't relying on the strength of her husband's past popularity and accomplishments. Name recognition is NOT a reason to vote for anyone in this election. I believe the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign are exactly what we need to CHANGE about American politics. The Clinton's epitomize what is wrong with politics today. Where's the change???

The battle for South Carolina

Emma, Atlanta — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:21:45 GMT

I would rather see a Republican than Bill and Hillary in office again. I don't want to become an Independent but I might have to give up the Democratic party if Hillary is the nominee.

The battle for South Carolina

HMT-MI — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:26:09 GMT

I have friends family and voters,even republicans that have and will vote for Hillary.Guess we are not all alike after all.Obama was weak last night---even with the mostly black audience applauding him whenever he opened his mouth.He did not explain the Rezko connection and will be asked to explain again.It has been in the Chicago papers already so he might as well fess up.Instead of whining about Bill Clinton he should get his own stories straight.

The battle for South Carolina

Evelyn, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:01:02 GMT

I agree with Jaycee (above) that we as Democrats must think long and hard about electability at this critical moment. Hillary Clinton has thus far only shown success amongst hardened Democrats. The general election is a totally different beast. If Hillary is nominated, John McCain will snatch up Independents and even disgruntled Democrats like candy out of pinata. Hillary's "experience" (which is actually quite meager) will look dismal and pathetic in comparison to any Republican nominee. She is a junior Senator with *no* executive experience, and the First Lady of an impeached presidency. Her central claim to "experience" is that her last name is Clinton. Obama is the only candidate that can differentiate and win the way Clinton won in 1992. Please folks, let's not throw this one away.

The battle for South Carolina

Mari, Dallas, TX — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:02:40 GMT

Jaycee, I too know a lot of swing voters who feel exactly as you described.

The problem is that in the primaries, people tend to live and vote in a bubble and then are simply "shocked" when independents and other swing voters don't agree with their candidate choice. I really wish more people would poll their undecided friends about who is most electable, rather than voting only for the candidate they love.

And you are certainly right about Gore's situation as well. Good call.

The battle for South Carolina

Ed J., Warwick, RI. — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:14:38 GMT

I think we all need to step back and take a long look at what happened over the last two days. Hillary Clinton went to MLK`s home church and then used his name and what he stood for and did. Let`s all remember that she was a "Goldwater Girl" and did not support the Civil Rights Movement; however if is to her advantage to say that she has or had the same priciples and goals and spent a lifetime of fighting for those ideals. Somewhere along the way this is getting all distorted and the typical Washington insider politics has taken over. Its another failed attempt to spin- same as her attempts with Health Care behind closed doors, The land holding deals in Arkansas, The Monica Lewinsky fiasco, the lack of supporting John Kerry as the party nomination, and now do we really need another four years of the Monopoly which goes like this- Bush-Clinton-Bush- please not AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!