Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Defends the Campaigning Spouse

By Kevin Merida
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Democratic Party elders everywhere may be telling Bill Clinton to cool it, chill, pipe down, whatever. But John Edwards has a slightly different take on the ex-president's fierce campaigning of late on behalf of his wife.

"My basic view about this is that I don't like the personal fighting back and forth, between candidates or between spouses," Edwards said in an interview aboard his campaign bus. "But it is very hard for me. I believe that spouses have the right to speak their minds. In his case, he happens to be an ex-president. But my wife Elizabeth speaks her mind. And I think they're entitled to do that. It's a democracy. That's the way it works. People can agree or disagree with what they say, but they're not required to go home and sit around and be quiet. That's just the way I view it."

As for Edwards himself, he insists that he is in the race until the end, regardless of his showing in South Carolina or in the Super Tuesday states on Feb. 5th.

"This is not about me or my personal ambition," he said. "It's about the cause and the voices who are not heard...And so their voice is going to get heard. It's going to get heard through me, no matter what those two [Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton] do."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 26, 2008; 9:29 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Courting Votes in the Show Me State
Next: Early Turnout Well Above Average


It amazes me that some people are still oblivious (or in denial, take your pick) as to the blatant, dirty politics of Billary.

For more information on the lying-under-oath, politically-corrupt Clintons, click here:,

Posted by: lilheder | January 26, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Hotnuke, my brother-in-law has a TIVO with unlimited capacity and somehow he links it to his computer hard drive. It's a great thing. He is an NFL fan and so far he's recorded the entire session. Anyway, I think this guy is very committed and i'm glad that other people are finally realizing that the media have been distorting this race story.

Posted by: tevste | January 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse


Either there really is a guy out there who TIVOed all that programming (which isn't impossible since the newer boxes have upwards of 100 hours available to record) and just happened to see EXACTLY what I've seen and wrote, or this guy has read something I've wrote and rewrote it as a post for himself at the Times. Either way it's refreshing to see that others are either seeing it independently, or just seeing it period.

Apparently Obama's lowlife tactics are NOT blindly being ignored, despite the Hillary-Hating media's attempt at rewriting reality.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Just a correction. The post that i posted on| January 26, 2008 04:52 PM is not mine. I found it on the New York Time and reposted here. I take no credit in it and i do not have a TIVO

Posted by: tevste | January 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You must have one of those new, Super Duper TIVOs with unlimited storage capacity ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I am 51 years old African-American man. I am not ashamed to say that I support Senator Obama and I want to see him win for several reasons, among them seeing this country electing an African-American to the highest executive office in the land.

However, I have grown very uncomfortable lately about how the campaign has taken a very unhealthy racial tone, and I wanted to investigate for myself the origin of this claims. The media, newspapers and broadcasts have concluded that it was Senator Clinton's fault; that she played the race card. However, from the small investigative work I have done throughout this weekend, I came to another regrettable conclusion.

I am what you call a news junky, and I TIVO almost every single news and political show on cable (Hardball, Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann, 360, The O'Reilly Factor, The News Hour, 60 minutes, ABC, NBC, and CBS nightly news) because my kids watch kids programs during those times, i work late, and my wife is allergic to political talk shows and news programs. So, over the weekend, I re-watched everything that has been broadcasted since Senator Obama's victory in the Iowa Caucuses, and I regretfully arrived to a very bad conclusion. Here are the facts, and arrive to your own conclusion:

Fact 1: On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Senator Clinton got emotional

Fact 2: Senator Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, which was a big surprise

Fact 3: Ex post facto analysis clearly shows that women and undecided voters voted massively for Senator Clinton.

Fact 4: MSNBC's Chris Matthews was extremely shocked about Senator Clinton's victory

Fact 5: Chris Matthews wanted to find an explanation for Senator Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary. He was not convinced that women and undecided voters broke for her

Fact 6: On January 9, the day after the New Hampshire victory of Senator Clinton, Chris Matthews, on his show Hardball and on Morning Joe, argued that race was the main explanation for Senator Clinton's victory. This is an important fact because this is the most overt discussion about racial bias directly intervening and biasing the voting process in favor of Senator Clinton.

Fact 7: On the same day on his show Hardball, Chris Matthews' guest, Professor Dyson, a fervent support of Senator Obama, argued that the New Hampshire's voters were clearly motivated by race, notwithstanding the most accurate explanation provided by Pat Buchanan, present on the set. Chris Matthews and Professor Dyson argued that New Hampshirites did not vote for Senator Obama despite they said the opposite when they were surveyed by several different polling institutes. Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson and Professor Dyson argued that what happened to Senator Obama in New Hampshire is exactly similar to what happens to other African-American candidates who sought higher office. They invoked racial bias and the so-called Bradley Effect, where white voters maliciously under-report their real feelings or intentions about African-American candidates, which leads opinion polls to over-estimate African-American candidates' popularity and support, which inflate their poll numbers.

Fact 8: On January 9, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois stated on MSNBC that Senator Clinton's emotional breakdown prior to the New Hampshire primary was not genuine. He stated that Senator Clinton 's tears need to be carefully investigated in light of what he called facts. He said that Senator Clinton did not cry about the catastrophe that stroke New Orleans, Katrina, and she did not cry about the Katrina's victims who were disproportionally African-Americans. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Senior adviser for Senator Obama's campaign, clearly implied that Senator Clinton did not care about African-Americans' problems and plights. This is the second overt racial reference emanating from Senator Obama's camp. It introduced race and racial bias, and accused Senator Clinton of racial insensitivity. Briefly stated, it turned Senator Clinton and those who voted for her and supported her into racists.

Fact 9: MSNBC and especially Chris Matthews took these statements and arguments and ran with them night after night. Suddenly other political shows on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS began talking about the Bradley Effect, questioning Senator Clinton commitment to racial unbiasedness, and accusing Senator Clinton of injecting the race card into the primaries.

Fact 10: MSNBC and Chris Matthews's show, Hardball, took the comments of former President Clinton about Senator Obama's position on Iraq, the fairy tale comment, and depicted them as race baiting. They edited and played that small clip every night on every show and stated that President Clinton meant that the whole Obama candidacy was a fairy tale. Every fair-minded person could understand that president Clinton was talking about Senator Obama's position and declaration on the Iraq war. That's how i understood them anyway.

Fact 11: Then, the media took Senator Clinton's comments that she made during a New Hampshire debate about Martin Luther King Jr.s dream as a further sign of her racial bias. Senator Clinton said that "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do--the President before had not even tried--but it took a President to get it done." What she clearly meant was that all political victories and politics in general is an incremental effort to bring about change through good governance (I highly recommend to read George Packer's piece entitled THE CHOICE on the New Yorker published on January 28, 08 for further clarification on this issue)

Fact 12: Everything that Senator Clinton said subsequently after the New Hampshire debate was tainted and qualified by the media as racist comments or race baiting.

In conclusion, I honestly believe that Senator Obama's defeat in New Hampshire was a serious shock to his campaign. In order to keep his campaign viable, Senator Obama had to win either the Nevada Caucus and/or the primary in South Carolina. The Obama camp made the dangerous decision to racialize the campaign. Prior to the Nevada Caucus, Senator Clinton's support among African-American in South Carolina was in the high 40s. In order for Senator Obama to cut through her support among the African-American community in South Carolina and win that primary, the campaign of Senator Obama decided to subtly and intelligently play the race card and accuse Senator Clinton of racial insensitivity towards blacks. Of course comments by some of Senator Clinton's surrogates such as Bob Johnson and Bob Kerry were out of line, did not help, and helped Senator Obama cement his dangerous strategy. The unintended consequences of engaging in this strategy are that Senator Obama has dangerously narrowed his appeal, and has become the de facto black candidate. The challenge that awaits Senator Obama post South Carolina victory is how he is going to stop this suicidal strategy, and recast himself as the all-inclusive candidate.

Lastly, I honestly did not want to write this post because of my support for Obama. I painstakingly arrived to this conclusion after watching hours of news programs and taking careful notes. It breaks my heart to write that Senator Obama, for one reason or another, maybe because of bad advices he got from his senior staff, has chosen to engage in this very dangerous strategy. I think Senator Clinton surprising victory in New Hampshire sent a shock wave and caused major panic in the Obama campaign, which led to devise a strategy to stop her momentum. Ironically, I think that Obama was viable as candidate even if he would have lost the South Carolina primary, but now, I am less certain that he will win the nomination. It is pure old boomerang effect.

Posted by: tevste | January 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually, lilheder,

According to the Chicago Sun Times investigation, Obama received nearly $200,000 in "bundled" contributions from the INDICTED SLUM LANDLORD REZKO, and has only donated about $80,000 of that to charity. Also, I don't ever recall Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, or anyone else for that matter in the Clinton campaign working with Hsu in any meaningful fashion as Obama did with Rezko. Nor have I ever heard of them writing letters in order to help secure contracts for Hsu as Obama did on behalf of Rezko. Nor have I heard that the Clintons purchased "BELOW MARKET VALUE" any land from Hsu.

Get your facts straight about who's corrupt among the two. IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE LYING, LOWLIFE RACIST NAMED BARACK OBAMA.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

this comment is for matbower: i noticed that you tried to criminalize Obama for having accepted, then donated Rezko's contributions to charity. It would be hypocritical of you not to mention the THOUSANDS and thousands of dollars Hillary Clinton has taken from thieves and blue-collar thugs.

In fact, "The Clinton campaign cut ties with Hsu and has refunded more than $800,000 in donations from about 250 of his business associates and other people he had recruited. Hsu is facing fraud charges in New York, as well as prison time in California for an earlier conviction. (in on 10/20/2007)."

Nonetheless, I do not know any other person on the presidential ticket whom reeks of corrupt "Washington politics" more than Mrs. Clinton herself.

Posted by: lilheder | January 26, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I lost any and all faith in Obama when he trotted out John Kerry In South Carolina. John Kerry unfortunately ran a poor campaign, and did not have enough fight in him to go after his attackers.

He always blamed John Edwards for his loss, when in fact more people felt better about voting for him because John Edwards was on the ticket. When John Edwards voted in favor of giving the president authority to go to war if needed, it was a vote of trust in the President to use that power only if needed, which is a lot different than "Voted for the War". The same for Nafta, you vote for it with provisions and you expect those provisions to be followed through on. The mistake most made at that time was that they trusted George Bush. It is easy for Obama to say he was against the war, however he was not a Senator on the floor of the United States Congress, so in fact he never had to make that choice.

I still believe in Edward's I believe that with Edward's you will never again see the likes of Tom Delay handing out checks from lobbyist to other Senators on the floor of Congress and maybe just maybe the people have a chance of getting their government back out of the hands of Corporate Lobbyist.

Posted by: jazzbluesgal | January 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hotnuke2007: you presented both perspectives very well. In the end of your post though you joined in with the bashing bunch which only serves to discredit your fine summation of what has occurred so far in this race. Tone it down a bit and that will "incite" some critical thinking.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | January 26, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Mule muffins...I think Bill Clinton has done a wonderful job in defending and advocating on behalf of his wife. That is what a spouse is supposed to do. Michelle and Elizabeth have the same right and have done so. Bill was right about the press being out "looking for a story" rather than reporting what the candidates are actually spteaking about. It's not about race or gender, but since the two candidates are who they are, it is inevitable that it would come up. However, I would be deeply offended by the notion that eiither of the Clinton's are playing the race card. LOOK AT THEIR RESPECTIVE RECORDS!!!!!However, I do believe the rhetoric should be toned downed because these two people may probably have to run on the same ticket in the future. People should vote for whichever candidate they think is most ready to govern IMMEDIATELY after that disaster when we have as a president now serving.

Posted by: bamslammer | January 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

For those who think that Obama opposed the war in Iraq from day one, I have news for you. During 2004, there was one candidate who strongly opposed the Iraq war. That was Howard Dean. If Obama felt passionately against the Iraq war, he would have come out in support of Howard Dean. But instead he made the keynote speech for John Kerry who also voted in favor of the war resolution on Iraq. Even Gore and Bradley supported Howard Dean at that time. Moreover, once he got elected to the Senate, he never voted to cut off funding for war. So if Bill Clinton called the media talk about his passionate opposition to Iraq war as a "fairy tale", what else can you call it? Where was the beef in his opposition to the Iraq war? Yes, I give great credit to Obama for his oratory and for getting young people involved in this election, but he can not claim that he has displayed a sustained, passionate and consistent opposition to the Iraq war. Those who think that Bill Clinton slighted black people by his comments are just shutting their eyes to the facts. Ofcourse Obama can explain that he did not want to take sides in 2004. So can Hillary say that the political environment at the time of war resolution was so much a test of one's commitment to the war on terror that she, along with the likes of others such as John Kerry and Edwards had no choice but to vote for it to prove their national security credentials. To me the war resolution vote was a trick by the Republican administration to force the democrats to take a stand on the national security issue and a lot of people fell into the trap because of the supercharged political environment created by Dick Cheney. After all, John Kerry stubbornly resisted the idea of calling his vote a mistake, and yet he is supporting Obama now on this issue. If this is not political opportunism, what else is it? In 2004, the people in this country re-elected the current president despite the ongoing war. A politician can hardly ignore the sentiments of the people, and that is fortunately or unfortunately the essence of democracy in this country.

Posted by: vaidyatk | January 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

A headline tomorrow? (made up by me)


An angry Bill Clinton snapped at reporters who asked him if his statement, "Hillary would have won South Carolina if it wasn't all those voters from the Niger Delta, if you know what I mean." was racially-charged. Bill seethed: "You media types always doing what Obama wants you to. I was speaking about the large number of overseas oilfield workers who seemed to support Sen. Obama in absentee ballots. Sen. Obama is a great African-American if I have ever seen one." Clinton went on to charge that once again, it was the Obama campaign twisting a harmless statement into one that dealt with race.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I like Edwards and he is my choice. He is smart, tough and diplomatic and I believe he would be able to work with both sides. I just know at this point though he is not going to be the candidate.

Posted by: bsgulka | January 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I have heard that it will more than likely be a Clinton/Clark ticket if Hillary is the Dem candidate.

Posted by: bsgulka | January 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

btw...did anyone else notice this morning how joe scarbrough depicted hillary's comment regarding MLK and obama? he asked a black guest what he thought about her saying that "it took a white guy to make MLK's dream come true"....that may be slightly off-quote...but not by much. if that isn't race-baiting by the media, I don't know what is. is further proof that the media and many voters choose to depict hillary in the worse way and continue to push negative stories while making obama seem like the victim. he also alluded that b/c obama lost 10% of the white vote, the clinton's injection of race into politics was the reason. he could also have mentioned that hillary has lost a lot of the black vote as well...I didnt see him fault obama for that. obama cannot have it both ways....he brought oprah to SC for the sole purpose of rallying the african american vote....that is understandable and no one would fault hime for that or see anything evil in it...but just SAYING the word race from either clinton, and it is painted as 'injecting' race into the contest. it is amazing to me how so many people choose not to see this hypocrisy. at least one guest this morning...craig crawford, tried to point this out on morning joe.

Posted by: ogdeeds | January 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

to hotnuke07....THANK YOU!!! you say exactly what many of us know regarding the issue of race and obama's role in using it. I too would want to see him as VP...but, the more he gets away with pulling the wool over some voters and the media...the less attractive he is even as a vp. thank goodness there are still some of us who can look at hillary without illogical hate and only see that she is by far the best person to turn this country around. she definitely has my vote.

Posted by: ogdeeds | January 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I cannot see Edwards helping the ticket as VP anymore this time than he did with Kerry.

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Which Edwards is everyone so passionate about? Senator Edwards? Edwards 2004? Edwards 2008? And that is his problem and why he would be a horrible general election candidate. Its very easy to turn him into a flip-flopper. No matter what you think, he will be painted as the usual anti-business flip-flopper that Kerry was.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | January 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Amen, ldp:

The ENTIRE controversy over race was engineered and manufactured by the Obama campaign in order to fuel a win in South Carolina. Obama had seen the writing on the wall, namely that if he didn't win in South Carolina, a state whose Democratic Primary voters were composed of nearly 50% African Americans, he would be seen as nothing more than a boutique candidate on the order of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He understandably realized that Hillary was garnering the majority of black support, despite the fact he himself was black, and felt if he was going to have ANY chance at being nominated, he had to win South Carolina. His staff then decided they were going to play the race card, and did so. They sent their surrogates out immediately following the New Hampshire primary, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown (a major advocate of the Obama campaign who speaks on Obama's half on every major political show on TV), who began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black. That same evening, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (a Senior Advisor to Obama's Campaign) went on MSNBC and made the following comment (and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty accurate and you're welcome to google for the YouTube video that shows it) that Hillary's "tears" needed to be examined in light of the "Fact" (and fact is a complete falsehood on his part as he hasn't got a clue as to whether this is factual) that Hillary never cried about Katrina. He made this remark three times, and its clear intent was to say HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T GIVE A RAT'S A$$ ABOUT BLACKS.

This charge of RACISM, leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS. They then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, nearly all of whom hate Hillary to the core, picked up on this in a heartbeat, and were defacto Obama surrogates in their effort to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale". Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale". This was done in order to anger blacks, to incite them to believe Bill Clinton was a closet racist. And it worked beautifully. Obama's lame claim that he had nothing to do with it was EASILY refuted by the MEMO that had been released by HIS CAMPAIGN which noted Bill's remarks, and did EXACTLY what I stated above in trying to claim Bill had made the claim Obama's campaign was a "Fairy Tale." Not to mention the remarks by Michelle Obama to that same effect at a mostly black event where she is quoted as having said, "That win in Iowa ain't no Fairy Tale"

Now, if you want to dismiss all this, you're welcome to. But it is completely and utterly factual. If you'd like links to all of the stuff, including the comments by Dyson, Jackson, and Michelle Obama, they're on YouTube. The Memo is at Again, you can dismiss it, but you're simply lying to yourself. Obama, and his campaign, in a desperate bid to stay alive in this contest, PLAYED THE RACE CARD. And while it's garnered him a great deal more support among blacks, he's also realized he's lost a great deal of support among women, whites and Hispanics because of it.

It was bad enough that he pulled such a lowlife move. The fact he's lied about it continuously, and is now having his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters spread these vicious, EVIL, and completely phony stories about voter intimidation on the part of Clinton supporters shows me there is NO depth to which he won't go. People claim Hillary acts as if she's owed this nomination. I say they're blind. Hillary has NEVER acted like that. The Media has painted that narrative for a year and she's thoroughly rejected it. OBAMA IS THE A-HOLE WHO ACTS LIKE HE'S OWED THE PRESIDENCY. He acts, and his campaign acts, like any attack on him is an attack on blacks.

Now, I know that many blacks who are racist (and trust me, there are just as many racist blacks as there are whites proportionally), and many other blacks who aren't, but are no more interested in delving into the details of the campaigns as the majority of Americans, will be swayed by all of this nonsense that has been fueled by the Obama campaign and their defacto surrogates (the entire Hillary-Hating media). But they better remember one thing. WHITES MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION, AND EVEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Obama may find he's won the battle (South Carolina), and lost the war.

And if his and his surrogate's rhetoric goes much further, he may find himself in political oblivion soon. I don't believe he ever would have won the nomination. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter and fervently believe she will win. However, I had hoped for, in fact have called for it for over two years, that she would choose Obama as her running mate. However, if he himself, his surrogates, or his advocates hope for even that, he had better REALLY begin to tamp all this down. Because if he doesn't, he's going to find his support among whites even lower than Hillary Clinton's support among blacks in South Carolina following his little round of racial hucksterism. And if he wants to see who would REALLY win a race war between a black and white candidate here in America, all he has to do is look at the campaigns of ANY black man who's ever run for president such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both of them were seen as the BOUTIQUE Black Candidate, and Obama's heading toward that demise. His only chance at the nomination, or ANY further political viability, is to UNITE people, not divide them.

Furthermore, as I said above, for two years I have been calling for a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket, which I saw as both a winning ticket, one that would go far in healing our nation, and would provide Democrats with control of the White House for at LEAST the next 16 years. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I have to say that whatever my analysis above, and my belief that Obama can STILL avoid doom if he stops what he's been doing, I personally will NEVER vote for the man. I believe he is a racist, that the majority of his supporters are vicious Hillary-Haters and/or moronic racists themselves, and if Hillary does put him on the ticket in order to heal the party, I will seriously consider voting for an independent candidate or skipping the election altogether. Barack Obama is not fit to be dog-catcher of Podunk, Illinois, let alone President of the United States of America. In truth, if he's elected, I won't just vote against him or not vote, I'll actively work to get others to.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Goldie2 sounds like an Obama supporter. They always attack people personally and without merit.

Has anyone noticed the Obama campaign hasn't had Michelle out lately? That's because she was doing an awful lot of attacking.

And, regardless that Obama supporters wish to attack the Clintons, they have been improperly attacking and lying. They are trying to focus attention that Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife, as if he's doing something wrong, but it has been the Obama campaign that accused Bill Clinton of making racial and disparaging comments. They released talking points that he said "Obama's run was a Fair Tale". When we saw the full comment, it had nothing to do with Obama's race at all, Bill Clinton said his story on the war was a fairy tale. Because every vote since he got elected, was to keep the war going and funding it. Obama couldn't even give a vote to end our occupation on the Feingold/Kerry Bill in June 2006. SO, WHO IS LYING AND INJECTING RACE.......OBAMA.

Just like the Obama campaign trying to claim Hillary's comment about the president passing the voting rights act realized MLK's dream, and Obama tried to infer she was disparaging on MLK...which is total bunk. And who ever doesn't believe the realities, aren't paying attention.

Obama has walked down a dark path and will never get my vote.

Posted by: ldp | January 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is donating the money received from Rezko to charity. What is he doing, trying to wash his hands clean?

So Obama takes money from someone who is under federal investigation. Now he says he will give that money to charity. And what if nothing were ever say...he would have kept it. More so, the fact that he took it shows that Obama is a crook. He knew his friend Rezko was under investigation yet he accepted that money. Not only all of this, but what about the money Obama accepted in the past in order to get into the senate. I think Obama sould be investigated to see how deep he really is in this. And yes, I say 'friend' just a moment ago because he has knows Rezko for 17 years. They live next door to each other. After Rezko was indited, Obama bought part of Rezko's portion of the land which they both share, so Obama could have a larger yard.

This information came from articles by Fox News.

Posted by: matbower862005 | January 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

As a past, present, and future republican,
I say "you go Bill". Keep wagging that lieing finger at America. Remember the finger in your face over Monica? I have a finger for both of them....!

Posted by: jjcrocket | January 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse


Why do you think that Hillary Clinton is innocent if she knew all about his women?

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is donating the money received from Rezko to charity. What is he doing, trying to wash his hands clean?

So Obama takes money from someone who is under federal investigation. Now he says he will give that money to charity. And what if nothing were ever say...he would have kept it. More so, the fact that he took it shows that Obama is a crook. He knew his friend Rezko was under investigation yet he accepted that money. Not only all of this, but what about the money Obama accepted in the past in order to get into the senate. I think Obama sould be investigated to see how deep he really is in this. And yes, I say 'friend' just a moment ago because he has knows Rezko for 17 years. They live next door to each other. After Rezko was indited, Obama bought part of Rezko's portion of the land which they both share, so Obama could have a larger yard.

Posted by: matbower862005 | January 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I found this post on the NYT forum, and i took the liberty to repost it here. It is a great post and a very nice read that puts these primaries into a historical perspective.

Henry James Downing wrote:

I am always surprised and utterly disturbed by those who complain about the harshness of the presidential process and campaign. I became acutely aware of the failure of our educational system as i read this forum and posts. Alas, our educational system has let our students down and contributed to a wide and flagrant amount of ignorance. Most people here, and i assume that most of you are under twenty-five years old, have this unrealistic and grand view of our political system, how great it used to be, and how noble it ought to be. Well, let me burst your bubble. If you think that our politics used to be full of nobility, character, dignity and honesty, you urgently need to pick up a book of history and read about our founding fathers presidential campaigns. Read about the presidential elections of 1824 and 1828, and the nasty and fierce battles between Andrew Jackson attacking his own party members and his own vice-president, John C. Calhoun. Then read how Andrew Jackson blasted in the most personal and nasty rhetoric Martin Van Buren, and Thomas Ritchie. Or read about the presidential elections of 1801 and the personal battle between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Or even better, the personal awful fight between Adams and Jefferson. And yet, these great men have become the indelible symbols and constants in the history of America. These are historical facts that show that our presidential process has always been nasty, harsh, brutish, and full of personal attacks.

I am surprised of those who think that President Clinton is being too harsh on Obama or Obama is being too critical of Senator Clinton because what this line of reasoning denotes is an utmost level of intellectual dishonesty or blatant ignorance of our history. Andrew Jackson campaigning in Richmond, Virginia,in the autumn of 1824 called Henry Clay a drunk who doesn't hold his liquor and an impotent womanizer. These are harsh personal attacks, and yet you didn't hear Henry Clay whining about it, nor should we hear Obama cry about being called a friend of a slumlord or Senator Clinton complaining about being categorized as a corporate lawyer.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the presidency of the United States of America that is at stake here. It is the most powerful executive office in the world, and no one should ever get elected to it without enduring the hardship of hard-fought almost nasty campaign. That is how we test their strength of character, their calm under fire, and their priority under intense physical fatigue. I am afraid to say that only one presidential candidate has shown these characteristics so far, and it is not the darling of the media.

-- Posted by Henry James Downing--Retired L.t Colonel, USMC

Posted by: tevste | January 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

All of the uproar during the early stages of this presidential campaign cause many of us to examine the role of president. This is good. What do we really want in a president?

As for spouses--I think they should step out of the spotlight. They probably will not. However, I thing they should. I guess I think we should elect one person to be president--not a family. However, history does not support me on this belief. Politics and families seem to be as American as apple pie.

Posted by: bpatrick53 | January 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama has said repeatedly that he has no problem with the Billary tag team. He just has problems when a former president deliberately distorts (aka lies) about Obama's record. The Title of Former President should carry a certain responsibility to be truthful because it carries more force and draws more press than just some other person/spouse/endorser. Of course, Bill had trouble telling the truth when he was a sitting President so why should we expect him to always tell it now?

I think Edwards has his eye on a Clinton/Edwards ticket. It doesn't look like he is going to have a real shot at the Nomination.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | January 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I love John Edwards! He is funny like- that. I have to weigh in here and say that he makes a good point (as usual)... Let us not forget how Elizabeth stuck it to Ann Coulter! Anyone who can shut that mouth piece up is a pretty good voice to have behind you... :)

Posted by: Kristenmcullen | January 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is right. Spouses have the right to campaign for their wife/husband. That isn't the real issue. It's the type of campaign the spouse is running that is at issue. Bill Clinton and Hillary may be experts in running a dog fight but remember they are also very good at polarizing Democrats & Republicans. And now they're expert and polarizing people within their own party. I personally don't want another 4-8 years of this type of polarization in our country. It's time for a change. We need to come together and unite or the divisions within out Country will only hurt us. The past 8 years have proven that.

Posted by: ruth | January 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

@goldie2, like Becky (a previous poster) I too take issue with your offensive insinuations concerning Elizabeth Edwards' and Bill Clinton's health.

I have heard Michelle Obama make equally disparaging comments about Elizabeth Edwards in Iowa, where she also told an Edwards supporter that he was wasting his vote because the Edwards campaign didn't have enough money to win (if that comment had been made by either of the other frontrunners' spouses towards the Obama camp, can you imagine what they would have been accused of?)

And here she is taking a terrible event in Hillary's life (one in which she was the innocent party) and insulting her with it:

Please may I have an "insult your rival with impunity" card too?

Posted by: blakes_progress | January 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The premise behind Edwards' whole campaign is hard to understand.

A 50-million dollar trial lawyer, who voted FOR NAFTA, FOR the China trade deal, and FOR the Iraq war during his one term in the Sentate.

Serial campaigner ever since.

How, exactly, does that translate into being a crusader for the working man?

It doesn't. Its just a painted-on message, which is why it doesn't resonate more with the public.

Posted by: j_c_randall | January 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Broadway maryann. Ist you say that Obama is polarizing the party by bickering with clinton. Then you ask if he can't stand hillary's heat, how can he stand up to the republicans? Do you see the complete contradiction?. If you were trashed and misquoted, would you lie down and take it? The problem is that Obama was trying to run a different kind of campaign, but when his words(Reagan), his vote on the war,his present votes were all lied about, he had to change his tactics. Who would vote for a wimp?

Posted by: hschoenbach129 | January 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

There is a steadily increasing number of ex-presidents in the country. Bill Clinton, like Jimmy Carter before him, is in the process of re-defining and enlarging the role of ex-president. Get used to it. Consider, if Obama is elected this year, he will be a very young man when he becomes an ex-president. Do you think the is going to want to confine himself to a limited role of elder statesman?

Posted by: wfstewa | January 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I am offended by this comment: "At least with Michelle and Barack we have two people with the energy and health to deal with the stresses of the White House."

Obama has complained many, many times about the stresses of the campaign. He has never been through a major campaign before, and he looks fatigued--much more than Elizabeth Edwards, who is taking chemotherapy--and has campaigned with little naps on the bus with her spouse. As Elizabeth once noted on C-SPAN, "sleep is overrated."

That snark is a total insult to women, and especially to Mrs. Edwards, but it is typical of the nastiness of the Obama supporters. If you don't believe me, go visit the Daily Kos.

I prefer a candidate who has the experience of campaigning before, and who has a spouse that will do something for this country, such as bringing attention to the care of vets and their families. And that is John Edwards. At least he had an agenda all along, something Obama never had until he read Edwards' website.

Posted by: becky | January 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is the best candidate of the bunch. Obama talks about how he will unite the entire country both Republican and Democrat, yet he is polarizing the Democratic party with his bickering with Clinton. Hiliary is half responsible with her lies, but the Republicans will be 100 times harder on Obama if he wins the nomination. If he can't stand Hiliary's heat how is he ever going to stand the Republicans. Edwards has proven himself a strong man. He's dealt both with the the death of his son and his wife's cancer with grace and strength, and he is the most electable.

Posted by: broadwaymaryann | January 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Elizabeth Edwards was very harsh and angry for a while. It didn't serve her husband well, as Bill does not serve Hillary well with his anger and finger wagging. I do hope Elizabeth the best with her battle with her health, though. Bill Clinton better had watch his health too. He is a sick man and this can't being doing his heart any good. At least with Michelle and Barack we have two people with the energy and health to deal with the stresses of the White House.

Posted by: goldie2 | January 26, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company