Bill Clinton Bitches Out The Media

Excuse the French, but that's the only word that came to mind when reading a transcript of Bill Clinton responding to a shouted question from Jessica Yellin in South Carolina. I await the video. (Context: ex-SC GOP chair Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, likened Clinton to Lee Atwater.)

"I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful, no character, was poll-driven. He had more pollsters than she did.

When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab, I never said a word. And I don't care about it today. I'm not upset about it.

The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq, and that he had said in 2004 there was no difference between his position and President Bush. And he said that was somehow dishonest, but he never answers how it's not accurate. So this is crazy.

This rhetoric is getting a little carried away here. And let me remind you, my ultimate answer is this -- there are still two people around who marched with Martin Luther King and risked their lives, John Lewis and Reverend Andrew Young. They both said that Hillary was right and the people who attacked her were wrong, and that she did not play the race card, but they did.

So I don't have to defend myself from Dick Harpootlian. I will just refer you to John Lewis and Andrew Young. And let him go get in an argument with them about it.

Let him go get in an argument with Dolores Huerta, one of the founders of Farm Workers, against what happened in Nevada.

There is a fact here -- this is almost like once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry, or something, the facts become irrelevant. There are facts here.

And the final thing I would like to say is, you're asking me about this, and you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do.

They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for.

But this hurts the people of South Carolina, because the people of South Carolina are coming to these meetings and asking questions about what they care about. And what they care about is not going to be in the news coverage tonight because you don't care about it.

What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along. The people don't care about this. They never ask about it. And you are determined to take this election away from them. And that's not right. That is not right. This election ought to belong to those people who are out here asking questions about their lives.

Comments

Video's on the front page @ CNN.com ... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/23/bill-clinton-gets-upset-with-cnn-reporter/

Dunno where you got that transcript from since it cuts out Bill's anecdote about Obama supporters' dirty campaigning in NV (of course, it's quite inconsistent with the story he told before).

Posted by Zach | January 23, 2008 5:31 PM

It's funny how Bill used the media to push his lies about Obama, but as soon as it gets turned around on him, he starts blaming them. Does Hillary really think this helps her? Or can she just not control him?

Posted by Mike | January 23, 2008 5:39 PM

Two things here:

-- Dick Harpootlian is the former chair of the Democratic Party in South Carolina. It would be remarkable -- and no doubt bundled into a negative ad from the Clintons -- if a former GOP anything endorsed Obama. Because Republicans are EVIL, VILE people, you understand?

-- Marc, you are the sort of thoughtful scribe who should put this into context. Here Bill goes again, to paraphrase Reagan. We're three days away from a primary where Hillary's not favored and Bill rolls out a rant that even READS scripted. I am not the sort of shrinking violet Obama supporter who thinks Bill should be chastised every time he gets the purple nose and wags a finger but ... Call him out when he uncorks these obviousy scripted, demonstrably false nasty diatribes. He is being tactically angry. It worked remarkably ell during the 90s even in the most absurd situations, and it's fairly obvious that's the same non-sense he's trying to pull here. He did it in NH, he did it in Nevada and now in South Carolina.

There is simply no way that Bill Clinton is apopletic this much -- so completely torqued by the media so often -- that this is not contrived. Do not play into it!

Posted by Captain Obvious | January 23, 2008 5:43 PM

It's not hard to love the guy! He's as good as he ever was!

Posted by JoeCHI | January 23, 2008 5:44 PM

It is amazing how Bill Clinton can assume the moral high ground after adopting such a disgusting and ethically void approach to campaigning by smearing Obama for the last month. That is real nerve, real nerve.

Posted by CGibson | January 23, 2008 5:44 PM

Oh Mike....
What lies about Obama? Be specific? Obama won't be specific but Bill AND hillary were very specific: which do you find to be a lie AND why?

Hillary knows that Bill heps her and her campaign. He is one of the most popular people in America. He is hugely popular with democrats. And so far so is she! She trusts him and that means she doesn't need to control him: Do you feel a need to control your wife? Does she feel a need to control you?

He trusted her to be his advocate and surrogate for all the years in ARK and the White House, and she can certainly trust him now: he's one of the greatest campaigners ever: everyone's always said so.

If it didn't help her he wouldn't be doing it and Obama wouldn't wouldn't be mad and whining: they both have internal polls that demonstrate its working.

Does't that suck?? he and she knows what they are doing and its working: sorry mike.

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 5:49 PM

A more appropriate headline would be "Bill Clinton Bitchin'--AGAIN!"

Posted by Dawn | January 23, 2008 5:49 PM

Michael C,

They lied when they said Senator Obama said the Republicans had "BETTER" ideas. He never said "BETTER." Furthermore, the lied when they said Obama inserted race into the campaign. Senator Obama has never inserted race. In fact, he's been harshly crititized by many in the Black community for not discussing race. It was Donna Brazil, who is NOT affiliated with Senator Obama's campaign, who first criticized Bill Clinton's behavior during a live broadcast on CNN. However, Black folks were not influenced by her commentary or anyone else's, but it did mirror what was already being said on Black radio, television and in the community. We know what racism looks like; we don't need translation! It is absolutely patronizing of the Clintons and their supporters to suggest that Black folks were somehow instigated by Obama or his supporters. We have minds of our own! We're not stupid! We've been through too much in this country not to be able to peep thinly veiled racism when we see it and obvious attempts to racially profile Senator Obama.

Posted by Dawn | January 23, 2008 5:58 PM

Michael C,
Here's a specific lie from Bill:
"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas..So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas are better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

He lied because that's not what Obama said. Simple enough if you're not drunk on Clinton Kool Aid.

And yes, if I was running for President, I would feel the need to control my spouse and make sure he/she did not lie about my opponents. If he/she did do that, I would tell them to stop doing it.

Posted by Mike | January 23, 2008 5:58 PM

So he thinks the media should stop focusing on race but by the way Obama played the race card. Could this guy be more transparent?

Posted by dave | January 23, 2008 5:59 PM

Pretty clearly Obama and his crowd of commenters here have no concept of reality. Please point out the falsehoods. Everything said about Smokey Barry is true. God you people, take off the rose colored glasses the guy is not perfect and his flaws are being pointed out. Defending Rezko a known slumlord then years later buying property at a sweetheart price from him? For shame!

CORRUPT!!! PRESENT!!!

Posted by CORRUPT! | January 23, 2008 6:13 PM

Factcheck called the clintons out on the reagan thing.

The Nevada court threw out their voter suppression law suit.

Planned Parenthood has defended the present suit and at least one NH prochoicer signatory of the letter that went round about his prochoice record says she feels duped by Clinton.

Obama has not been implicated in the Rezko suit. It was hardly a sweetheart price considering the amount of land he bought and the price he paid for it.

Hillary said Bob Johnson had apologized when he hadn't. Andrew Young still hasn't apologized for his Bill's been with more black women than Obama comment. But Clinton is happy to invoke his name in this clip.

Bill talks about 6 women but never says who they are or offers any evidence beyond hearsay about what Obama did or did not do. And its not like Bill has a great record about telling the truth anyway. Obama has documented evidence of Clinton's tactics at the caucuses.

If you are going to go after Obama, pick something real. Ex. I think the "shameless" ad was itself pretty shameless (Bill's parting shot in the CNN clip). Dem Punjab was also tasteless, though Obama personally apologized for it.

Fine, it's politics. I am a dem; I voted for Clinton, but I care about honesty and integrity in our pols, and the Clintons are wrecking any scrap of integrity they ever had in this primary. Maybe they don't care, but I won't vote for Bill again, and I know at least 6 other people who feel the same way. Sorry but you are not winning any converts by calling him Smokey Barry.

Posted by JC | January 23, 2008 6:30 PM

Classic Bill. Smmmmoooth but fiery, just the right combination of aw shucks disbelief and flabbergast.

How over the top can the Obama campaign be? Are they trying to lose now.

First Obama hearts Republicans and Reagan, and the next week he compares Bill Clinton to Lee Atwater? Hows does he or his buddy Axelrod think that is going to play with true blue registered Democrats?

Dumb.

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 23, 2008 6:30 PM

Dear Mike and Dawn:

Your being unfair: Hillary paraphrased Obama: he was saying that the republicans were for the last fifteen years were a party of ideas. Neither Obama nor Hillary thought they were good ideas BUT
She was calling Obama out for insulting the Clinton years and doing it infront of the entire Congressional black caucus who certainly don't agree that the reps were the party of ideas during that clinton era. Obama was wrong and he tried to totally dis clinton with this comment to get a right wing paper to endorse him: she brought the comment back to the dems and they cheered her for it. What the hell is he talking about? The republican main idea for the past 10 - 15 years was to destroy a democratic administration who unquestioanably did work on behaldf of the people in that audience. She roasted him. Yes she paraphrased it and yes he tried to switch the conversation to comments about reagan who was 25 years ago. She brought him back and like jackie Gleason or a deer in the headlights he was HUMINA HUMINA because it was him getting caught being dumb in front of John Lewis who cheered the comment by the way

About dawn's flippant clinton kool aid comment: that drink the Kool aid comment is a very horrible reference to Jim Jones/jonestown and the mass suicide of his followers: he forced them to drink the laced kool-aid and die with him. Most of his followers were from the innercity and many if not most of them were black american: this in mind and race aside I have always found the phrase used as a joke to be incredibly insensitive and crude. Maybe you didn't know where the phrase originated.

Mike he didn't have to say 'better' and it is not wrong to paraphrase: even scholars do it. He clearly was saying they did a better job at having ideas than Clinton and those who worked with him. Obama complimented the reps for having ideas, he did it to peel off reps and indis and libertarians and by doing so he damned the dems as not having ideas
and she called him on it and it was beautiful.
Paraphrase is now a lie: that's funny!
Donna Brazil is quite wonderful and I liked her book even though it was stuffed with fluff.
Fairy tale? its not race: she was wrong and stupid to say it was. The idea that everything is code and that fairy tale is racist is stupid.
We know there is code but that isn't it.
People who say this are barking up the silly tree.
Saying that he is the new kid in the block is racist is also stupid. Bill clinton called himself the comeback kid at that age. 46 is very young for presidential politics, black or white: look at the history books. Bill Clinton is 61 or as so and can call him a kid and donna brazil was wrong. Someone at this blog told me I was racist because I compared Obama to jerry Brown (because of his name: Donna brazil was being almost that silly.

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 6:30 PM

Barry Soetoro will never be President. He can't carry Bill's jock.

Posted by Dick Flatts | January 23, 2008 6:35 PM

"I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq."

Huh? Oh right, Bill "opposed the war from the beginning," I guess Hillary did, too. Even though, you know, she voted for it, just after Obama said it was a "dumb war" to wage, and laid out good reasons why.

To say there is "substantially no difference in her record" is one of those falsehoods that Bill can easily parse (depends what the definition of "substantially" is), but that is clearly a calculated misrepresentation-- i.e., a lie.

Posted by An additional Clinton falsehood. | January 23, 2008 6:39 PM

Since when is a candidate's level of corruption and moral, ethical behavior not an issue?

Someone in the press should ask him:

President Clinton, given that you have admitted to affairs with both Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers -- affairs you had previously denied -- what assurances do you have for the American people that you won't damage your wife's campaign or possible presidency with news of yet another affair?

Posted by Mark Kraft | January 23, 2008 6:43 PM

Ugh, You Obama supporters are the worst. I can't wait until we smoke you on 2/5 and you will come crawling back and hopefully shut up. You are worse than the Deaniacs...

You are trying to stop the first female president. You should be ashamed of the tactics and the things you have been saying about the only Democrats to win the Whitehouse consecutively in 60 years. For shame; you are not real Democrats.

You are Naderites.

Posted by Ugh | January 23, 2008 6:45 PM

Dear Dick Flatts,

You are as stupid and lame as Bill Clinton.

Both of you should shut up.

Why can't Hillary defend herself?

Regards,

The World

Posted by Dick Flatts Sucks Flatts | January 23, 2008 6:46 PM

So... when Barack Obama is accused of doing something ethically questionable, he gives a clear answer as to the circumstances of the matter.

But when the Clintons are accused of doing anything ethically questionable, they either lie to our faces or blame someone else.

And when the media doesn't like being lied to or evaded, the Clintons blame the media.

Got it.

Posted by Mark Kraft | January 23, 2008 6:50 PM

Ugh-- so because Hillary is a woman she cannot be questioned and no one should stop her? I'm not a huge Obama fan but I would definitely say he is more of a Democrat than Hillary Clinton. Hillary keeps saying she has 35 years of some kind of experience, but what is it? How was being First Lady experience? Why does it even matter?

The Clintons are destroying what remains of the Democratic Party. They are consistently selfish, deceptive and self-pitying. How are their recent cynical attacks about Obama helping Democrats?

Should Hillary win the nom, she is destined to lose the General. To a person, all of the liberals and moderates I know refuse to support her in the General.

So enjoy being smug now, Clintonites. You will get yours. The Kool Aid is in your cups, and it runneth over.

Posted by Take a Deep Breath | January 23, 2008 6:53 PM

Bill Clinton is a liar. He cannot practice law anymore because he, in fact, a chronic liar.

Just because the Republicans have a president who is liar doesn't mean we didn't have one as well.

Posted by matthewcc | January 23, 2008 6:57 PM

The more Obama supporters whine about losing the more I like Hillary Clinton and her chances in November.

And just think. She doesn't even have to measure the oval office for new drapes. She already knows, from DAY ONE.

Posted by ken | January 23, 2008 7:07 PM

"I can't wait until we smoke you on 2/5 and you will come crawling back..."

After Hillary's big, wet puckers to corporate lobbyists and her sleazy, voter disenfranchizing tactics? Don't count on it.

"You are trying to stop the first female president."

I would vote for a President Pelosi any day of the week, but I cannot support President Hillary Clinton.

Isn't your "dream candidate" the same lady who falsely accused Iraq of having a nuclear program, and who falsely accused Gennifer Flowers of slandering her husband and forging tapes?

"You are not real Democrats. You are Naderites."

Too ethical for you, eh?!

Posted by Mark Kraft | January 23, 2008 7:14 PM

Once again, Bill Clinton is injecting race into the discussion by crying wolf over Obama somehow getting the media to ask about race. Any fool know that the last thing the Obama campaign wants to talk about is race. But Bill Clinton lies again, because he knows the media will repeat his lies and then he'll be able to fool average voters to think that Obama is playing racial politics when he is not.

The gheotization of a man who is trying to transcend race continues. You clinton people may gloat because what he is doing can work, just like putting gy marriage initiatives on battleground state ballots can work. But is this the America you want to live in? Seriously?

Posted by RKA | January 23, 2008 7:26 PM

When you hear someone say that Republicans "have been the party of ideas" what's implied here? It's implied that the ideas are good or you wouldn't be praising them for being the party of ideas. Don't pretend that's not what he meant when 90% of people who saw that know he was praising the Republicans. Afterwards he might have backtracked and tried to put it in context but, on it's face, he was praising the Republicans for being the party of ideas.

Obama and his minions distorted (and thus played the race card) Hillary's comments on MLK. Plain as day she said that MLK had a dream and LBJ signed the law that made it a reality. In no way did she diminish MLK.

Btw, can anyone answer me why voting for Obama because he's black isn't racist but not voting for him for the same reason is racist? Just curious if anyone has a good answer.

Posted by g8grl | January 23, 2008 7:27 PM

Let me echo the sentiments that Bill can do whatever he wants...but there will be consequences.

The Clintons may beat back the young upstart, they may send JE back to lawyering, but they will be left with a party in shambles.

If they by change win the general, they will have a country that needs help they can't deliver because no one can work with them.

History will decide.

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 7:40 PM

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…

Posted by S | January 23, 2008 7:41 PM

Let's examine some of this shall we? My comments in brackets through the quote...
"I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful [about what, exactly?], no character [Obama never said that], was poll-driven [When did he say that?]. He had more pollsters than she did.
When he put out a hit job on me [What hit job?] at the same time he called her the senator from Punjab [He never did], I never said a word. And I don't care about it today [Yes you do, that's why you are raising the issue in this scripted Clinton, play the victim rant!]. I'm not upset about it.

The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq [which is absolutely false], and that he had said in 2004 there was no difference between his position and President Bush [which he didn't say]. And he said that was somehow dishonest [because it is], but he never answers how it's not accurate [yes he has - go to his website]. So this is crazy [the first true thing in Clinton's entire statement]. "

Posted by Bill Keane | January 23, 2008 7:42 PM

Here's the real problem.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are _excellent_ political tacticians.

Barack Obama is an incredibly promising _strategist_.

The Clintons have shown that they are willing to throw strategy (read: core principles, honesty) out the window in order to win the battle for the primary. Tactically they are very smart - as another commenter pointed out both camps have polls showing that these tactics are working.

Obama, on the other hand, has a much better strategy for the long term good of the country - put an end to the east coast assumption that southerners are racist hicks, and put an end to the southern assumption that noreasterners are bleeding heart morons who hate America. Bring us together as Americans and work for the future; harness American ingenuity to solve challenging issues rather than pass more spending bills and hoping the govermint can fix it.

Now, Hillary would be a pretty good administrator, for all her sliminess. She would fight and work hard to implement her agenda (not that any of us knows what that is, given her constant triangulation and pivoting). Nevertheless her campaign is about her and Bill, whereas Obama's campaign is about us. Make that "Us".

So on the one hand you have Obama's people who want to see an end to the politics of the last few decades, who want to see a renaissance of American civic duty and participation. On the other hand you have Hillary's folks, who want to harken back to the good ol' days of the 90's and stick it to the Republicans.

It really has little to do (not nothing) with race or gender. I think the media is just lazy, so they go with the easy, sensational stories. The Clintons, excellent tacticians, picked up that ball and ran with it.

Posted by Jordan Weber-Flink | January 23, 2008 7:45 PM

Bill Clinton has come out of the closet and shown that he is actively running for a third term. It's all the DC chatter class is talking about. Hillary's run is nothing but a bold circumvention of the 22nd Amendment. And if the Democrats don't challenge the Clintons on their corrupt bid for power, you can be sure that the Republicans are going to have Bill front and center during the GE - It is going to be all about the past and giving Bill a second chance to restore his (IMPEACHED) presidency. I think even Romney could beat Billary - once it's clearly framed as a grasp for power by Bill. You can be sure all the bimbos of the last eight years are being lined up as we speak. We deserve to lose if we nominate Hillary. Yikes!

Posted by C.B. | January 23, 2008 7:46 PM

LIAR, LIAR! BILL'S PANTS ON FIRE!!

"The only thing I pointed out was that there was substantially no difference in her record and his on Iraq..."

Well, except that Hillary voted for the Iraq War and then sat on her hands and went along with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for years until time came to run for President, while Obama opposed the war consistently from the start.

Someone is going to get convicted of perjury and disbarred again at this rate!

Posted by bob | January 23, 2008 7:53 PM

Ken - yes, I think we can all agree that Hillary definitely has experience measuring the drapes in the White House.

Boy are we lucky to have all that experience back.

Posted by evie | January 23, 2008 7:56 PM

"I think it's fair to say that the Republican party were the party of ideas for a fairly long chunk of time there, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

That doesn't mean that Obama supported all those ideas... rather, that those ideas challenged the status quo. Arguably, Reagan did this with his call for smaller government (and, presumably, cruel policies and huge deficits), and Newt Gingrich did this with his "Contract With America", which, amongst other things, promised legislation requiring:

- a balanced budget, unless sanctioned by 2/3rds of both houses of Congress.
- committee meetings to be open to the public
- to make all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress
- a $500-per-child tax credit, and a repealing of the marriage tax penalty.
- 12-year term limits on Congressmen.
- tax incentives for adoption
- tax incentives for long-term-care insurance for the elderly.

From one fellow Democrat to another, these were not inherently bad ideas, and some of them sound like ideas that *SHOULD* come from Democrats. Admittedly, they were buried in amongst a bunch of other partisan dreck, but they were new enough, populist enough, reformist enough to give the Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

It should be noted that requiring open committee meetings was a *direct* response to Hillary Clinton's closed, partisan meetings on healthcare. She could've passed real reform, but failed miserably to achieve consensus through compromise, arguably leading to the death of many thousands of Americans.

Arguably, the Republicans *WERE* the party of ideas during much of the Clinton years, winning majorities in both Houses. But that said, they got off track and failed to deliver on those promises.

The Republicans were only able to play the role of being the party of populist reform because the White House chose not to address these issues. They could've offered bipartisan legislation to address these concerns, taking the wind out of the Republican's sails... but they chose not to.

Ultimately, the Clintons aren't transformative. At all. They're just the Democratic version of "more of the same thing".

If we elect Hillary, there's almost certainly going to be intense partisan obstructionism for a few years, followed by a reformist Republican package that voters will flock to, causing the Democrats to lose control of Congress, and leading to a lame duck presidency.

If we elect Obama, however, we have a chance of getting the support of most independents and a significant amount of disillusioned conservatives in order to help all Americans.

So, contrary to some cynical Hillary supporters, this election isn't about race. It's about who can implement meaningful change.

And if Hillary supporters can't understand how Bill Clinton got seriously OWNED by the Republicants because he failed to win the war of ideas and because of his scandals, his lies, and crappy ethics... and if they can't see that Hillary was a part of the problem, and her failures helped the Democrats lose control of Congress... well, they're just being blindly partisan.

Posted by Mark Kraft | January 23, 2008 8:25 PM

Good advice for all!

Of Barry Obama or whatever his real name is offers you a ride home in his limo - tell him you will take cab!

Posted by Mike Mills | January 23, 2008 8:31 PM

Clinton is so vile. How on earth could a legitimate reporter FAIL to ask Former President Bill Clinton about the remarks of a prominent SC politician who just attacked him that same day?

Posted by along | January 23, 2008 8:49 PM

Excellent substantive, well-reasoned post by Mark Kraft. Post more elsewhere - people seem to be blind to the looming disaster of a Clinton v McCain election.

Posted by Bill Keane | January 23, 2008 8:49 PM

I am loyal to the Clintons. I would go to hell and back for them.I am disillusioned, if anything, with the way Obama has been running his campaign and handling himself. The man is hollow, empty suit, empty promises. Edwards, while good in 2004, has changed his approach and to attacking Hilllary. The negativity puts me off. Then Obama plays the race card. The only reason, to use Chairman Rangell's words, there is race is because Obama said race. To continue, he accepts money from WS companies (75% of it) and gets endorsed by a Washington insider, Kerry. Change, yes. The kind we can believe in?He does not know how to manipulate the political machinery. He should listen to his runnng mate Edward's words who says it is wishful thinking that an old dog can learn new tricks. Add to the above, admiration of fine but comparison to JFK and MLK? He is no Dr. King so that ends right there. Finally, Reagan ...and the first President Bush which ... is fine but, I still question ...

To conclude, is whining because got it his way, we played by his rules and lost in Nevada now cries because lost? That is sad. I sincerely question whether he has the moral strength to be the leader of the only superpower left in the world whom we also call upon to policeman. He might buckle under pressure as the debate showed. Finally, we find out his integrity; has worked for slum lords. No wonder he is organizing (youth) squads intimidating voters in SC. And he was blaming us for voter suppression ...It is becoming obvious that if we don't do as they want it is the highway. He is an idiot. An idiot. I cannot wait till Super Tuesday to see him pack up and his campaign go home.I don't want anything happening to him. I just don't want him as president. I really don't like his personality as for his platform, well, all of Hillary's ideas are better anyhow ...She is a Clinton ;) that in itself already is enough.

Not to mention Obama breaking his pledge not to campaign in Florida before Feb 5th by running an ad and only today filing a lawsuit in Nevada ... which we won fair and square

Posted by Timb3r W0lf | January 23, 2008 9:18 PM

C.B. - Bill Clinton has come out of the closet and shown that he is actively running for a third term. It's all the DC chatter class is talking about. Hillary's run is nothing but a bold circumvention of the 22nd Amendment. And if the Democrats don't challenge the Clintons on their corrupt bid for power, you can be sure that the Republicans are going to have Bill front and center during the GE

The more and more prominent Bill Clinton gets as the one in charge of fighting the other candidates, being the person the orders are coming from within the campaign, the higher the concern they are circumventing 22nd Amendment may get. It could even lead to Court constituttional challenges, and a rebellion in the Electoral College if it looks like B. Clinton is going to be back running a significant part of the Executive Branch.

Posted by chris ford | January 23, 2008 9:34 PM

Chris Ford - You got it. But their co presidency has been thinly veiled from the beginning. "35 years of experience" as what? Co-govenor and co-president that's what without the official name. Well it won't be official this time around either - but it will be clear. Pity Hillary's V.P. Bill's not going to share the spotlight with him that's for sure.

And S - as for Clinton running a master class in campaigning for the presidency based on his previous success - he only won the first time because Ross Perot took 20% of the votes from Bush and neither time did he win more than 40% of the vote. So, he only knows how to triangulate and build on being the encumbant. And he's never won in a two man race either.

Posted by C.B. | January 23, 2008 10:09 PM

Bill is supporting Hillary. it is not an end-run around the rules against running a third time. grow up. Bill is not running. This guy would've campaigned for Gore like this if gore had the ego strong enough and we'd be a better safer nation now. He's advocated for tsunami and aids money and for candidates and this is why he's so effective.
Saying that he checks his rights at the door after being president is ridiculas. Saying that Hillary has no right to run because Bill was already president is ridiculas. Obama knew who'd be running when he announced. Everybody knows Bill is a tireless advocate and loves the campaign trail. Being paranoid and weaving unfair paranoid scenarios is silly.
Mark Kraft putting a positive spin on the republican's methods during Clinton's term is like a david letterman top ten list: funny as hell: how do you think these things up?

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 10:12 PM

Bill is just "supporting" Hillary like any husband who was former president of the U.S. would. Really? I know where there are some WMD in Iraq too. We just went through eight years of a Cheney shadow presidency - pulling the strings of his Bush puppet. Now we want the same with Billary? Good grief! She will never be able to lead the country on her own. Just as she could never win the election on her own. Just as she wouldn't even be a senator from New York, if she hadn't run while he was STILL president. And that's who the country is supposed to get behind? Democrats need face up to what a weak candidate she on her own really is and own up to the fact on our own that it's really about re-electing Bill. Because if we don't - the Republicans will ram it down our throats. They won't buy the he's just "supporting" his wife routine.

Posted by C.B. | January 23, 2008 10:36 PM

Michael C - be reasonable. Hillary said at the debate that she had "read the transcript" where Obama said that the Republicans had better ideas. Go watch that part of the debate again - you either missed it or are misremembering. She was really clear and explicit in her attack. Obama called her on it saying that he said that they had "ideas" not that they were "good ideas" and she had the nerve to repeat the falsehood again! "Better ideas" or "good idea" is not a paraphrase of "ideas" - it is a serious distortion. To imply that was what was in the transcript of Obama's interview . . . well that is just a lie. It is not just Obama's supporters saying that she lied - all sorts of disinterested third parties agree with him. This is all over the media NYT, ABCnews, etc. You usually don't see mainstream journalists being so explicit about candidates making false statements, so it's say that this is pretty revealing.

Look - the Clinton's obviously don't care if it is true. As long as they can get people to associate Obama with "Republicans have better ideas" they are happy. That is the game that they are playing. What HRC said was BS. The only nice thing to say about it is that it might help her win. But don't tell us that it wasn't a lie because it was a lie and an obvious one. Most of the other stuff you wrote was reasonable, but on this you are dead wrong.

Posted by ikl | January 23, 2008 10:52 PM

Barack has definitely got inside Bill's head.

Posted by aretino | January 23, 2008 11:18 PM

"There are still two people around who marched with Martin Luther King and risked their lives, John Lewis and Reverend Andrew Young. They both said that Hillary was right ... I will just refer you to John Lewis and Andrew Young."

Um, WHAT? HELLO? Jesse Jackson! Is Mr. Clinton saying Rev. Jackson a) did not march with Dr. King; b) did not risk his life by doing so; or c) has not endorsed Barack Obama. All are lies. Or has he become seriously demented?

All those photos of Rev. Jackson in Selma or standing next to Dr. King, standing with him on the balcony of the hotel on the eve of assasination... guess they're all just part of a vast right-wing/media conspiracy?

Or does he mean that support from two of the thousands who marched in the civil rights movement unquestionably inoculates the Clinton campaign from all allegations of race baiting?

How does Bill Clinton get away with this stuff? How can he not be called out for such outrageous statements? How can any one take him seriously any more?

Posted by Jimmy | January 24, 2008 1:18 AM

"Mark Kraft putting a positive spin on the republican's methods during Clinton's term is like a david letterman top ten list..."

You obviously don't get it.

Voters elected a Republican majority based on two main things:

1> The political and ethical failings of the Clintons, which helped to polarize and mobilize the Republicans.

2> The *FACT* that the Clintons left a huge, gaping opening in their establishment agenda that allowed for the Republicans to credibly depict themselves as reformers.

If the Clintons actually *were* interested in reform, they could've adopted the best elements of the Republican promises and cut the legs out from under them. The fact is, they didn't want political reform.

As a result, we have a Congress full of Republican hypocrites, who rode into office based on promises of a balanced budget, but who spent the last eight years approving Bush's budget busting deficits.

As for the Clinton's ethical behavior, you don't need to go further back than the Nevada caucuses to see just how unethical they are.

The Clinton campaign sent a document to their precinct heads, advising their workers that "It's not illegal unless they tell you so" and "Don't be afraid to go negative on other candidates."

BTW, isn't "it's not illegal unless they tell you so" the official Clinton family motto?

Posted by Mark Kraft | January 24, 2008 1:57 AM

Judging from the comments on this blog, we are doing an awesome job of electing the next Republican President. The other party just needs a link to this blog to find out how destructive Democratic voters are to each other. If we want another four years of a Republican administration, keep it up folks.

We have two wars going on, a recession, a housing crisis, global warming, Katrina, a health care crisis, immigration, terrorism, and so on. But, all I hear about is how awful the Clintons are. Before the Iowa Caucus, I didn't even have a favorite candidate. However, I think the Obama supporters are driving many voters away from their candidate because of their vindictiveness.

Posted by EWard | January 24, 2008 3:29 AM

Q: What happens when a friendly, Labrador-ish Big Dog morphs into a snarling Rottweiler?

A: It jumps the shark.

Posted by Tom J | January 24, 2008 3:41 AM

That's not unusual for members of the Press., it's an ominous gathering,an adverse publicity,their poison is still in the air

Posted by Vicky | January 24, 2008 4:11 AM

Sure - the problem is that Obama Supporters won't get in line behind the Democrat Establishment's pick for the nomination. Really?

The problem is that the Establishment is trying to ram Billary down our throats. Remember Hillary has always been inevitable as the nominee. But Bill never got more than 40% in general election and when Hillary was elected to Senate Rudy had just pulled out of the race and her opposition was a very weak. She has highest negatives of all the candidates and uses Rovian tactics to win and we're supposed to just get in line and put them in the White House again?

Without her husband (the former president) actively attacking she would have lost N.H and Nevada. She is a weak candidate on her own and she will not be able to unite this country in a time of war.

Hillary is who political elites in Democratic Party want not because she is such a great leader on her own but because all the same people get to have all the power AGAIN. But that's why we have a 22nd Amendment in the first place to prevent such abuses.

A Republican will be in the White House because Billary is a bad idea for Country and the Party from the beginning. Just like the Republicans have turned themselves into a shambles - so have we folks.

Posted by C.B. | January 24, 2008 4:32 AM

Here's the end of the transcript:
Q_Are you saying the Obama camp is bringing up these racial issues?

A-"You just want one more story -- shame on you! Shame on your, you just want one more story! Print the facts. Nobody ever prints any
facts."

Here's the full VIDEO (Watch it; Bill Clinton totally smacks them down calmly and strongly; he lays down a solid case actually):
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/23/bill.clinton.yellin.cnn

Posted by Davidson | January 24, 2008 5:50 AM

After reading the comments I can now tell that most of you never even bothered seeing the video. Unbelievable.

Seriously, he totally calls out the press' sensationalism. Just watch.

Posted by Davidson | January 24, 2008 5:53 AM

For shame; you are not real Democrats.

Hey, Ugh, I'd be willing to bet I've voted for a lot more Democrats than you have. However, I do know one that I won't be voting for, ever. And, frankly, I couldn't care less what you think of my Democratness.

I see an election coming where only your definition of "real Democrats" will vote for Hillary. Lord knows we shouldn't try to attract any of those evil Republicans or anybody else that isn't a true Clinton worshipper. That should add up to about 35% or so.

Posted by Pug | January 24, 2008 9:07 AM

The Republican voters appear to be more mature about what matters in this country. If you want to relive how bad Hillary is for the country, go ahead. For a candidate that is suppose to inspire hope, Obama's supporters seem tone deaf.

Posted by EWard | January 24, 2008 9:33 AM

Mark Kraft:
It isn't that I don't get it; the problem is I do: your peddling silly jive for reasons of your own. That bill Clinton should have taken some of the republicans ideas and usurped them: he cut the damned deficit. the bulk of thier contract on america was BS that ruined gingrich: un-usurp-able.
Clinton's coming in as a new dem was ruinous for them so they attacked him for eight wasted years over nonsense and more non-sense. They wasted the world's time with impeachment: is that one of the ideas Obama is crediting the reps for.
Clinton's being in the middle pissed off the left sometimes and they abandioned him because we know nothing about loyalty on the left and Clinton still beat the hell out of the reps more often than they got him. He had content to his work and they had hatred and fear and lies.
You can love reps all you want but don't try to get us to believe nonsense about times we lived through.

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 10:56 AM

What I would like to know is why anyone talking about Obama's drug use is racist? The Republicans talked endlessly about Clinton trying marijuana and you can bet they will talk about Obama using cocaine. There was also talk about Bush using drugs and being a drunk. You may not like this kind of thing, but it is standard operating procedure. (Heck, the Clintons are still being accused of murder, even by some gullible Democrats.) Apparently, though, if you are black, this is off limits even if it is brought up by another African American. Bizarre.

By the way, a while back I heard Obama talking about this with some young voters and he said, in a cool-guy kind of way, that he had even tried a little "blow". I found that to be very inappropriate. He came across as if he thought it was no big deal. When I told my children that I had tried marijuana I sure as heck didn't say I got "toked up".

Posted by BernieO | January 24, 2008 11:30 AM

This is all carefully designed "strateegery" by the Clinton Machine. It's textbook. Look at the week prior to Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The same exact thing happened. Then look at his going off this week. Dejavu. It's all part of a Clinton strategy to stir things up days before the elections and focus the attention on them. Please don't fall into this trap. When it comes down to it, Hillary wants to win so that THE CLINTONS win back power. Barack wants to win so that AMERICA wins. The choice is fairly simple. Please check out Obama's website and see you agree with his ideas. www.barackobama.com Not to mention this... Since 1980, either a Clinton or a Bush has been VP or Pres. For 28 years, two households (both alike in INdignity) have been running this country. We could potentially have another Clinton in power for 4 to 8 years. That's potentially 36 years of two families! And you call this change!?!?!! Sounds eerily like Monarchy; that's what our founding fathers escaped. Thomas Jefferson would not be pleased to see that we are electing leaders who are either born into or married into power. Sounds like Great Britian to me. Please join me and elect a leader who was not born into power, but has worked hard and followed a challenging path to power. Vote Obama.

Posted by Joel | January 24, 2008 11:40 AM

John Lewis and Andrew Young are men of the south and so they matter in this discussion about race, racism and the clintons and the Obama campaigns. Jesse now is a northerner with a higher profile and yet seems to be held in less regard.
John Lewis matters in a way that Andy Yound and jesse just don't: he still is rock solid and unimpeachable. And I'd say his book was underated genius: just a brilliant book. And such an amazing orator. And he laughed and clapped as the neophyte stumbled the other night.
That he has not defected means something. Jesse does not matter in this conversation in the same way. Jesse Jr. too has become one of thiose accused of using coded language and playing the race or gender cards. I reserve judgement on that. But having John Lewis defend you means a lot: and buys Clinton room to keep talking.

Rightly or wrongly Jesse Jackson is not held in the same regard as these two men who've held elected office in the south. Rightly or wrongly jesse's integrity is seen as being less in tact over the years. he seems to be remembered as less than a peer of King's than these men, rightly or wrongly. I love jesse, I go see him speak on numerous occasions and I don't discount his contribution to American life but no way is he John lewis.

Posted by Michael c. | January 24, 2008 11:45 AM