Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill Clinton Warns of "Unexpected"


Bill Clinton forecasts dangers ahead. (Getty Images).

By Alec MacGillis
NASHUA, N.H. -- Bill Clinton has added a new reason why his wife should be the Democratic nominee for president, what he called "most important of all": she would be best able to "deal with the unexpected," he said here today, with an allusion to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Addressing more than 100 supporters gathered at a VFW hall here, Clinton said that there were four reasons to vote for his wife: her vision, her plans, her experience -- the three reasons he has been giving in his stump speech until now -- plus, he said, a fourth, the threat of the unknown.

"Here's the other thing you need to know, the most important thing of all. You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough...to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than a 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama Bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign....And I think on this score she's the best of all."

Clinton has been edging closer in recent weeks to arguing that the country would be taking a chance if voters nominated someone with less experience in Washington, such as Barack Obama. Speaking in Plymouth, N.H. last week, he said that his wife would be best suited to handle the challenges of terrorism, climate change and income inequality, and hinted that if these challenges were not met, that the world, or at least American democracy, might be in peril in the coming decades.

"How we meet those challenges will determine whether our grandchildren will even be here fifty years from now at a meeting like this listening to the next generation's presidential candidates," Clinton told several hundred voters in Plymouth. He did not elaborate on what he meant by the prospect of the audience's grandchildren not being there in 50 years.

It is a type of election strategy most often adopted by incumbent candidates. In President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, Dick Cheney invoked a particularly bold form of it, warning of the consequences of a John Kerry election for the nation's security against terrorism: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

The John Edwards campaign warned recently that the Clinton campaign would try to play on voters' national security fears in the closing days before voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. "We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush's 2004 campaign," wrote Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager for Edwards, in a publicized memo. "We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears."

Hillary Clinton herself caused a slight stir on the trail several months ago when she argued at a house party in New Hampshire that she would be better prepared to respond to Republican tactics if there were a terrorist attack sometime during the general election campaign.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'" Clinton told voters in Concord. "But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." She added that she would be the best Democratic candidate "to deal with that."

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 29, 2007; 3:59 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: From Edwards Campaign, Some Expectations Management
Next: Sen. Conrad Endorses Obama

Comments

Bill is right. Hillary dealt with the unexpected, when the unexpected was Bill fooling around with Monica. But the way she dealt with that unexpected was not good for the country. For 9/11, I don't know what Bill claims Hillary did. Hillary dealt with it just like any other American dealt with it. She did not rise to the occassion. She just followed Guiliani around. Guiliani did try his best to keep the country calm. I do not know what Hillary did after Katrina. Zilch.

All the Clintons have done is to go stealth and wait for the right moment to announce her candidacy. Then claim she did this she did that with no basis or truth whatsoever.

It is easy even for a fool to put together a set of slogans bashing the current administration, and claim experience, without showing any credentials. Hillary's credentials are locked up in the Clinton library. It would have been unlocked if there was anything worth for her to talk about.

Because of Hillary's vote letting Bush go to war with Iraq, this country just handed over billions of dollars to Musharaf to fight the al qaeda himself, and see what all this got us into. No democracy in Pakistan. Hillary did not say a word until Bhutto was killed. Now she says Pakistan can not be trusted. Hillary had every opportunity to make a difference when she was in the senate with her votes. But she decided not to.

No Hillary in the white house.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | December 30, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Good grief --

The Republican team couldn't even play little league baseball.

The current Republican "team" running the whitehouse is the most incompetent in human history.

Our next President will be a Democrat.

The only question is which one.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

LOL!
About 50 Posts ago-

SVREADER called the Legal Offices of Clinton & Clinton a TEAM!

A Legal Team-Maybe!

But wait, aren't they already associated with an even larger Legal Team?

Called CONGRESS! Where they all belong!

Now, FYI-A TEAM could be a CEO with a Proven track record of Running a significant and even Hostile State, saving the Olympics, and managing his own personal success, Controlling a Couple of Legal Experts, one of which was a former Senator, the Other an Exectutive Leader of the Nation's Largest Metropolis, a Military Expert, A Doctor of Medicine with US Military Hospital Background, Another Governor, and a Labor Law Advocate!

GO TEAM!

Posted by: rat-the | December 30, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

bogey666 wrote: Hugs in school will be banned.

They're already banned under the Republikans. You'll have to come up with something Bush and Cheney haven't screwed up. May take you awhile.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 30, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse


Actually Hillary is liked and respected in the Senate by almost everyone she has worked with, many Republicans included. She has had informative forums with Newt Gingrich and others who make lots of progress on issues with each other. She has strong bipartisan support from her constituents across the state of New York.

It's only a few right wing hate posters that are "divided" by Hillary. Polls show that some Republican candidates have the same negative numbers as Hillary. The "single most divisive" is about as true propaganda as the neocons Iraq WMD lies.

I respect honest opinions from Obama backers, but the hate Hillary crowd are easily recognizable as the same impeach Bill Clinton Republican crowd that has no more intent on voting for Obama than I do. If nothing else, this will give you something to do that doesn't require thinking. Just keep recycling your hate lines.

Enjoy.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 30, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

btw.. that one poster couldn't be more correct.

Hilary IS a know it all buttinski.

She will push the nanny state upon us from the liberal perspective. People that are "offended" (whatever that means) will have a right to sue. Political correctness will run amok.
Hugs in school will be banned.

and so on and so on.

after the last eight years of hypocritical Puritan buttinskis invading your pharmacies and your bedrooms, as well as snooping around on every other aspect of your private life in the name of "national security"

there will be no relief.


Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

nebdem, wake up.

she is indeed by far the most divisive figure in American politics (after W and DICK Cheney)

like it or not, her fault or not (and to be perfectly honest, I don't think a lot of this is her fault) her NEGATIVES are by far the highest of any candidate around.

but her fault or not, things are the way they are.

She, instead of strengthening the Democratic ticket, would weaken it, and would weaken the Dem Congressional races, because instead of "coattails" she would offer headwinds.

She has by far the highest number of people that say they would not vote for her under ANY circumstances.

why would a political party nominate such a person for the highest office in the land?

perhaps the Democrats should quit politics and become sheepherders or something.

If the Repubs had the brains to nominate McCain, he'd BEAT Hilary and fairly easily.

but the Repubs are probably also idiots, so they'll give us a parsing/ pandering mirror image of Hilary, Mitt Romney

Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

A Taste of Hillary.... Bhutto is killed...HRC appears with Wolf Blitzer and slams Bush administration, Musharraf and says Pakistan leadership has no credibility. Continuing to make political hay out of the tragedy, she proposes an international investigation. So she attacks this administration, vilifies the Pakistan leader and then as the "smartest person in the room" throws out a plan that no vilified leader would then accept.

Then the capper: informed of what Obama camp said about her policies and how they are linked to Pakistan tragedy, she responds that people shouldn't play politics with this matter!! What cojones!!

This is typical of the Clinton narcissism: attack personally and then decry personal attacks when response comes; play politics and then eschew such tawdriness; grab every buck in sight and condemn greed; resent hard questions and then claim openness. Do we really want another round of such hypocritical self-centeredness?

Posted by: plmillerFL | December 30, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

REPUBLICAN LIES COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND ALMOST 4000 AMERICAN LIVES

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is only a divisive in haters' eyes. History will prove differently.

Hillary '08

Posted by: nebdem08 | December 30, 2007 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Hillary proved yesterday that she does not have the experience to handle fast breaking situations. She celled for an international investigation into the murder of Mrs. Bhutto. She undercut Bush, She undercut an ally. She aroused all Pakistanis against external interference. She is a know-it-all butinski. You do not pour oil on troubled waters. Such an inexperienced narcissist in the White House would be a disaster. HRC is definitely not ready for Prime Time and never will be. She's over 60 and that is just too old to start growing up.

Posted by: dorseyh2 | December 30, 2007 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore is going to make a fortune as a general partner of Kleiner-Perkins. He's not going to run for president again. But we can get him back to Washington as head of the EPA, If Hillary asks him, because he knows that Global Warming could be the end of humanity and he won't turn down a chance to head up the effort to stop it.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 5:52 AM | Report abuse

btw, the REASON Bill lied about an extra marital affair and under oath is because it was a CHEAP LEGAL TRICK that had NOTHING to do with what the special investigator was investigating.

and if did, please show me how.

Clinton was right to be indignant about it and should have said - none of your effing business, but he couldn't say that to a grand jury, believe it or not they can ask you ANYTHING (that's why both parties quietly ended this process of appointing "special investigators - it became a witch hunt for ANYTHING)

I was no fan of Slick Willy but the hypocritical, morally righteous crap the Repubs started talking after Kenn Starr forced Monica to testify (you'll remember she didn't want to, he threatened to subpeana her mother) was the beginning of the downfall of the Republican Party and the beginning of my exit out of it.

The nail in the coffin was the Terry Schiavo affair.

Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 5:05 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe the Dems (and Al Gore) are this stupid.

a Gore/Obama ticket would win by a landslide.

A LANDSLIDE.

instead they want to nominate Hilary, the single most divisive figure in American politics, so she might squeak by in what should be a blowout????

what kind of a "mandate" will that be?

maybe the Democrats should stop being in politics and find something better to do.

Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 4:59 AM | Report abuse

hey DYCK

that's a great descriptive handle btw, I'd just adjust the spelling.

reality check - Obama polls better against every Republican than the cackling Witch of the North by at least 5%

and the fact that J. Jackson and Al Sharpton the two "pastor" shakedown artists, aren't thrilled about Obama that speaks volumes about Obama.

The Congressional Black Caucus is more of the same tired old "gimme gimme gimme" and feel guilty about it quasi racists.

I came here from abroad as a child so I refuse to be made to feel "guilty" for America's "history of racism" which I was NOT PART OF.

but I'd love to vote for an African American candidate... one from the new, educated and bright generation!

and if it weren't for the Iraqi albatross around her neck, Condi Rice is superior to Hilary as a candidate in every conceivable way.

Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 4:54 AM | Report abuse

well I for one, was happy that Clinton got himself a BJ. Had Georgie boy gotten himself some in the Oval Office, maybe he wouldn't be one of the most incompetent presidents in recent history.

as an ex Republican (W turned me into an independent, as well as the corrupt Rep Congress and the evangelicoloons)

I am inclined to vote Democratic. Strongly inclined.

But I cannot understand for the LIFE of me, how the Democratic Party on the dawn of an election cycle which should be as close to a GIMME as it can be, is intent on nominating the single most divisive figure in American politics. Anybody but Hilary, and it's Dem landslide, with Hilary, the Repubs actually have a shot at winning and even if she wins, it'll be a squeaker.

(and the stupid partisan wars of the 90's begin all over again. Granted the Repubs get major blame for this, who cares about getting fellatio and what getting some has to do with the "dignity of the Office" is Puritan nonsense. Every other foreign leader is getting some every night of the week. (and Sunday)

the time for a woman is also complete nonsense. Condi Rice has more "experience", real life experience in one pinkie than Hilary has in her entire body.

It's clear to me that Obama's "instincts", foreign policy wise are much better, Hilary is cautious, politically calculating and does thing to cover her considerably sized ass, for e.g. Iraq War vote. All Dems, other than Gore flunked the First Iraqi Gulf War test, a war about as justified as one is going to get, and the war that truly halted Saddam's WMD programmes. (had we gone alone with Dem "sanctions", Saddam would be dominating the Gulf and would probably have a nuke today)

Obama by mere virtue of who he is will be a better foreign policy leader. If you thought Slick WIlly was popular (and he was) when traveling, wait till you see Obama overseas.

and living among and understanding the culture and lives of people overseas is better than having tea with first ladies, and "dignitaries" and being given Potemkin Village tours any day

(I've been pounding this last point for last two months, someone in Obama campaign I think finally read one of my posts hahahahaha)

Obama is the best change this country has.

An Obama-McCain choice would show us the best of this country.

A Hilary-Romney choice would show us the worst, and a clear indication we're going down the toilet (Romney is even worse than Hilary when it comes to pandering, parsing, triangulating, etc)

the choice is yours America.

Hope.

or retreaded Crap.

think about it.

Posted by: bogey666 | December 30, 2007 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Well, you should all vote for Stephen Harper!

Posted by: POLYZENA | December 30, 2007 2:54 AM | Report abuse

No politician is perfect, but I sure as heck would rather have President Hillary Clinton at the helm during a time of crisis than any of the rest of them.

Posted by: Rob6 | December 30, 2007 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if Bill would've gotten the BJ from a male,all these moronic intern jokes wouldn't be written. It's sad that you republicans/Hillary haters are all alone in your shameful little world writing this krap and are the only ones laughing at it.
After what the republicans have done to this country,you should hide in shame,but you think by writing faux news sound bites it makes your world better. Bill did a heck of a lot better job as President than your clown(bush). Tell me,what is it he's done for this country since being handed the position? Keep up the bad jokes,I'll be the one laughing when Hillary or another Democrat wins and turns this country around. Like always,cleaning up their mess. Must be a pitiful life to have to call yourself a republican,you know,the WIDE STANCE PARTY.

Posted by: jime2000 | December 30, 2007 1:51 AM | Report abuse

The only crises Hillary has dealt with have been Bill's bimbo eruptions and her own scandals. Al Qaeda is somewhat more dangerous than Gennifer, Paula, Monica, etc., etc. Al Qaeda is destabilizing Pakistan like they did in Iraq when they blew up the Samarra mosque, but Hillary wants to blame Musharraf. The fool will create her own crisis.

Posted by: eoniii | December 30, 2007 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is by far the best candidate in the race...I hope she wins, although it's looking increasingly unlikely. I wouldn't mind if either her or Obama were the Democratic nominee. They would both prevail in the general election, and both would do a great job at handling unforeseen circumstances.

Posted by: Resenbrink78 | December 30, 2007 1:27 AM | Report abuse


Thanks for the vote of confidence that Hillary will win re-election.

Much appreciated.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 30, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is biased toward the Clintons. They might as well endorse Hillary.
The truth lies in the Wall Street Journal.
http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110011057
"The Clinton candidacy--everyone knows it is a her-and-his affair--is at its core an appeal to selective nostalgia. We are supposed to remember the lack of a hot war, not the "holiday from history" as al Qaeda gained strength. We are supposed to recall the late-1990s boom, not that it began only after the GOP took Congress and repudiated many Clinton policies."

And we are supposed to forget entirely about Travelgate, Whitewater, lost billing records, the Rose law firm, the Lippo Group, Johnny Chung, Harold Ickes, miraculous cattle-future winnings and lying under oath. So selective is our memory supposed to be that we are asked to credit Mrs. Clinton as a kind of co-President during her husband's eight years, while her husband blocks public access to his Presidential records that might let us examine her actual contribution.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110011048
"Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Posted by: ann31 | December 30, 2007 12:52 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is biased toward the Clintons. They might as well endorse Hillary.
The truth lies in the Wall Street Journal.
http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110011057
"The Clinton candidacy--everyone knows it is a her-and-his affair--is at its core an appeal to selective nostalgia. We are supposed to remember the lack of a hot war, not the "holiday from history" as al Qaeda gained strength. We are supposed to recall the late-1990s boom, not that it began only after the GOP took Congress and repudiated many Clinton policies."

And we are supposed to forget entirely about Travelgate, Whitewater, lost billing records, the Rose law firm, the Lippo Group, Johnny Chung, Harold Ickes, miraculous cattle-future winnings and lying under oath. So selective is our memory supposed to be that we are asked to credit Mrs. Clinton as a kind of co-President during her husband's eight years, while her husband blocks public access to his Presidential records that might let us examine her actual contribution.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110011048
"Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Posted by: ann31 | December 30, 2007 12:51 AM | Report abuse

By playing dirty--

- spreading rumors that Obama is muslin

- spreading rumors that Obama is drug dealer

- accusing Obama is less experienced, when Hillary's so-called experience is debateable

- enlisting all the surrogates to discredit Obama

Clintons have lost crediability with me.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clintons, Clintons

No thanks.

Posted by: wenmay2002 | December 30, 2007 12:48 AM | Report abuse

I love it!! The Republicans are experts at fear-mongering, Code Orange, and $9.11 campaign contributions. But the moment Bill says it--he's famous for turning the Republicans' dirty tricks back on themselves--everyone has a meltdown. You go Bill! Keep it up!! Take the fear-mongering tool away from the Republicans!

I hope Hillary is our nominee. Why? Because she and Bill are the only 2 people in the US who have the GUTS and BALLS to stand up to all the dirty crap that the Republicans are waiting to pull on whoever is the Dem nominee. You think Hillary would have stood for "swift-boating"? Would Bill? NO. Sorry, but even Karl Rove is no match at all for the team of Hill-&-Bill.

Then, when she's President--and he's Assistant President--they can start the long and thankless job of cleaning up the big pile of poo left behind by the Republicans.

Come on, you're not really going to vote for Student Council President--um, I mean, Senator Obama, are you? He's a good man, but he and his family will be utterly and completely destroyed by the Rove machine.

Posted by: jford99 | December 30, 2007 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Oh, please, now we should trust Bill, who lied under oath about his extramarital affair? Is there anyone qualified in the whole country who is not a member of the Clinton's family (or Bush's)? Is there a hope for Chelsea later on too?

What has Mrs. Clinton accomplished? The health care reform? What does she care about except power? Will she know what to do with the power if she gets elected? Is she not a neocon in disguise?

It is Mrs. Clinton herself who should convince Americans to support her candidacy. Not just Pinocchio, the Pope and mother Teresa together could not do it for her.

Posted by: Indeendent | December 30, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

The other day I saw a cartoon where the Chief Surgeon is telling the patient, that he is not going to perform his operation, but his wife will be happy to do it. She always help me bandage the patient after most of the operations.
I like Bill Clinton for what he is doing NOW, however, I am disappointed that he begun to believe that Hillary will be our next President and he is sallivating.Dream on Bill!

Posted by: kyprios928 | December 30, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

There is an indisputible romance in the idea of an African-American presidential candidate.

The problem is the morning after.
There is no way in the world Obama can win a national election, although there certainly is the possibility that he can cause Democrats to lose control of the house and senate.

Republicans are making millions in back-door contributions to Obama's campaign because they know that they can beat him, and that nothing will bring racist Republican rear ends into the voting booth than a Black Democratic Candidate for President.

Obama is the dream candidate for the Republican's southern strategy.

Selecting him as our presidential candidate would be the worst possible choice for the Democratic Party.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

While I respect Bill Clinton's ideas and opinions, I will be voting for Barack Obama. Nobody running for president since Robert Kennedy has inspired Americans to higher levels of possibilities unitl Barack Obama.

No president can really be prepared for events like 9/11 or Katrina. We need an intelligent, thoughtout president with good judgement and without the baggage. Barack Obama is that person!

Posted by: replp | December 30, 2007 12:33 AM | Report abuse


Actually there was no vote to declare war against Iraq, something which I hope we Americans don't allow to happen again.

Along with war criminals like Cheney and his neocons doctoring secret nuclear weapon propaganda to justify war.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 30, 2007 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the fact that al qaeda attacked us 3 times during Clinton's administration (first WTC, African embassies, USS Cole) and he failed to capture/kill him due to certain unneeded distractions. Bush took the high road by not calling him out after 9/11. I would normally agree that we shouldn't try to blame him for his contributions to the problem of terror today, but the way that he has been running his mouth and trying to rewrite history I think deserves someone putting him in his place. I used to respect Bill, but his ego is too large and he is way too out of touch these days.

I agree with the school of thought that the most important qualities required to be a great president is intellect, leadership, and judgment, not Washington experience, which is why so few senators have ever been elected. Although Hillary is very intelligent she lacks core principles which make it impossible for her to lead, and she has proven time and time again that she has poor judgment. If what we have seen from her campaign is at all a preview of what we can expect from her administration - in-fighting, Bill being out of control, dirty tactics- then we are headed for trouble if she manages to get her way into the white house.

I agree it would be great to have a female president, but not Hillary. There are others much more deserving, such as the governors of Michigan and Kansas, though the former can't yet because she's Canadian.

Bottom line, Barack Obama is the best candidate and most electable choice. He gets enough independents and moderate Republicans to disarm the GOP. Edwards is taking public money so he's barred from raising money after the nomination so he'll be broke in the fall. Plus his whole populist fight the corporations message isn't going to fly in the general. Hillary is Hillary and will rally the Repulicans like no one else can and also invite Bloomberg into the race.

Posted by: s.jay83 | December 30, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

The last batch of wild punches show how desprate Republicans are.

Same old, same old.

Yes we know Bill Clinton got a blow job.
So did every Republican Senator and Congressman.
But Bill got his from a grown Woman.

Republicans get theirs from male prostitutes, page boys, and random guys who hang around in airport bathrooms.

Republicans attacking Clinton's morals, hah!

Bill and Hillary are good people.
Bush and Cheney are human slime.

Bush lied, 3800 soldiers died!!!

The Republican attack on Hillary for voting for the Iraq resolution is stupid.

Yes, you're right Republicans, Hillary made the mistake of beleving the BS that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rover fed all of us about WMD. Gee, she's a bad person, she believed the president and voted to give him what he wanted.

Don't worry Republicans, it won't happen again. We won't ever make the mistake of believing a word you say ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Neither of the Clintons, in any capacity, did a damn thing for the people of Afghanistan when they had the chance. For years, moderate factions were asking for help in driving the Taliban out of the country and for help in restraining Pakistan from supporting the Taliban, and they got nothing. Afghan women asked for international attention to their oppression and what did Hillary do? Nothing for her sisters, struggling without even witnesses against medievally cruel repression. And when Hillary became a Senator and had a chance to help Afghanistan, what did she do? She authorized bombing civilians, the red cross and tv stations. She authorized starting an illegal war on innocent Iraqis. And she is beating the drum to start another on Iran. The neglect of Afghanistan and the stupid misguided reliance on the criminals in Pakistan and the resultant raging instability there are the result of policies she wholeheartedly supports. Please save us from the Clinton and Bush dynasties. This country and the world need a fresh start.

Posted by: Sheeshak | December 30, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse


Your time has come and gone, twf5291.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 30, 2007 12:00 AM | Report abuse

When it comes to Monday morning quarterbacks, slick willie is Payton Manning. How could George Bush forsee hurricane Katrina? And as far as Bin Laden is concerned, instead of taking custody of him from Sudan, slick willie instead was too busy with Monica Blewinsky. I hope hillary gets the nomination...it will be that much sweeter to see this particular liberal loose in '08. But let's not forget what slick willie said in NYC back when General David Dinkins was running for re-election agains Rudy Guiliani. slick willie said, "If mayor dinkins does not get re-elected, it's because white voters will not cross racial lines to vote for a black man." Well, to follow his twisted logic, if Obama does not get the nomination, it's because white democrats won't cross racial lines to vote for a black man.

Liberals are a bigger threat to this country than terrorists. A vote for hillary, or any other democrat running for President, is a vote to weaken America.

Posted by: twf5291 | December 29, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

If the "unexpected" happens prior to Nov. 3, 2008, the GOP has a better chance of being elected as they are seen as being tough on terror. But a former president resorting to fear based politics, after the recent era of fearmongering, is truly disheartening.

If you thought a vote for Hillary was anything close to change, drop it. The truth has been confirmed:

A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS A VOTE FOR STATUS QUO.

Posted by: 20yrskinfan | December 29, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

The bombings in Pakistan reinforce my thoughts that every Commander-in-Chief should have some military experience. Now, I like John McCain best. He is not a quitter and he speaks his mind clearly. I do not agree with him on giving illegal immigrants outright citizenship, but he does know the world and Middle East much better than all of the other candidates, including Hillary. To me, he has earned the right to be our Commander-in-Chief. Remember "I Like Ike" buttons....Well, "I Like McCain." As to the dynasty: ABC = Anybody But Clinton.

Posted by: ArmyVet | December 29, 2007 11:48 PM | Report abuse

100 supporters? Wow. What a crowd. If 100 people is a "big" crowd for Hillary they are in more trouble than we thought.

If Bill Clinton can provide one concrete example of Hillary handling an "unexpected" situation I'd consider his point valid. But he didn't. She can't even handle "unexpected" questions, which is why she plants her own questions in the audience. What's she going to do, start planting her own fake terrorists so she can defeat them? (Hey, there's an idea.)

The more Bill tries use the Republican tactic of "be scared and vote for us" the more desperate her campaign looks. He's making me think she is going to get *crushed* in Iowa.

I do agree that we are long overdue for a woman President. But this is not the one to start with. (Hillary supporters think about it... electing Hillary could make us have the first and the *last* woman President for another hundred years. Is that what you really want?)

Posted by: xcrunner771 | December 29, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse


The good news is that this is all the mud the right wing attack machine has to throw at Hillary.

When it goes to the general election against a Romney or Guliani, this is still all you will see. They have nothing else to throw at her.

They know that, and fear that. With Obama and to some extent Edwards they would be unleashed with a new line of dehumanizing attacks, but with Hillary this is their best hope.

This the best the right wing rage machine has to offer. It's laughable.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 29, 2007 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit that as a Demo, I've been getting mail from the Hillary campaign for over a year. For the most part, it has been an appeal to vote for her BECAUSE she is female. Excuse me, but that is inadequate. I certainly wasn't impressed with her response regarding the Bhutto assasination that she can relate as a mother, bla-bla... Who cares? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can relate as a human being. Am I disqualified by my gender? A brilliant pronouncement for an international investigation is ludicrous and won't pass muster, based on Pakistani history of being a sovereign nation and declaring so. Is this an example of her experience? We can all wish upon a star. Reality is a bit tougher.

Posted by: michael4 | December 29, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

So much wisdom from a sexual predator.

Posted by: cschotta1 | December 29, 2007 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd see the day when Clinton would behave in an echo of Cheney behavior. One more reason to send the Clintons packing and keep our democracy from continuing dynastic politics.

Oh, and to the first poster: Hillary Clinton is not a woman. She is a ruthless, ambitious politician with no convictions other than personal power....just like all those bad old men.

Posted by: shahpesareh | December 29, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"If cruelty, coldheartedness and complete lack of concern for the human race are qualifications, Hillary would win hands down. The Clinton's are evil incarnate. What we do not need in this country is transfer of power from one insane power-mad administration to another.

Posted by: str2nbrght | December 29, 2007 05:46 PM"

Golly str2nbrght--I didn't know that about Hillary. Could you give me a few examples to back up your description?
O you can't? ... it's just a 'feeling"?...hmm--that's a great way to choose a leader!

It's entertaining listening to all the commentators above liken talking about the ability to handle national security issues in the 21st century as somehow out of bounds in an election campaign. To my mind, that ability is one of the central duties of a president...in the real world.

Posted by: cwille | December 29, 2007 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Bill is attracting 100 supporters and this is "World Class News?"

You Dems apparently are so low in esteem that an impeached President of the United States is a step up, one convicted of perjury is your role model and one to ask wisdom of?

What a joke you guys are; and you want to be in charge of our national defense?

Posted by: PerryM1 | December 29, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Experience is what George Bush has seven years of. Would you vote for him today?

Bill has experience at war and can certainly share how to shoot million dollar missiles at empty tents in the middle of thousands of miles of sand if you make a decision to do anything (like take out Bin Laden) at all. Oh, I forget, he is still out there sending tapes out about once a month now.

I will take a very smart person who inspires any day and is not hated by 1/2 of America. No more Clinton, no more Bush, just a breath of political fresh air.

Wonder who that could be?

The One.

Posted by: curtiswalker1 | December 29, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is full of crap.They both are sixty radicals who care only about Power.It was the clintons who left Osma alone in Kabul while he built his army and planned to destroy us.Its was Bubba who still doesn't know what the meaning of the word is IS.Known Knowns is Hillary will surrender America to isalm facists.

Posted by: rudy701 | December 29, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

So exacty what crises does Hillary have experience at, other than her husbands zipper malfunctions, and responding to her disastrous (and gallactically stupid) health care proposal during Bill's first term? I've not seen anything in particular that she's accomplished, other than winning her campaigns for the Senate, and collecting a lot of money. I voted for Bill twice, but his time is gone. Biden has much more experience and a thoughtful plan. Obama is much smarter. I don't think "convincing" Bill to support her is much of an accomplishment; what else can he say after all she's put up with from him. Thanks for the service, Hill and Bill.

Posted by: michael4 | December 29, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

There have been persistent rumors floating around the web that Karl Rove has been the guy running the "Kill Hillary" campaign for the Republican Party [one hopes that the phrase is only figurative, after all, we're talking Republicans here] ;--) )

They're using every dirty trick in the book to try to smear Hillary Clinton at a personal level, or with side issues, since they can't compete with her in inteligence, energy, and experience.

The "Nepotism line" is right out of the same talking points memo as such Republican favorites as "is is", "dragon lady", etc.

Posted by: svreader | December 29, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

If you're SCARED, then say you're SCARED!

This isn't the first time (and probably not the last time)that Bill has attempeted to SCARE us into believing in, and voting for Hillary. I'm not buying it.
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

Posted by: valskeet | December 29, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse


You have these right wing hate mongers in here now hoping to derail Hillary in the primaries now so they can say even more vile and disgusting things about Obama if they can get him nominated.

Yes, there is about a 27% group of right wing Americans some of whom revel in the kind of post making you see from them here, and yes, they will continue after Hillary is elected President.

Quite frankly, they don't have anything better to do. This is how they get their jollies. We just have to accept that we have a group of people that revel in the constitional antics of Bush and Cheney and hate everyone else.

But we'll work with the other two thirds of the country and move on, and as long as we stand up to them and don't let them dirty trick the elections they'll become irrelevant.

Bill Clinton is speaking of experience. There's really no pretty way around it. We saw how Bush reacted to 9/11. He was an amateur, actually hasn't shown that's he's learned anything since then either.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | December 29, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse


The media keeps trying to diminish Clinton's stature in the campaign because she is the only Democratic candidate that has a chance of winning.
Forget what the polls say, now.
If you try and send another 4th or 5th-string candidate up against the media-fueled republican party machine, you will lose again.
Obama or Edwards don't stand a chance in hell because they are light-weights.
Clinton is the only one that can win against the evil dark republican party of fear-mongers.

Posted by: chasemonster | December 29, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

The "Dynasty" thing has been exposed as a Republican trick, one of a list of phrases and words Republicans are being asked to use whenever possible.

Drammos, you've either fallen for a Republican talking point trick unintentionally, you're intentionally using one, or you're incredibly shallow and should seriously reconsider how you choose who to vote for in an election. Most people make that decision based on who they believe is the most qualified.

Choosing who to vote for based on what family they come from sounds like something out of a bad mafia movie satire.

Posted by: svreader | December 29, 2007 10:22 PM | Report abuse


America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'. It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief. When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her - with conviction and fortitude. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of. There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share. We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again - like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us. It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 29, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Right!. This is from a guy that ask, "it depends what the definition of is is" I have lost all respect of Bill Clinton. It's time for people to stop being like lemmins and stop following the clintons

Posted by: drramos | December 29, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

This latest tactic of the Clintons is cowardly and it's sad to see a Democrat resort to the kind of noxious fear mongering that has poisoned the post-9/11 American discourse.

In other words, precisely what voters are desperate to get away from.

I have never been able to vote on a ballot that didn't contain at least one Bush or a Clinton.
PLEASE let's give someone else a chance!

Posted by: jtamarkin | December 29, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know what vison or plan Bill is referring to. It seems to me Hillary goes out of her way not to reveal a plan or vision for this nation. Sorry Bill you don't get a third term and your wife is not the best qualified candidate. Get over it!

Posted by: sbundley | December 29, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

But that's the whole point.

Hillary isn't just Hillary, she's Hillary + Bill + Al Gore + anyone she wants from the Democratic party.

If Hillary becomes president, she has an amazingly talented group of people to work with can would very well likely choose John Edwards as Attorney General and Joe Biden as Secretary of State.

Imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket, with Edwards as Attorney General, with either Joe Biden, or Bill Clinton as Secretary of State, or if he's not not Secretary of State, Bill Clinton as Special Assistant to the President.

Its not just the President, but the TEAM.
The Clinton TEAM will beat anything.

Posted by: svreader | December 29, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton's refusal to answer questions at her campaign appearances shows perfectly well how much she fears anything unexpected or out of her control.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | December 29, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse


I know, Bill.
And there you sit, calmly arranging the "unexpected".

How dumb do you think we are?

Posted by: wardropper | December 29, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

How about Joe Biden? As has been said in this mewspaper and others, the truth is that he has more foreign policy knowledge, contacts, depth and breadth than all three of the front runners put together.

The fact is that Ds are voters who tend to put domestic policy first, almost without regard to world affairs. That is the only explanation for the three "front runners".

I am not praising Rs here. Only John McCain among them can point to any foreign policy experience at all. The Ds have Biden, Dodd, and Richardson.

But the Ds do not care. Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are not their front runners.

The Rs do not care - their front runners are Giuliani and Romney and still another former governor of a state with a smaller population than the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex.

We independents are going to have to again
suffer through holding our nose while you give us Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, or John Edwards and Mitt Romney. And if those are the choices, America may not be able to climb out of the hole that my former Governor
has dug.

Imagine any R but McCain working with a Democratic Congress and you will get the picture of gridlock that dwarfs even your hours at the intersection of US 101 and IH10 in L.A.

Imagine HRC or Edwards reaching out to Rs to find 60 votes in the Senate and you have a very strong imagination indeed. While HRC has made friends in the Senate, she still engenders a non-cooperative attitude among Rs. Think of HRC and Rudy in a campaign and you have the tabloid 24/7 dream of scandal and rumor.

On the other hand, Biden and Dodd both have worked long and hard across the aisle, as has McCain, and they could get those 60 votes.

I have withheld criticism toward Sen. Obama because he does seem to understand what reaching across the aisle to get something done is about. He also has gathered some strong policy people behind him. That he would not be my first choice is clear - but against any R but McCain I would consider him strongly, and I think many independents share my sense of him as thoughtful and willing to listen to other views.

Otherwise, Happy New Year!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 29, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is an ambitious person who wants to be President. He lacks experience with only 3 years in the Senate. He is not ready for anything period. If he is nominated and elected President, we have a big problem in America. This powerful nation will be in chaos.

Posted by: aegana | December 29, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse

They can't come out and say it, but one of the best things about Hillary as President is that in moments of crisis, and for every critical situation, she has available to her a former president to advise her, directly at her side, if she wants it, because happens to be her husband.

Lets face it. If the constitution didn't forbid it, America would love to have Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse as President. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were so much better than George Bush and Dick Cheney that a comparison would ping any meter you hooked up.

Its more than a day or night difference, its like a spring day vs katrina.

Life when Clinton was president was like a spring day. Life under Bush and Cheney has been like a six year long katrina.


We can't elect Bill again, but Hillary is amazing in her own right. As impressive as she seems, if anything, she is underestimated by people because Bill shines so brightly.

Is Hillary Bill's equal? Absolutely!

People who have worked with both of them believe that.

Bill Clinton himself says that, and siad it when he first ran for Governor in Arkansas, and in every election there after, up and including the Presidency.

He called it 2 for 1.

It works both ways.

Now Bill is the 2, and Hillary is the 1.

When Bill Clinton left after two terms in office, hee also left a huge surplus after inheriting a deficit from the previous Republican administration.

Lets hope history repeats itself.

Posted by: svreader | December 29, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

dyck,

Why don't you stop spreading lies?

I should expect nothing less than Hillary supporters- after her volunteers were caught spreading the "muslim manchurian candidate" email lies.

Please, folks, look for yourself. It's easy ....just one click away...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/zogby-obama-is.html

Posted by: julieds | December 29, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons....USING FEAR POLITICS......what a disgrace.

Posted by: julieds | December 29, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

This statements by Bill Clinton are so disgusting it makes me sick, pulling out and playing the republican card of fear that they've used on the American people for the past seven years is just beneath this man that I used to think was a good president. Now I'm absolutely convinced that my support for Obama is the right thing to do. Please God let Obama win this nomination so we can do away with the disgusting Clintons forever!

Posted by: lumi21us | December 29, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama was dead on .. because he did not get the opportunity to vote.. and when he did get the opportunity he votes "present"... a great politician indeed.. He is the BIGGEST TALKER HERE !!! and he thinks we all are fools.. they way he has been on the attack Hillary.. but then TRIES to act as a positive candidate.. just talk the talk.. you are worse than BUSH.

Posted by: vimpy | December 29, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Right on Bill, we need Hillary as our next president. She is our "Hill Girl". We love watching her react to different situations presented by journalist. We need Hillary for her strength and intelligence

Posted by: Lucille4 | December 29, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Regarding "ANY Democrat is better than any spend-spend-spend Republican." Republicans are assuredly crooks, who have swindled us into trillions of dollars of debt - and, in theory, any democrat would be better. But, I have to tell you, I just could not vote for Hillary after seeing her and Bill in action in Iowa and NH. Can't do it. If she gets the nomination, I'd go Green, Libertarian, Socialist. I'd vote for Josef Stalin's corpse before I'd vote for Hillary... I'd dive a nine inch nail into one ear and out the other before I'd vote for Hillary... I'd....

Posted by: pachyder | December 29, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama should step aside for the adults

Posted by: Friend1 | December 29, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

"Vote for my wife because Sept. 11! Oogah boogah boogah!"

Looks like the Clintons have been studying W's 2004 campaign. No self-respecting progressive would vote for this woman. They came in offering universal health care, and left us with NAFTA.

And why aren't more people talking about the fact that if Hillary is elected, when her (first) term ends in 2013, the White House will have been tossed back and forth by two families for the past TWENTY-FOUR YEARS? Why is the "Get Your War On" dude the only political commentator to note this?

Posted by: jmroberts1979 | December 29, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I use to really like Bill Clinton. But listening to his wife answer a question five different ways to please five different people has turned me off of her and the more he promotes her the more I find I don't care for him either. He isn't helping her, she is hurting him.

Posted by: info4 | December 29, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe the Clinton strategy is appealing to fear; instead, Hillary Clinton is appealing to plain old common sense.

It should be obvious that in challenging times, we need an experienced, competent leader, conversant in world affairs, and one who has a track record of getting things done.

Even Obama's staunch supporter, neo-con David Brooks, writing for the NY Times, admitted that Obama has been a slacker as a senator.

Obama's resume and talking points most nearly resemble the record of candidate G.W. Bush who sold the "values" story to the electorate. Remember: Bush advertised himself as morally superior to everyone else and as a uniter.

We don't need to say any more about the Bush Administration's record of incompetency.

Come on, people, think twice this time around before you cast your vote.

Posted by: ichief | December 29, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I think he meant recession. Hell, 9/11 we know how to do. Just blame bin Laden and invade an oil rich Muslim country.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 29, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

peterdc must be really whipped to be so eager to have another annoying woman with cankles boss him around. if he's so into hillary, i can't imagine what his wife (or husband) is like...

Posted by: fred100012003 | December 29, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

One thing you can't take away from Obama, he was dead right on the most important issue of all, Iraq, and all the other leading candidates of both parties were wrong.

Posted by: newageblues | December 29, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments here underscore how high Hillary's negatives are. Is she a saint? No. But anything that gets Bill back into the White House works for me. I can't believe the head-in-sand deranged rants here. What happened sexually was between him and his wife. What is really important is winning a war (remember when the US used to win its war), a balanced budget, a FEMA that worked, and optimism about the future, instead of the doom-and-fear shenanigans of the current administration, which has gotten us in so much trouble. And let us not forget, in general, ANY Democrat is better than any spend-spend-spend Republican.

Posted by: nick4 | December 29, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The Unexpected: Mrs Clinton admits she made a mistake when she voted to give The President the authority to wage war in Iraq.

Posted by: freddiano | December 29, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Get a grip, rat-the! Obama is not anti-Semitic. I have not seen anything like that in him before. Why would he do it now when each vote is so important for him? No, you are, certainly, bluffing.

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 29, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will probably have Marc Penn take a poll immediately post nuclear attack to make sure that she has the right position on it.

Posted by: MilesLong | December 29, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Ask Bill Clinton, what his national security and foreign policy experience was when he became president?

Bill Clinton is a pathological liar, and would do and say anything to get what he wants.

Who does not recall the sordid and embarrassing details of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades (not with his wife) in the White House, and the shame the nation still bears for that, till this day?

This person is a convicted perjurer, and his license to practise law was suspended for at least, five years. Why are people still coming to listen to this convicted perjurer? If he has any morals, he would keep his sorry disgraceful face in New York, or somewhere. The nation had more than enough of him, those 8 years.

As for people whom he appears to be convincing to support his wife: you are really smart, when a convicted perjurer is able to dupe you, into believing his pitch!

I would lose every hope of this nation's ability to learn from past mistakes, should we make the mistake of nominating Hillary Clinton, let alone elect her the president. Draft another woman, if we must, rather than nominate Hillary Clinton, who, in my opinion, does not represent the best of our country.

Ignatius Anyanwu
Folsom, California

Posted by: ICA2101 | December 29, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

WE may not be ready for a woman president. but know we are not ready for a wet behind the ears black man who keeps talking change has not ideas just change. you can not vote simply on race... republicians are hoping he is chosen but do the math three possible states and more and likely not them.It was a dream

Posted by: jwilsonte | December 29, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Okay... I guess we can officially add Bill Clinton to Joe Biden's Club Nine Eleven:

Rudy Giuliani: Subject Verb Nine Eleven!
Bill Clinton: Hillary Verb Nine Eleven!
Mitt Romney: Islamic Jihadists Nine Eleven!
Dyck21005: I love Hillary Nine Eleven Nine Eleven Nine Eleven!

Bill Clinton's remarks today hit a brand new low in fearmongering. I guess the take-home lesson is: If your wife is losing, scream NINE ELEVEN at the top of your lungs.

Don't be afraid, vote Barack Obama!

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 29, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's latest video dnouncing the Sunni support for a Unified Iraqi Government is one thing, but to start talking about Blood for blood as his followers infiltrate the Palestinians to wage war on the Israelis, I believe should definitely cost him some votes!

LOL; )

Posted by: rat-the | December 29, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

He is referring to an UNKNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of events and a KNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of a competing candidate. He is asserting, generally, that Hilary is a KNOWN KNOWN and that there is no KNOWN UNKNOWN about her. Many laughed at D.Rumsfield's lucid cataloguing of awareness and knowledge but should not have.

Posted by: Scall | December 29, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

He is referring to an UNKNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of events and a KNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of a competing candidate. He is asserting, generally, that Hilary is a KNOWN KNOWN and that there is no KNOWN UNKNOWN about her. Many laughed at D.Rumsfield's lucid cataloguing of awareness and knowledge but should not have.

Posted by: Scall | December 29, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

He is referring to an UNKNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of events and a KNOWN UNKNOWN in the way of a competing candidate. He is asserting, generally, that Hilary is a KNOWN KNOWN and that there is no KNOWN UNKNOWN about her. Many laughed at D.Rumsfield's lucid cataloguing of awareness and knowledge but should not have.

Posted by: Scall | December 29, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dyck,
If Obama is unelectable, how come he leads all of the Republicans, significantly, in head to head polling? - while Hillary loses to nearly all Republicans. Hillary is the unelectable one- she has very high negatives among the general public. Obama does not. Past that, there's the fact that she's a liar...

Posted by: pachyder | December 29, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is unelectable, as he loses by significant margins to all three republican candidates - which all lose to Edwards and Clinton. Barack Obama has been flip-flopping like a carp on a boat deck, changing his position over and over, On gun control, Obama changed directions three times since 1996, when he called for a ban on all handgun possession and sales in Illinois.

he uses ALL his oppoenst solutions to put his spin on, his campagine is the titantic sinking fast since wednesday, talk a look around,HE CANNOT WIN the general election. So stop wasting your money supporting a losing candidate. Barack

*REALCLEAR POLTICS- Obama, absolutely will not win the Democratic nomination for the presidency

Obama is the freshman senator with heavy emphasis on "freshman, extremely inexperienced in national and international politics. he doesn't have any top-level executive experience in any government.

Obama does not have even with oprah support, universal support among black leaders. David Mack, a black state legislator in South Carolina said, we need someone with more national-security experience.

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of 43 black Democratic members of Congress, said she was "99% sure" her group would not support Obama.

Al Sharpton says he's not that impressed with Obama. He praised Edwards for talking about poverty issues. Obama is a lot of media razzle-dazzle, not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content from his campagine.

John Edwards ran strongly among black voters in winning South Carolina in 2004
Jesse Jackson has refused to endorse Obama.

Obamas health-care proposal is misleading voters because it omits millions of people and would not lower costs. Obamas lost a reputation for honesty.

Obama bashes Wal-Mart, but why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of a Chicago-area company that pays its executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off 153 workers, most of them Hispanic in an economically deprived area.

Obama and his chief strategist be politicizing Bhutto murder when hes starts sliding backwards in the polls now that media is beginning to hear voters and reporting on his lack of stabds on issues and voting "Present" 130 times in his short time in the senate.

Barack Obama told Iowa voters Friday that he doesn't get elected President this time, wife said he won't try again. Doesnt he have to ask Oprah first?

Clinton has become the first Democrat in more than 40 years to come in with more than 50.1 percent of the nationwide popular vote.

Posted by: dyck21005 | December 29, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Like "bimbo eruptions," maybe? Or were they expected and are they to be expected? Only a couple of things are bigger than this disgusting individual's gall: his W.C. Fields nose and his and the wife's disregard for personal hygiene. If Ankleless Annie's courtiers let loose once more about Obama's youthful substance use and his alleged ties to Islam, we'll forgive Obama if he hollers back, "SHE STINKS!" IN SPADES!

Posted by: sawargos | December 29, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The important thing here is: when it came to running the country Bill did not bluff. He is not bluffing now, and regardless of who the nominee is we Americans had better brace ourselves.
If we are not willing to stand first for freedom the power-mongers will finish pulling the Constitutional rug out from under us. This last you can take to the broken bank.

Susan Frishkorn, Pensacola, Fl.

Posted by: chances1 | December 29, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

The important thing here is: when it came to running the country Bill did not bluff. He is not bluffing now, and regardless of who the nominee is we Americans had better brace ourselves.
If we are not willing to stand first for freedom the power-mongers will finish pulling the Constitutional rug out from under us. This last you can take to the broken bank.

Susan Frishkorn, Pensacola, Fl.

Posted by: chances1 | December 29, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The important thing here is: when it came to running the country Bill did not bluff. He is not bluffing now, and regardless of who the nominee is we Americans had better brace ourselves.
If we are not willing to stand first for freedom the power-mongers will finish pulling the Constitutional rug out from under us. This last you can take to the broken bank.

Susan Frishkorn, Pensacola, Fl.

Posted by: chances1 | December 29, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

If Bill Clinton believed his wife was so exceptional, intelligent and effective; why didn't he appoint her to a responsible position in his administration?

Posted by: tothebank | December 29, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The glorified hick Clinton should crawl back in his hole. Well, perhaps that's an unfortunate use of words.

Posted by: birvin9999 | December 29, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Slick Willy warns us we need Shrillary as our nominee for Prez in 08 "to deal with the unexpected." The only "unexpected" we might expect from this character is a new sexual scandal with a young, confused, unsuspecting woman.

Get real, Slick Willy, Shrillary's so-called experience for Prez consists of eight years as First Lady under your Adminstrations. We rational Demos are not going to be misled by that baloney. Anyone with a modicum of knowlege on the White House operations today knows that First Ladies are no more than "window dressing."

She blew the opportunity to enact national health care legislation in your first Administration, thanks to her bungling management of the task force you created to oversee the effort.

Please do we Demos a favor and leave the political scene with at least a trace of grace together with Shrillary after Obama wipes her out in Iowa, NH, SC and succeeding primaries. Forrest Gerard

Posted by: fgerard | December 29, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Ol' Bubba's right on this one! To avoid the "unexpected," he'd best "zip up." (His mouth, that is.)

Posted by: filoporquequilo | December 29, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Bill Clinton is right, Mrs. Clinton is the only one with the experience how to create the mass provocation, leading to crisis, like Oklahoma bombing, for example.
Her experience in such social experiments is one of the main reasons why she could not become our next presiden. It doesn't not mean that other reasons for her unfit for this positions are not important, as they also are.

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 29, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
Its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political
dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

Barack Obama once quoted " if the United States had not gone to war in Iraq, the US Army would have had more resources to deal with the greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan"

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAQ.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAN.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON PAKISTAN.

BARACK OBAMA HAS RIGHT JUDGEMENT FROM THE BEGINNING.

BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY'S WRONG
EXPERIENCE.


!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

Posted by: jkojs | December 29, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled that Bill Clinton would stoop to this odious a level of fear mongering.

What ever happened to Democratic Presidents that believed, "We have nothing to fear but fear, itself".

Hillary is a sure ticket to defeat in November.

Posted by: anabel10014 | December 29, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Well now, doesn't that depend on what the definition of "Unexpected" is?

LOL! Once this guy got a Million Dollars an appearance!

Now he is doing "Green Acres" for Real Lettuce!

Posted by: rat-the | December 29, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

If cruelty, coldheartedness and complete lack of concern for the human race are qualifications, Hillary would win hands down. The Clinton's are evil incarnate. What we do not need in this country is transfer of power from one insane power-mad administration to another.

Posted by: str2nbrght | December 29, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

So, now Bill is playing the fear card - straight out of the Dick Cheney "Smoking Gun" textbook. I voted for Bill twice, and assuredly things were better then than now - but in the course of this campaign I've learned to despise both Bill and Hillary.
They are more of the same.
They are utterly dishonest. They will say anything to get elected.
They are entirely beholden to special interests. In short, they suck.
We need something new, it's our only chance to change things and
turn us off the road to extinction. Anybody from outside of the "system." Go Obama!

Posted by: pachyder | December 29, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

You don't get "experience" by proximity to the president, as JFK's former speechwriter Ted Sorensen points out. He by the way, is now in the Obama camp.

When Mrs. Clinton is asked unscripted questions by the media, she can't seem to answer them. We need a woman president but not this woman.

Posted by: vbalfour | December 29, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is right on the money! In a post 9/11 world, we need a strong figure in charge of this country. One that will NOT play on our fears, but one that will play on our hopes and dreams. Hillary is the one, the only one. Get ready American. Soon, madam president will bring us back to fiscal responsibility, international respect, and maybe, a chance for some sort of universal healthcare.
Go Hill! We love you!

Posted by: aboyzboi | December 29, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Why would we trust Hillary? Did those women who went to the Rose Law Firm to hire an attorney to sue Bill Clinton for harrassment trust Hillary? She was then going with her madien name. How well did that work out?

Posted by: hsslchr | December 29, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Putanesque Bill. If he is returned to the white house and becomes a member of the inner circle, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?

Posted by: rahaha | December 29, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Their support for Bush's invasion of Iraq shows what Clinton and Edwards will do in a crisis.

Posted by: rlfast | December 29, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Carl Rove meet the Clintons.

Posted by: doctorvandermast | December 29, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

This kind of rhetoric has poisoned this country for long enough. Time for a change. ANYONE but Clinton in 08.

Posted by: uhbkeys | December 29, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is right.

Hillary is the only one running that has the temperment, experience and understanding of how to deal with a crisis that may arise.

I think it is time we had a woman as President. Most families rely on women in time of crisis. They are better at multi-tasking, better at healing and often are the pillars of strength for their families in times of crisis.

It is time that we had a woman lead our nation. We will present a different face to the world and just by electing Hillary we will make a statement that we are ready to take our nation in a different direction.

Hillary has the strength to use our armed forces if needed but the the courage to not use them if we can settly our differences through diplomacy.

We know that there will be crisis during the next President's term whoever is in the Oval Office and I for one will sleep better knowing it is Hillary.

Posted by: peterdc | December 29, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company