Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bill Clinton Defends Hillary's Campaign

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Campaigning with his wife in Pittsburgh's Market Square, Bill Clinton defends his wife against charges she should leave the race. (Video: Ed O'Keefe/washingtonpost.com)

By Ed O'Keefe
PITTSBURGH -- Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

The former president was responding to increasing concerns among Democrats that a prolonged Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race improves Arizona Sen. John McCain's chances.

"Disenfranchisement is not a good strategy for Democrats," Clinton said. "We do a better job when people are in power. So I just don't agree with that."

Sen. Clinton is making four campaign stops in Pennsylvania today, in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. The former president joined her in Pittsburgh, and will be by her side tonight in Philadelphia. He'll make separate stops today in Greensburg, Arnold, and Ebensburg.

"I think by the end of the day, I will have done well over 50 events in 46 separate Pennsylvania communities. This is the strategy we adopted in Texas, and Ohio and even in Missouri," Clinton said. "It helps to overcome the enormous financial advantage that Senator Obama has that there are two of us going to two separate places."

Clinton dodged a question about the recent trip by fellow former president Jimmy Carter to meet with members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

"Look, I'm trying to help Hillary. I don't want to say anything that'll complicate her life. I think you ask her, and anything she says is fine with me. I don't want to go there."

Asked if he had spoken with any superdelegates in the last 24 hours, Clinton said, "A couple, but not a lot, mostly I'm campaigning."

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 21, 2008; 4:43 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Responds to Post Story on Temperament
Next: North Carolina Democratic Debate a No Go

Comments

I like Bill, always have. I do not know about his RNC rules claim. Looking strictly at policy, Obama is better because he does not have the mandated health care that has been a debacle and failed to provide universal health care in my home state of Massachusetts. And no, Hillary went about 1993-94 completely wrong, shutting off even fellow Democrats in Congress who had a more realistic, workable plan to cover everyone. But Hillary insisted on her way, a telling example of how she would run the country. Nothing will get done. Just ask Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Democrat who was snubbed by Hillary during the health care debate and is backing Obama now. If health care is the most important issue, I have to go with Obama. It is not that I like Obama- I was upset with the inevitability around both him and Hillary. The best candidate, far and away, was Joe Biden and both Hillary and O-man treated him like he did not belong in the race. I love it when Hillary supporters talk about their candidate having 'experience'- she does not have a third of the experience of Joe Biden. 7 years in the Senate people, thats all she has. I guess I just have to trust that Obama will appoint good cabinet members-Sam Nunn, Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel, etc,etc...I am not in love with him in the least bit, and the Rev Wright, William Ayers and typical white person comment has REALLY taken him down a few pegs in my book. Just in the last month. Bill Richardson was also great, would have done the country very well. The experienced ticket with crossover appeal was Biden/Richardson and the Dems screwed up big time, I am sorry to say, because the Republicans have a good chance of being able to continue screwing up the country in November. Neither Hillary nor Obama can beat McCain.

Posted by: Greg | April 23, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

largo, read up and get real. There are good reasons why Michigan and Florida are where they are. Google for them, if you know how. By the way, both states decided themselves that they would not vote again, so apparently they don't care very much, so why should you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Reading between the lines of the Clintons, Obama is not electable since he (Obama) cannot get the bitter folks to vote for him, no matter what.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith -- There is only one conclusion based on your posted comments: "You are an idiot!" Good luck living in your delusional world.

Posted by: Richard Prince | April 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Largo,
When two candidates agree not to run in a primary then one does run while the other one is NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT, how can you call that a "fair contest" or a fair representation of voter sentiment?

Your prejudice towards Hillary is laughable. Talk about favoring a particular candidate unfairly.... you can protest all you like- your bias makes people not even listen.

Posted by: Mary | April 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Never in my life did ANY state get smacked down for their chance to vote. There were TWO STATES in this primary that weren't allowed to have their votes counted.
The unfair advantage to the Obama campaign has me disgusted because it is NOT the voices of all of the people who have voted thus far. Who cares if they voted when they wanted to vote. That should be a states right, and we could be so much further down the road in this process if it had been that way, saving millions of dollars. Only Obama, and his very SHRILL supporters don't want it to happen because it doesn't favor them. That is selfish, and the reason I will not vote for Obama if he gets our party's nomination. He thinks he is entitled to stand above the voters will because of a sham ruling by the DNC. How can he talk about the corruption in the current state of Washington affairs, and be as blatanly corrupt to steal a nonimation that isn't really his?
Right now our party would have every reason to be pressuring him to get out of the race. GET REAL ABOUT THAT !
I hope there are hordes of people from Michigan and Florida who go to the convention to protest this lack of inclusion.

Posted by: largo | April 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

To: Stephen Gianelli | April 22, 2008 8:08 AM

Are you saying that those Republican voters in the states that no longer held primaries after McCain was declared the nominee have been disenfranchised?

No, Stephen, it only means that there's no point in continuing the fight if one side has no more way of winning. In a best-of-five series, once one side wins 3-0, there's no point in playing the last 2 games.

As for Florida and Michigan, the disenfranchised voters are those who didn't go to the polls because they were told beforehand, to which everybody agreed including Hillary, that the results wouldn't count. To count the flawed results now in favor of Hillary is to cheat. Flawed because no candidate campaigned in either Florida or Michigan. Had both primaries been done in the normal way, the results would have been different either way.

Looks to me like cheating and lying come naturally to Hillary. I don't think Americans would like to be led by a liar and a cheat.

Don't tell me you're a cheat, too.

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 22, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

And, in football, if there were no such thing as field goals, the Patriots would have had a chance to beat the Giants in overtime.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

If he believes in his wife's campaign so.......... much why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is, specifically, some of their ill gotten $109 million dollars?

Posted by: Ingrid | April 22, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Dear Choska:

If someone says somthing you disagre with they are not "lying", particularly if the statement you disagree with is an opinion.

Second, to end the primary process now would be to say to the voters in the remaining primary states (as the DNC has already said to Michigan and Florida) "your vote does not count". That is "disenfranchisement".

But Florida Democrats brought it on themselves? WRONG. The Florida primary was moved up without permission from the DNC by the Republican controlled legislature and the Republican govenor.

You are a living example of why we all should step back and take a careful look at Barack Obama before he is nominated: Those who strongly support him are incapable of objective, critical examination.

Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | April 22, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

jacksmith, i think you might be an idiot to believe this your "cut-&-paste" "you-must-be-an-idiot" article can sway a baby's mind. For your info, the truth is like pregnancy- no one can hide it. Search yourself, & you'll discover you must atavistic to be an enemy of the truth.

Posted by: ikenna obodozie | April 22, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

What really matters the most is that she can do the job.

Posted by: janis | April 22, 2008 4:57 AM

I disagree, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior so please read the following:

Check out the devastation in western NY before you vote for MRS Clinton. Niagara Falls, which you know houses one of the world's wonders is in danger of losing its status as a city and with the loss a reduction in funding. The exodus caused by high unemployment is the culprit. Hillary promised jobs but did not deliver; her excuse is that she thought Al Gore would be president though this condition was not mentioned when she ran for the senate. My problem with MRS Clinton is that she doesn't ever seem to have a back up plan. why didn't she plan for the defeat of Al Gore and develop an alternate strategy? The same with Super Tuesday when she thought she would have the nomination in the bag. when that didn't happen she floundered and is now trailing a 'tyro' nationally. MRS Clinton is excellent in promising and below average in delivering on her campaign promises. She claims to have solutions to the problems of unemployment, security, and the economy and I guess we are supposed to elect her president before we are privy to these remedies; why hasn't she worked her magic in western NY?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

What's the point of Bill Clinton in saying that if Hillary were running under the Republican primary rules, she would have already been the nominee? The fact of the matter is that she is running under the Democratic rules. I don't see the point.

In the same manner that there's no point in my saying that with a score of 220 after 18 holes of golf, I would have been the winner if the game were bowling.

Dumb.

Posted by: RFBorjal | April 22, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Lots of people love Hillary,support her and want her to win.Go Hillary !

Posted by: janis | April 22, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

Its Tuesday,vote for Hillary Pennsylvania.
She could use a big win.She will make the better President.She has been a people helper all her life.She has the talent for helping
and she will do it for America.Don't pay any attention to all the character assasinations.
What really matters the most is that she can do the job.

Posted by: janis | April 22, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of all the character assasinations
on Hillary.Whatever you think of her good or bad she has the ability to do a great job as President.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Hey PENNSYLVANIA!

It's Tuesday!

April 22! :-)

Time to Pick a Loser! ;~)

Who is President McCain going to be trouncing?

Inquiring Minds WANT to Know! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 22, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Ummm...yeah, Bill, whatever. You've always been the sort who, when the rules don't suit you, you just ignore them or change them. I suppose we shouldn't expect anything different now.

The rules didn't guarantee Hillary a win? Let's change the rules!

Yeah, real democratic there.

And the "Let's be more like Republicans" line is classic Clinton...and exactly why so many people in the Democratic Party don't want another Clinton in the White House.

Certainly the flaw in the Democratic system is showing this election, but I'm not convinced that this flaw is to do with the proportional representation system. Yes, this system may potentially be slower in producing a nominee, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The real problem is that none of these elected delegates ultimately matter in a close race because it is all going to be decided by a bunch of party insiders anyway.

Go superdelegates! Even in this day of smoking bans in public places, it's good to see that Democrats haven't done away with that smoke-filled back room.

Posted by: blert | April 22, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Why, Bill? Would the republicans have simply coronated Hillary the way you all thought the democrats would?

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 22, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Hillary voted to authorize the war.

Hillary has a crush on John McCain, but remains true to her one love: money.

Posted by: gmundenat | April 21, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that. Bill Clinton calling the proportional awarding of delegates disenfranchisement, while extolling the Republican winner-take-all system as somehow more fair. Please stop your embarrassing and self-serving comments. Please.

Posted by: mlk | April 21, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith-

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, although if push comes to shove I would choose Obama over Clinton because of the politics of destruction that she has practiced in this campaign. I am a person who favored Kucinich at the outset and have never really gotten behind Clinton or Obama. Their politics are not really that different and they both basically come from the same, tired, corporate Democrat school of thought. I would certainly hold my nose and vote for either of them over McCain.

All of that said, your post from 4/21/08 at 5:23PM is, for me, the most disheartening one on this long thread, and I read them all. I say that both because of its tone, implying that people who support Obama are likely "idiots" but also for your many stated and often disengenous or false reasons. This statement, in particular, is outright false:

"If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...".

You obviously make things up as you go along. I would suggest you check out this site: (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind) regarding who is actually receiving the most money from the health and insurance industries, not to mention from lobbyists. Clinton wins for "Health Services/HMO's", "Insurance Industry", "Health Professionals" and "Lobbyists", to name just a few. In some of them (eg- Insurance Industry, Health Industry, Lobbyists) Clinton not only leads Obama as the biggest recipient from these industries, she leads EVERY Politician in the US! Again, you can check all of this out at: http://www.opensecrets.org. It would certainly be preferable to your apparent method of making up the facts to suit your "argument".

Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Yo, Bill:

...HEAT, ...KITCHEN.

...door ...ass ...out.

LK

Posted by: Leon Kowalski | April 21, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

They have both gone over to the dark side - please gooooo you are killing our party - make the switch and run with McCain.

Posted by: Lettie | April 21, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

If we were under the Republican system then Republicans would win the Democratic and Republican primaries.

Posted by: Dirty Hilldog | April 21, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

THOSE WHO COMPLAIN CLINTON IS A LIAR, TELL ME HOW MANY LIES DO YOU TELL EVERY DAY? YOU GUYS ARE SO LAUGHABLE.....

Posted by: GodFather | April 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Well, maybe she should run as a Republican next time. Anything to win, right?

Posted by: Joe B | April 21, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

ichief,

Ad hominem attacks, especially those that rely on generalities, are the last resort of those who have nothing to say. I'm proud to say I voted against Bill Clinton in both primaries. He's demonstrated time and again that he has no character. Why else would he perjure himself? Nonetheless I voted for him in the general election. Never again will I so debase myself. But then again I'm just the granddaughter of a sharecropper, an enlisted veteran, and naive enough to work as a public defender who only represents people charged with potentially capital offenses. Obviously, I lack the any of the requisite qualities to qualify as an educated voter in your opinion. I'm just another Obama cult member.

Posted by: YLS Redneck Woman | April 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules."

Bill Clinton has completely lost it. Maybe she will change parties and run on the republican ticket next time, Bill.
Whatever works!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

JackSmith-

You have been writing your pathetic garbage for quite a while- a typical Clinton apologist in the death throes of denial. Here's the deal Jack Off, the Clintons are craven, pathological liars, utterly deranged in their quest for power and another run to ring up $100 Million in international shake downs. The nation has suffered for twenty years under the Bush/Clinton scorched earth, polarizing regimes and has had enough of these despicable frauds. You, and your ilk, are history. Barack is what the world has been waiting for and will restore our country's moral standing across the globe.

Posted by: Shiva8 | April 21, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Quote: :I am not sure, but can someone tell me if the Republicanz have that stupendously crazy caucus gimmick thing that white liberal elitist love so much."

That "stupendously crazy caucus gimmick
was set up by the DEMOCRATIC party in Texas to help elect Jimmy Carter, and it's still goes on. Both a primary, and a caucus if you voted in the primary. The Texas Two Step. Nope, the REPUBLICANS in Texas don't have the stupid thing, but don't forget it was set up by the democratic party and still stands.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Its time for something new in America and something bold. That's not Clinton or McCain. We all know who and what it is. Its taking a lot of courage but it will happen and as Michael Moore says, it will take the entire nation's support for Obama after his election (in my view for the next 8 years) to deal the death blow to vested interests, special interests and the existing power structure in America. It needs to be replaced wholesale with a practical, common sense, open, honest system with strong leadership on the issues. This is critical at this historic time. America used to be on the leading edge with science, technology, productivity, but it got lost in "values" and "religion" and fear. 8 years in the wilderness is more than enough. The whole Republican approach of pointing to a third party enemy so no one notices what is really going on at home is coming to an end. America can afford nothing less.

PS Jacksmith and Mike are on someone's payroll. They post the same things on many sites. Don't pay attention to them or waste your precious time and opinions on replying to them.

Posted by: Paul | April 21, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

ichief, oooh, dark threats?

Better adopt the svreader strategy and become a sockpuppet.

SteveChan you might be right.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 21, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Quote: ""I think by the end of the day, I will have done well over 50 events in 46 separate Pennsylvania communities. This is the strategy we adopted in Texas, and Ohio and even in Missouri,"

Apparently, Clinton, like the media can't recognize that she lost in Texas. She slightly won the primary, but we have a two step. She lost overwhelmingly in the caucus and Obama won the most delegates. Admit it.
Sounds great to keep bragging about Texas, but YOU LOST HILLARY!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Man, former president Clinton has really lost perspective. Most of his comments about the current campaign seem paranoid or worse.

Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Look who's whining now. Those rules and dollars raised make such an unfair race.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 21, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons had a hand in shaping the rules and only started griping about them when they began losing. Enough, already. They are the most unsportsmanlike competitors I've ever seen in a Democratic race.

Posted by: ally | April 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure, but can someone tell me if the Republicanz have that stupendously crazy caucus gimmick thing that white liberal elitist love so much.

To be sure, this undemocratic caucus think has given Obama a free ride much further than he deserves.

Posted by: Sangy | April 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

I realize the Obama camp sincerely believes it's in their best interest to repeatedly smear one of the most popular US presidents in recent history, not to mention the only two-term Democratic president in recent history, but in so doing they vividly demonstrate their naivete, their complete ignorance, and their candidate's unfitness to even be considered for the presidency.

And one day soon, Obamaphiles, you will be called to account for the harm you've done to the Democratic party.

Posted by: ichief | April 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

This is Hillary Clinton: Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the loss of the Rose Law Firm billing records for nearly 2 years until they were miraculously found in the White House living quarters, removing files from Vince Foster's office following his suicide and before investigators could get there. Her refusal to release her earmark requests from her time in the Senate, as well as her Clinton library donors. Her sell out apology to the African American community (for her campaigns racist comments) which came days too late. Her decline to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at International Profit Associates, or IPA accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record. Lets not forget her campaign eventually returned some $850,000 to Hong Kong businessman Norman Hsu who was found to be a fugitive in a 15-year old theft case. He was indicted for fraud related to his campaign contributions in 2007. Her failed inclusion and diplomacy with congress on her once universal health care bid. Her subsequent surrender and alignment to the health care industry (second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions). Her disguise on NAFTA and all free trade agreements. Her conscious vote for war in Iraq. Her blatant flip flop on Florida and Michigan. Her repetitive lies about sniper fire in Bosnia. Her exaggerated foreign policy experience. Her dealing the race card better than Republicans. Clinton photo and prayer breakfast with Rev Wright. Clinton photo with Rezko. Her failure to get the endorsement of close friend Bill Richardson. Her miserable failure to manage her own campaign (and husband). Her charlatan flip flop on pledged delegates and superdelegates by encouraging party elite to vote against the will of the people - "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Hillary Clinton in 2000

Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter and got turned away by her non-answer to the question of driver's license to undocumented aliens in New York and later her kitchen sink "strategy". But I would advise all the Obama supporters that we must keep an eye in November and don't throw the kitchen sink at the Clintons at this point. Generating too much mutual hatred will only benefit McCain who, despite the claim of "straight talk", is only a mini-Bush want-to-be.

Posted by: Steve Chan, Los Altos Hills | April 21, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

.


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR


.

Posted by: . | April 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.

Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

.


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR


.

Posted by: . | April 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

So Bill wants to be a Republican. We knew that.

Posted by: Merican | April 21, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a whiner. I'm not because my husband whines for me.

I'm a feminist. Well not really because I blame the women who sleep with my husband not my husband.

Obama voted for the Iraq War. I didn't because I did but I'm lying.

Obama will nuke Iran. I won't but ignore the fact that I say I will because my supporters accept all my lies.

Drink the Hillary Kool Aide. It inures you to her lies...

Posted by: Bruce | April 21, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Bill, what the hell?

If Democrats were under the Republican party rules? Is he having one of those over 60 age moments.

His quote,

"some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night, too."

Bill is 61 and having problems already, forgetting Democrats want nothing under Republican party rules.

Hillary is counting on Super Delegates and he is damning the Democratic party process because she's behind?

What is that seriously? They can easily become Republican to suit their election desires in 2012.


Clinton's hatred for caucus when Democrats voting surprise themselves greatly at the huge turnouts unlike previous years.

Michigan and Florida ruining themselves this primary election, has affected the Clinton's terribly.

Those states broke Democratic party rules trying to have their elections too early.

That kind of problem doesn't change under Republican party rules either.

States have to vote at a certain time so candidates can properly campaign over large areas.

We can now imagine the excuses Clinton's campaign continually uses explaining to themselves and to the press why Hillary is behind.

She's behind because Democrats aren't following Republican party rules.

Posted by: gmrk | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is putting ads similar to the boogey man cometh ad she had earlier. She is now so desperate that she is looking at all that went wrong in this country, stock crash of 1929, pearl harbor, cold war, Bin Laden and anything and everything that people disliked. Instead of putting negative ads she could have put ads that show how prosperous and peaceful the Bill Clinton years were. Oops, I misspoke. They were not prosperous or peaceful. What the heck. Hillary has lied about everything else. So why is she not touting the Bill Clinton legacy now in her ads?

Posted by: Stacey | April 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm more interested in the Jimmy Carter question. His reaction was very strange, understandable but strange. Now I'm really curious what his opinion is of this. He seems to be watching his disagreements with Hillary, probably after the Colombian trade deal problem. He made a better campaign decision to not comment, but he was a great foreign policy leader and I really want to know what he thinks about it. Does he think Hamas swindled Jimmy Carter and they're not going to hold up their end? Or was he surprised / not surprised by what he thinks was a success?

I'm really not interested in what Hillary thinks of it, she's not able to speak her mind during a campaign either way. But Bill can speak his mind, he's not running for president. C'mon Bill, I wanna know!

Posted by: GrueSchenka | April 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton understands a lot of things. He understands that he is still very popular. He understands that he has a built-in fan base. He understands that to those people, he can say just about anything, and they will believe it.

With that level of understanding, why would he even feel guilty about telling fibs all over every speech he gives, if he thinks those fibs will somehow help out his wife?

Seriously, people. I think he was a GREAT President. However, I am tired of him and his ways by now. I do NOT want him back on the front burner... ever... again.

He can make a billion dollars having the jet-set suck up to him and his contacts. I really don't care. Just stay away from the White House, and stay away from positions of authority.

Posted by: steve boyington | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton understands a lot of things. He understands that he is still very popular. He understands that he has a built-in fan base. He understands that to those people, he can say just about anything, and they will believe it.

With that level of understanding, why would he even feel guilty about telling fibs all over every speech he gives, if he thinks those fibs will somehow help out his wife?

Seriously, people. I think he was a GREAT President. However, I am tired of him and his ways by now. I do NOT want him back on the front burner... ever... again.

He can make a billion dollars having the jet-set suck up to him and his contacts. I really don't care. Just stay away from the White House, and stay away from positions of authority.

Posted by: steve boyington | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

So now the Clinton's argument is, "If we were Republicans, we would be winning now." Huh?

Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we, let's says, hhhmmm, retroactively impeach him?

Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The best bet for Hillary to get into the white house is to leave the democratic party immediately and join the republicans. Already she has given enough ammunition for McCain to fight Obama. McCain hasn't chosen a running mate yet. Time is running out. If Hillary jumps ship, McCain will gladly take Hillary to be his veep. What is common between McCain and Hillary? Iran. McCain wanted to bomb away iran. Hillary's new ad says she will obliterate Iran. They will make a nice team going into the general election this fall.

Posted by: Janet Wolfram | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we, let's says, hhhmmm, retroactively impeach him?

Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

So now the Clinton's argument is, "If we were Republicans, we would be winning now." Huh?

Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary lost Iowa, the Clintons complained that Iowa is not a typical American state. When Hillary lost South Carolina, Bill complained South Carolina will elect only blacks. When Hillary lost most of the caucus states, they complained that MoveOn.org is influencing those states. The Clinton's are rich and have stashed away their money outside this country. They borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the American people to run this shoddy campaign. All they have done is waste all the money. Now just like a typical loser, Hillary has started drinking and enjoying the happy hour. She does bar hopping as she moves around Pennsylvania. Do you think we need a drunkard in the White House next year. The Clintons are like the fo that said grapes are sour when it couldn't get it. Clintons are going down the tube and it is stinky where they stand.

Posted by: Bill Switzer | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary lost Iowa, the Clintons complained that Iowa is not a typical American state. When Hillary lost South Carolina, Bill complained South Carolina will elect only blacks. When Hillary lost most of the caucus states, they complained that MoveOn.org is influencing those states. The Clinton's are rich and have stashed away their money outside this country. They borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the American people to run this shoddy campaign. All they have done is waste all the money. Now just like a typical loser, Hillary has started drinking and enjoying the happy hour. She does bar hopping as she moves around Pennsylvania. Do you think we need a drunkard in the White House next year. The Clintons are like the fo that said grapes are sour when it couldn't get it. Clintons are going down the tube and it is stinky where they stand.

Posted by: Bill Switzer | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

What a non sequitur. They'll really just grasp at anything to argue why Hillary *should* be ahead. Can't wait until June 3.

Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore


Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore


Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.

As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.

Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.

As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.

Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.

As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.

Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.

As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.

Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd vote for a Republican - but not this Republican. Too eager to embrace war and to unconcerned about our economy.

I'd vote for a woman - but not this woman. Just full of lies and tossed us (her NY constituents) to the curb, when she didn't need us anymore.

So, I'm going the newbie. At least we him, we have a chance for something other than what the others are offering.

Posted by: wolf | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd vote for a Republican - but not this Republican. Too eager to embrace war and to unconcerned about our economy.

I'd vote for a woman - but not this woman. Just full of lies and tossed us (her NY constituents) to the curb, when she didn't need us anymore.

So, I'm going the newbie. At least we him, we have a chance for something other than what the others are offering.

Posted by: wolf | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I like Bill, I think scandal aside he did a pretty job as president. But I have to tell ya, he has shown himself to be anything but an elder statesman, trying help his fraud of a wife win the nomination. The more he speaks to more republicans from the '90s can crow, we told ya so!

Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

We all know about Hillary's father and his right-wing political beliefs. For those of you who are Boomers you know about Archie Bunker, the All In The Family character. Hillary's father, like Archie, rambled on at the dinner table about "...them colored people getting pushy,etc." That argument the old bigot used over and over again did set Hillary's mind to the misinterpretation that we people of color cannot win national elections. Hillary is at least a little racist.

Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

When Bill Clinton ran for president he saw nothing wrong with the democratic party rules and the caucus systems. But then again, that was when they were winning. Sour grapes? To think that my family and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Oh! the webs we have woven!

Posted by: Surya | April 21, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President by running as an Independent.

Why do the Clintons hate America so much?

Posted by: Anon | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President as an Independent.

Why do the Clintons hate America so much?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I like the Clintons enormously. My whole family is Clintonista. Criticism of them has no effect on us whatsoever. When my Dad was still alive and Bill was President, I couldn't tear him away from the TV when Bill was on. I would like nothing better than to see another Clinton in the White House. So there.

Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President as an Independent.

Why do the Clintons hate America so much?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

But, hey, at least Clinton wouldn't have anyone in her campaign who'd praised Louis Farrakhan:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Especially not the chairman of her Pennsylvania campaign. No, it's not at all unfair or dishonest for her to try to smear Obama with a totally tenuous connection to Farrakhan.

Posted by: Hillary for dogcatcher! | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

When Bill Clinton ran for president he saw nothing wrong with the democratic party rules and the caucus systems. But then again, that was when they were winning. Sour grapes? To think that my family and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Oh! the webs we have woven!

Posted by: Surya | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Please, will someone make them go away! This is turning into some sort of slasher movie with endless sequels--crazed bloodsucking Hillbilly's that can't be killed. Where is Vincent Price when we need him?

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton's argument should really be: If Hillary had not assumed that she would be Inevitable, maybe she would have run a better campaign and she might have tried to win in states she thought "don't matter' and maybe she would have realized sooner that when the head of her campaign also runs one of the most reprehensible lobbying firms and he sucks then she might have had the good sense to actually dump him before his bill topped 2 million dollars and his efforts on behalf of a foreign government on a trade deal she opposed wouldn't have come out to embarrass her while she tried to pander to working-class voters by slamming "elitist San Francisco" even though she gets TONS of cash from some of California's wealthiest individuals but the Gun Toting Folks in Scranton are supposed to ignore that because she shot a duck once so see she is really a HAWK who would nuke Iran if they ever so much as tried to think about attacking any of our friends in the Middle East and so really she IS a lot like the Republicans so the DNC should change the nomination rules now because things are getting down to the wire and we have gotten to the point when we NEED to speculate about what "might have been" "if only" the Democratic Party was running things like the GOP.

Posted by: What now? | April 21, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Yup, it took liar Bill eight years to undo what it took Reagan and Bush 12 years to build....we are still cleaning up the mess.

A president doesn't step into office one day, and the economy and everything else improve the NEXT day.

The Clintons are the biggest asses in politics - support them - and it IS them you are supporting if you vote for her - and watch the country suffer.

Posted by: Jack Mack | April 21, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Your like Republican rules. You like the Republican playbook. Bill, please take your wife (and your wife's clone Joe Lieberman while you are at it) and please join the Republican Party now! We don't want you anymore.

Posted by: Michael Whitehead | April 21, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Why do ALL the idiots support Hillary- as above commentator?

Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

When a HUGE part of a Democratic candidate's support comes from "Independents" and "Republicans", it should come as no surprise, when, in November, they vote for John McCain!!! ~ Democrats, in the know, understand this, which is why Hillary Clinton WILL win the Democratic nomination AND the Presidential Election!!!

Science has calculated, that a Bumblebee's wingspan is insufficient to support it's weight and mass, in flight; however, the Bumblebee in not relying on scientific calculations, but on it's own knowlege and experience, so, it flys, anyway!!!!

Do all the math you want and make all your calculations, but, Hillary Clinton WILL win the Democratic nomination AND the Presidency!!!!

She will UNITE the Democrats AND the nation, to repair the damage done, by Bush and Company, with the help of Republicans in Congress!!!

Thank Goodness, Americans ARE waking up!!!!

Vote a Straight Democratic Ticket!!! ~ President Clinton is going to need all the help she can get, to "Clean House" in Washington!!!!

Posted by: ArbuckleDoc | April 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I am sick and tired of having to read about Bill Clinton. I DON'T CARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron | April 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton wants Barack Obama to be judged by his associates, how about Chelsea Clinton's secret engagement to theson of former congressman Mark Mezinsky, son of disgraced Congressman Mezinsky, who has been in prison for several years for fraud and embezzlement. the funds defrauded from investors passed through the account of Chelsea's fiance.
The Mezinskys were close personal friends of the Clintons and frequent guests at the White House for dinners and events. Clinton was very helpful to Congressman Mezinsky until he got caught.
Chelsea has known the son sincechildhood and he frequently attends campaignevents but is kept in the background for obvious reasons.
Congressman Mezinsky's conduct was so bizarre that he tried to plead insanity as a defense.
No wonder the Clinton's have not
openly acknowledged the eengagement.

Posted by: myrna | April 21, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Hillary has not personally "wronged" me but her lines of attack against Obama have insulted my intelligence and assumed that I am not aware of both candidates positions. After being sickened by Rovian tactics for the last few elections, it is sad to see her resorting to distortions and falsehoods in an effort to take down a member of her own party.

She is beyond tiresome at this point but at least I am not so "bitter" that I would resort to voting for McCain over Clinton if she manages to overcome all the odds and secure the nomination.

Posted by: ProudtobeElite | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Hillary has not personally "wronged" me but her lines of attack against Obama have insulted my intelligence and assumed that I am not aware of both candidates positions. After being sickened by Rovian tactics for the last few elections, it is sad to see her resorting to distortions and falsehoods in an effort to take down a member of her own party.

She is beyond tiresome at this point but at least I am not so "bitter" that I would resort to voting for McCain over Clinton if she manages to overcome all the odds and secure the nomination.

Posted by: ProudtobeElite | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Such bitterness! It is obviously not the unemployed workers in Obama's mythic Midwest who are bitter; it is Obama supporters who desperately want the contest to end before the rest of the voters have had a chance to express their opinion.
By the way, the coasts may have the highest median incomes, but the Midwest has the lowest rate of those without health insurance -- in 2006 (the latest figures from the Census Bureau), only 11.4 percent, to the Northeast's 12.3 percent, the Sought 19 percent and the West's 17.9 percent. So perhaps Obama misspoke in San Francisco and said Midwest when he meant West Coast.
Bill Clinton is right -- a hypothetical, but a correct one, and one with ramifications for the general elections, which will not have caucus states. Subtract those and you take away 400,000 of Obama's lead. Add Florida and Michigan, and Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat. If she wins in Pennsylvania, she is ahead.
Allot delegates on a winner-take-all basis, and Clinton has all but won.
Obama owes his lead not to his charisma, but to good organization, a hard-nosed campaign manager who has repeatedly attacked both Clintons, and massive infusions of cash, mostly from well-to-do donors who can afford to contribute $500 and up, just like Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, & pretty much everybody else except Kucinich, like Edwards, a much more credible standard bearer for the "Left" than Obama, who has been unable to do more than attract a small percentage of the traditional DP base, which has largely supported Clinton.
Yet, even with all those advantages and the DP's bizarre system, Obama has been unable to win a majority of pledged delegates, so he has changed the ground rules -- the popular vote no longer counts (which he might lose if the polls are right regarding the final ten contests), only delegates count, and his campaign is going after super delegates, something they earlier criticized Clinton for doing.
Bill in Kazakhstan? Read the articles; the money was donated to the Clinton charitable trust, not to Bill & Hillary.
As for Florida and Michigan, before the elections Obama was running 19 and 26 percent in polls, so it is unlikely he would have done well in either state, esp. since they were primary, not caucus states. Clinton (and Edwards) were tracking much higher in the polls. Obama may have improved his base, but his refusal to hold new elections suggests he does not believe this to be the case. And if he tends to narrow the gap during a campaign, is that because he is charismatic or just spends more money and until Philadelphia had a pass from the media?

Posted by: Jim2312 | April 21, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Dude, all of you really misinterpreted him here. He was trying to argue that, under a different set of rules, Hillary could have a lead even with the same votes and in that case people would be calling for Obama to quit, which would seem unfair. In other words, people shouldn't be calling for Hillary to quit right now either; it's best for everybody to have their voices heard.

Posted by: Damon | April 21, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

It is Hillary "Right Wing Conspiracy" Clinton who can't stand the heat.

Posted by: CharacterCounts | April 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I have a great idea for the Clintons. Why don't they just make it official and switch to the GOP. Then they could be "winners" and nobody would think twice about the campaign they've been running.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler | April 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Why do ALL the bums and idiots support Hillary?

Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I AGREE WITH JACK SMITH. HILLARY WOULD MAKE THE BETTER
LEADER OF THIS COUNTRY. IF OBAMA GETS IN, I'M MOVING TO
ANOTHER COUNTRY, CAUSE I'M SURE NOT GOING TO VOTE IN THIS
ELECTION. REMEMBER, YOU EGGHEAD MEN, "LADIES FIRST".
THINK. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT MOST MEN ARE SO AFRAID OF HAVING A WOMAN PRESIDENT WHEN WOMEN GAVE BIRTH TO YOU
AND RAISED YOU. IF YOU THINK THAT IS EASY, THINK AGAIN!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Incoherent in Seattle: Go ahead send some cash to Hillary if you hate Obama so very much. She can use every penny since she has run her campaign into a financial ditch.

Posted by: Bitter Elitist in San Francisco | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The most important thing in November is to elect a democtractic President. I Clinton and Obama understand that is the real issue. The press is trying with some success has been dividing the country by enthnic backgrounds and race. The press is playing to the republicans. Clinton and Obama are registering more voters than any other candidates in our history. In the end of the day Clinton and Obama will united to achieve the common goal. I suggest we do the same.

Posted by: Robert | April 21, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse


Bill and Hillary Clinton are opportunistic, self-complacent people who want to change the rules when these rules don't fit them or are not convenient to them. They are always blaming other people for their mistakes: a right wing conspiracy or Move on. org, or the rules of the democratic party. The only people important for them are themselves and their petty interests.

Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

CLOSED Primary ELECTIONS, are what's needed, to keep the Republicans from screwing up the Democrat's Primary Season!!! ~ As long as Republicans are allowed to "Divide and Conquer, they will!!!

Posted by: ArbuckleDoc | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Its interesting to read all the negative comments telling Hillary to give up or join the republicans.I'm amazed at how many Obama supporters put her down using talking points and half truths spread by the republicans in the 90's when bill was president.To listen to them one would think she had personally wronged them.Go jacksmith I'd rather be an idiot who is right than a sheep who is being blindly led by a hollow suit with a good voice.I have one question for Obama why is it okay for him to say he'll work across party lines to solve our countries problems but he has a problem when Hillary proposes to solve the social security situation the same way with a bipartisan commmision?Maybe his version of working across party lines will be like our current president who is glad to work with you as long as you agree with him.

Posted by: Mike | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I used to feel that the Clintons were arrogant and obnoxious. But after hearing Bill`s logic,I feel just the opposite is true. they are obnoxious and arrogant.

Posted by: Moose | April 21, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

About half the voters in the country support Clinton, yet all these blogs seem to have the same anti-Clinton, smarmy tone no matter what newspaper. I guess the Obama supporters have more time on their hands. Bottom line, the only thing that matters are the votes. All this bilge that fills up every available inch of space is meaningless gas and convinces nobody. I guess it gives some people a chance to think they're scoring points for cleverness...though the Clinton smear was written long ago by Republicans much smarter than what we've all seen here, and everywhere.

We'll be lucky to have either one as president after what we've endured the last 8 years, thanks to some of you no doubt -

Posted by: bored | April 21, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

As if on cue from Bill and in time for the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, the House Republicans just blocked a measure by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) to audit e-voting. So the results will be unverifiable... just in time for people to rig the vote?

Well, if it walks like a Republican and talks like a Republican... I'm no idiot for being bitter.

From the Ars Technica tech news site:

* Two PA counties, one of which, Montgomery, is the state's most populous, will use the same Sequoia AVC Edge touchscreens that are now the subject of an investigation in New Jersey because of their spectacular failure in that state's recent primaries.

* Sixteen counties will use the Diebold Accuvote TS touchscreen model. Regular Ars readers will recall that my 2006 article, "How to steal an election by hacking the vote," described in some detail how to steal an election using this machine. (I hope that nobody from PA decides that it would be a good idea to print copies of the free PDF of this how-to article to bring to the polls with them as a form of protest, because you would probably get in trouble. So don't do that.)

* 51 counties will vote on the infamous iVotronic touchscreen from ES&S. This is the same model that brought us the Florida 13 controversy that ultimately resulted in Florida scrapping touchscreens altogether.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080421-pa-primary-will-be-unauditable-gop-blocks-e-voting-reform.html

Posted by: Bitter techie | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Who controls Barrack?? In a debate he looks like an idiot...the day after debates his "handlers" tell him what response he should have given..duh! He never has anything intelligent to say, if in debate, he goes first..but boy can he springboard off someone else's responses. He hangs with a minister with questionable preachings..not all blacks preach this way in their churches, but yet it takes him 20 plus years to wise up to the problems...he gets a house, he was not qualified for though the help of again a questionable friend. He passes legislation so lobbyist can still court congress, but standing up to eat instead of sitting down - then it's ok -his response -they eat less!
Look at his voting records in Illinois and DC, never take a stand unless its in a rounded corner-then you can swing either way without cake on your face - caucuses are a joke..people's views are not addressed, people working with other committments can't attend-elections are the only way to go, then the people speak-ours in Seattle were like a dog and pony show, most of the leaders didn't want to be there and didn't know what they were doing!

Posted by: disgruntled in Seattle | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

wait--- didn't Sen. Hillary Clinton introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College on the grounds that it had the potential to disenfranchise the voting majority ? and is this not exactly what Bill Clinton now desires: to have the candidate trailing in the popular vote (Hillary) selected as the nominee based upon the model of the Electoral College ? the Clintonian assault on democracy is almost as fierce as their assault on our intelligence.

Posted by: jackson | April 21, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Dear Ziv, If you spend any time at all in the "comments" section at WaPo, you will see comments from Clinton loyalists that either insult Obama voters as mindless cult "followers" or worse. There are racist remarks, xenophobic slurs and the good old "he is somehow Unknown" so therefore "dangerous". Good old Ed Rendell managed to throw all the new, younger voters under the bus today with similar "kool-aid drinker" comments.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters have decided that they can only go negative because they are up against the wall. Too bad that loyalty trumps collective good with the Clintons, just like with the Bush Administration!

Posted by: Maria | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

So what, EXACTLY, is Hillary's "experience"? 35 years of doing what, exactly? Yeah, she went up against the health care industry and the republicans for health care, and FAILED. She was a WalMart lawyer. And they have really done great things for this country, haven't they? She promised jobs for New York, and what did she deliver? Nothing. She campaigns with all the tactics and subtlety of the neocons. Just what we need, more republican policies that will ultimately benefit only the ultra rich.

So I ask again, just what, exactly, does Hillary's "experience" amount to? I see nothing but kissing the butts of the big money boys, and they are the ones who have given us the country we have now: Jobs are gone, wages are at a low for my lifetime (I'm 49), we have more money in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and we are $10 Trillion in debt. Do we really need MORE of the same?

What does she offer us in health care? Demanding that everyone buy insurance. A boon to the insurance companies, and a screwing for everyone else. What does she offer us for jobs? Less than we have now, seeing as how she loved NAFTA so much she went around campainging for it. More money for the big money boys again. What about Iraq? Not going to leave for years, and so once again, more money from our pockets right into the pockets of the big money boys. See a pattern yet?

Sorry, she is just more of the same. And for the record, I don't consider myself an idiot. I saw through Nixon when I was 10, and I can still see through frauds who are in it for their own egos and not for the country. And she is in it for her own ego, nothing more.

Posted by: WJM | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

How quickly people forget the only Democrat since FDR who was in the White House for 8 years? How prosperous we were and how GOOD he was as President in so many ways. No one is perfect, lucky for all of us. Obama has failed to win even a major Democratic primary, let alone a national election. He will lose 40 states and crash and burn in the general election. Wednesday night's debate was only the beginning of the end. Villify Bill and Hillary Clinton all you want. The fact he had a prosperous presidency and she has been an excellent Senator from NY with 69% approval rating, the facts are there for those who want the White House.

Posted by: Polcomm | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was the ONLY lawyer on the Nixon impeachment team that its leader could not and would not write a recommendation for, he found her deceptive.

The Clintons have always run on divisive politics. They count on getting the votes AGAINST the other guy as much as getting votes for themselves. So of course they have to vilify the other guy.

They are small, small people with nothing but ambition to drive them on. They don't care about anything but themselves - they don't care about you.

Read Hillary's books, folks. Find out what she really wants.

Why not a pay as you go health care plan? Why do we have to have one that hands millions of taxpayer dollars to companies as premiums, when thousands of people don't need care that month? Why not pay when you need it? Have you dealt with the Social Security office or the IRS? Do you really want that kind of system in charge of your health care?

Who chooses what companies get all of those premiums? Of course President Hillary Clinton, whose years in Washington have made her beholden to and placed her in the pocket of BIG BUSINESS.

The Republicans don't want her - in fact, neither does America.

Bye Hillary, bye Bill. Nice to see you at last in our rear view mirrors.

Posted by: JackMack | April 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

These messages are as superficial as the current crop of candidates. Barney Frank said it best" "politicans may be rascals but the voters are no bargain, either."

It's sad that in the bastion of free speech (America) all we have after 200 years is a nation of parrots.

Democrat parrots and Republican parrots. A wise man once said the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between wet s**t and dry s**t.

Posted by: Informed | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I love how people say Florida and Michigan are "disenfranchised" when first, they broke party rules and tried to have primaries before New Hampshire and try to gain political power as a result, and second, the Clintons ACCEPTED that Florida and Michigan would not have their results counted at all so that the Clintons could continue fundraising in those states (their votes would have counted for half if fundraising in those states was waived).

These states broke the rules. Voters in those states were told ahead of time their votes would not count. So, are not the votes of those who didn't vote disenfranchised if the states are now included? Don't you spit in the faces of those who didn't vote because they listened to statements saying the election results for these states was null and void?

Nevermind the fact that the Clintons are proving themselves two-faced over these states by AGREEING that the results of these states would not be counted... and then changing their minds because it helps them out politically. Consider the people who didn't vote... and are thus disenfranchised as a result of the Clintons trying to get the votes of their peers, who mindlessly voted anyway.

Nor will the Clintons accept the votes being counted as half. That's not good enough for them. Because they need every single delegate they can get by crook and blackmail and the like. The Clintons are why I don't vote Democrat. Obama might actually change that. But right now the only candidates I see that truly would gain my vote are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee... being the only two gentlemen who are willing to stay above "politics as usual" and the usual smear campaign.

Rob H.

Posted by: Tangent | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

dalabunny@gmail.com

you're about 7 years too late for that.

Posted by: TC | April 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Since Hillary behaves like a Republican, she should join that party and continue to play by their rule book: Smearing, swift-boating, deceit, manipulation and distortion of reality ... did I mention lying?

Her campaign is an insult and disgrace to all of us non-lapel wearing, not black enough, not white enough, not Muslim that I know of, maybe Christian, unpatriotic, racist, fear-mongering, guilt-by-association, terrorist loving, inexperienced, preachy, elitist, platitude-throwing, plagiarizing, all-talk Americans.

If you don't like the game, play another. If you don't like the rules, find something else to do.

Hillary, or Billary, your GOP-rooted attacks have made me outraged. Dare I say "bitter." This race has gone on way too long. For the good of your party and country, instead of the disservice you have been serving, just drop out. Do us this one little favor.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

hush hush, big fella. We don't listen to your political talk anymore. We have moved beyond it, to a better place. Go kick your heels up with Karl and have a laugh and a cold one on me.

Posted by: dave | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

If you think Hillary, who's been in bed with big money for 35 years, can change her stripes and start looking out for the working class after she's elected, you might be Jacksmith.

Your glorious Clinton administration's chief accomplishment was NAFTA and the advancement of "globalization," which is just another word for giving big corporations as much power as they want to subjugate and enslave ordinary people around the world. Global justice should mean ensuring that workers around the world are afforded the same rights as Americans have traditionally had. Instead, it means that American are on a rapid path to join the sweatshop conditions of the third world.

Hillary voted for the war when it was obvious to so many of us that it was bottomless pit (me and Barack were saying that months before Bush went in!). Hillary has played along with the War on Terror since day one, fanning fear for advantange, while Barack is the only candidate who isn't running on the fear ticket.

Barack is the only candidate who's talking to America like we're grown ups, who's opting out of the tit-for-tat sound byte slugfest style of discourse.

If he were as "experienced" as Hillary, he would have tossed Jeremiah Wright to the curb according to the Washington Insider's rulebook, but he recognizes that almost everyone has valuable positive qualities that we need to harness to turn the country around, and that if you cast aside everyone who's said or done something regrettable you end up with NOBODY at the table except insipid spineless insiders and gameplayers. (Why doesn't someone ask Hillary why she kept Bill around after what HE did...?).

So thanks, Jacksmith, for reminding me so vividly exactly how thrilled I am to support Barack Obama. An extra minute of experienced leadership is something America cannot afford.

DetroitSubway

Posted by: detroitsubway | April 21, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I love that so many are deeply committed to their choice but the posting by jacksmith indicating that if someone has decited to support Obama is an idiot makes myself worry that if these are the kinds of people that might bring Clinton to the presidency I just have to worry about the future of our country. I am surprised jacksmith did not put on a mask and belittle any race, religion or standard of living he might think would vote for someone other then he feels should have a chance to represent us,

Posted by: no name | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

To ziv - grow up and get over it. Maybe a little crying would help...

Posted by: vic | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is like a beauty queen who refuses to relinquish the crown. Time's up, Bill. You and Hillary should go on a nice, very very LONG vacation and stay off of the public stage for the forseeable future. And NO, we want no Hillary 2012 run, thank you.

Posted by: marcia mac | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

To jacksmith - You Be An Idiot!

Posted by: ub | April 21, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Note to Obama fans: Careful how much you insult the Clintons...regardless of the delegate count, Hillary still has nearly half the nation voting for her. If you really want Obama in office, you may want to start thinking of all of Hillary's supporters you're insulting wit your negativity.

Posted by: ziv | April 21, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse


Chris Rock quotes from his show last night in D.C.

On Hillary - "Hillary is like Glen Close in Fatal Attraction."

On African American Hillary supporters - "That's how much we hate ourselves."

On Hillary for president - "I think it's time for a woman to be president. But does it have to be this woman?"

Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

This argument is totally bogus. Bill Clinton needs to stop WHINING about the rules. Hillary Clinton has run a shoddy campaign, period.

And, the voters of Florida and Michigan were not "disenfranchised" by Obama. Cut the victimization BS and have a talk with the State Party leaders- that is who is responsible.

Posted by: maria | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Bill and Hillary are great

Great for American and great for the world.

We do not need someone who who does not know what they are doing nor explain what he is going to do.

HILLARY 08

Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith you are an idiot

Posted by: VivaObama | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the best choice to be the Democratic Nominee for the general election.
Deep down, everyone knows that based simply on each candidates' experience, resume, public record, etc.
I hope justice is served and the voters in the next 10 primaries take a stand.

Posted by: Evelyn | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, maybe HRC should have run for the Republican nomination if their system is so good.

Part of process is designing a campaign that wins based on the rules that are set down. Presumably if the Dems had a winner-take-all obsession like the R's Obama might have taken a different approach. Of course, even assuming he didn't, what BC is saying is that a system that gives the nomination to someone that loses the popular vote (as HRC is currently doing) is the right thing to do. Now that is truly Republican.

Also, I like the idea of a Senate primary challenge in '12, as suggested by another poster. Please put me down for a contribution.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here,"

So, why didn't she RUN as a Republican? She's mostly one anyway, with the Wall Street support (how do you think Chelsea got that hedge fund job?), political smears, greed, and egregious self-interest, such as taking $$$ from the Saudis and Chinese interests on their way to their $100 million.

McCain-Clinton '08 !

And no, "jack smith" or whoever the hell you are, you not an idiot, just a transparent Clinton lackey carrying her water -- poisonous at that -- for her.

"35 years of experience" -- oh, puh-leeze! It's the RELEVANT experience that counts, Bubba, and she's become so IRRELEVANT.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "lose" is.

It's time go!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 21, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I listened to Clinton and Obama on church and politics, if Obama does not have a writer telling him what to say, he does a lot of ers and and's...sounds like to me he cannot carry on a conversation without someone writing what he wants to say...Hillary on the other hand is very smoothe on her answers. do we an er or and president talking to other country powers and sound stupid....?? listen and learn

Posted by: dalabunny@gmail.com | April 21, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Well I can tell you that I am really getting tired of all the demoatic bull crap, and it is only APRIL! If the Cliton's are already this annoying... imagine how we will all feel in November, if by some miracle she makes it that far.

Posted by: Arizona | April 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary!

We will vote for you in November regardless of the outcome of this 'nomination' process.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I find it sad that the Clintons have stooped to this level. I honestly wish that Hillary had never run this cycle. She would go down in History as a good first lady and a great Senator. Bill Clinton would go down as a very good, yet deeply flawed, President. There is no telling how they both will be seen by history now that they have embarrased themselves so thoroughly. I just think it is sad.

Posted by: NM Moderate | April 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

So the Clintons should make it official and join the republican party.

Posted by: poggy | April 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

President Clinton's commet is right on. If the Democratic nomination as like the November general and Republian nomination, then Sen. Clinton would have a sizable advantage. Obama has mainly won "red" states and caucuses and we know how those are influenced. This delegate advantage does not even include the disenfranchised voters of FLorida and Michigan.

Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

thank you jacksmith for so accurately stating "the case"; it appreciated

Posted by: Lora | April 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Well, Hillary is proving that they in fact play by Republican rules when it comes to smear and fear tactics. But listen up... WE ARE PLAYING BY DEMOCRATIC RULES. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Billary.

Posted by: PatriotNW | April 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

One pig defends another. What's new, Dick Tracy?

Posted by: gmundenat | April 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

thank you jacksmith for so accurately stating "the case"; it appreciated

Posted by: Lora | April 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans have a better system for selecting a candidate, it stands to reason that Republicans have a better candidate.

But then, Bill's statements never did stand up to close examination. As Bob Kerrey said, he is an unusually good liar. Hillary, OTOH, is just a liar. Her lies:his lies as her presidency:his presidency -- same thing, only executed much more poorly.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Bill, gop already has their canidate, maybe in 2012.

Posted by: monkeyman | April 21, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

With the Clintons, it's not about the voters, or the Democratic Party, or even the country; it's all about the Clintons.

Posted by: george sutton | April 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

No one seems to grasp the obvious irony here. Democrats want control of the Presidency and the Congress, i.e. they want to run the federal government, but they can't even figure out how to run their own party.

Clinton has just unintentionally made a very good argument for electing a Republican president and returning the Congress to Republican control.

Posted by: theduke | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

WOW From Hillarys red suit and tactics to Bill's words. Why don't they just admit they are republican?

Posted by: Larry Oregon | April 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I have often felt lately that the Clintons would be far more comfortable in the Republican party--where, I suggest, they should take themselves forthwith.

Posted by: Helena Montana | April 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

When one is Bill Clinton and one is talking about what Hillary's lead would be if we used a system like the Republicans its important to consider what the "would be" would be. Now, "would be" could be tallying those states with approved caucuses and primaries according to DNC rules. However, "would be" should be a system that includes Florida and Michigan because we don't disenfranchise voters; not even when voters disenfranchise themselves. In addition, "would be" should be a system that only considers the primary vote count in Texas because that represents everyone who voted and gives no added weight to the registered Democrats who should not be doubly franchised, which, if you think about it, disenfranchises people who voted for Hillary in the primary at the behest of right-wing talk radio but who weren't really invested in the party since their votes count for less than the people who voted again in the caucuses.

You see, "would be" is a power thing. "Would be" lets us make the world the way we want it to be, not the way the world actually is.

Posted by: scott032 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton loves Scranton, Pa. so much, where has she been for all these years? Such pandering and more Clinton nonsense!

Posted by: Briskwood | April 21, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

When the season started, I preferred the next three bottom-tier candidates to the first three. When the contest narrowed to Hillary and Barack, with roughly equal positions on the issues, I found myself favoring Barack's eloquence to Hillary's more prosaic style. But, I would have had no trouble voting for either in the general election. Then came the slights from the same Bill who had sold pardons on his way out the door, and prostituted himself (it was his turn) taking money from Kazakhstan. And the big Clinton push to change the rules in FL and MI, even if it were true that Hillary did not compaign there, either, it is obvious that Barack's vote increases, when there is a campaign. And, more importantly, independents, who voted in the Republican primary-- after they were told that they were not going to be allowed in the Democratic primary, and who leaned toward Barack-- were not going to be able to vote in a new contest. Add to that, Hillary's ongoing lies (flying into Bosnia, etc.) and general willingness to destroy Barack, and Democratic chances, even if she cannot get the nomination, and the prospect of Bill's running around the White House and the world doing deals, as the defacto vice president, and I see a real horror show.

I might be able to stomach voting for Hillary, in November, given the stakes, but not if she were still married to Bill.

Posted by: Beowulf | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

This guy, who still doesn't know what the definition of "is" is, and we go from there.

The are done.

Posted by: swanieaz | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that Obama supporters cite logical statements like how in 1992 Bill did not have a problem with the way pledged delegates were chosen? Again and again they support their criticism about Hillary with them pointing out the inconsistent and ever-evolving attacks Clinton makes against Obama. Meanwhile Hillary supporters use "hit and run" charges against Obama .

Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

England has a monarchy. The Clintons are NOT American royalty as they would have you think. Obama may or may not win this election but it is safe to assume that this WILL be the last election that the baby-boomer racists can control with their bitterness(code: not voting for a black person. That type of thinking is coming to a BITTER end.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You know, if Bill Clinton likes the GOP so much and since Hillary was a Goldwater girl and the president of the College Republicans at Wellesley (as well as all but endorsed McCain), maybe Bill and Hillary need to become Republicans! Don't let the doors hit you on the way out!

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

that's okay jack. you offer proof that you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I post the same thing every day because I might be an idiot

Posted by: jacksmith | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

In the words of my newest hero (ouch my cheek hurts) P. Nis Cheney, "So?"

I don't care how Hillary could have won, should have won, etc. The rules were set before the voting began. Everyone agreed to them, and everyone knew what they were.

But Hillary's arrogance lost her the chance to win. She got out hustled and out strategized by Obama and his team.

As they say in Brooklyn, lady Senator, tough titties.

Posted by: jeffp | April 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill, if that is your argument, then why didn't Hillary do us all a favor and run as a Republican?

Posted by: Hillary R. Clinton (R) NY | April 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Is it true;

Al Gore already is waiting in Denver? ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Just so we're clear, President Clinton isn't exactly correct that his wife would have a 300 delegate lead if the DNC had set their primaries/caucuses up as the RNC did. At most, she'd be up 45 delegates.

Obama would have 1537 if he taken all the delegates (and only those delegates) from the states he's won. Clinton would have 1354.

Neither of these tallies includes Texas' 228 votes b/c Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucuses. Maybe the process in Texas would have been different procedurally if it were winner-take-all, but we can't change that now.

If we halve them, Obama ends up with 1656 (MORE than he currently has) and Clinton ends up with 1473 (LESS than she currently has). Even if Clinton gets all of Texas' delegates, she only leads Obama 1582-1537 (substantially less than the 300 delegate lead her husband suggested she would have).

All of this is, of course, moot. It's revealing, though, that the "electability" question certainly isn't as clearcut as the Clintons want it to seem.

Posted by: billyc | April 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by: jacksmith | April 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I wonder sometimes about the Clinton's, but you have to give them credit- but time to move on.

Wikipedia Gate:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=94

Who has been editing those Wikipedia entries?

Posted by: Dave | April 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

This is a specious argument. If the rules were different Obama would have run an entirely different strategy, or perhaps not even run. However, Hillary's strategy would have worked much better in a Republican primary. That's the real problem. Hillary keeps forgetting she's not running as a Republican.

Posted by: Justin | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

GO BILL CLINTON!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The best one, though, that is used to describe the Clintons.."One thing you can say about the Clintons, they're always there for you... when they need you"

Posted by: DAN | April 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

He;s complaining about the VERY same rules that garnered him the nomination in 1992. These Clintons are shameless.

Posted by: DAN | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

As David Geffen said over a year ago, every politician lies but the Clinton's lie effortlessly.

Point by point:
"Disenfranchisement is not a good strategy for Democrats," Clinton said. "We do a better job when people are in power. So I just don't agree with that."

Who is being disenfranchised? Democrats with valid caucuses or primaries had every opportunity to show up at a caucus or pick up a ballot and vote. On top of that, Obama has won more primaries that Clinton.


"I think by the end of the day, I will have done well over 50 events in 46 separate Pennsylvania communities. This is the strategy we adopted in Texas, and Ohio and even in Missouri," Clinton said. "It helps to overcome the enormous financial advantage that Senator Obama has that there are two of us going to two separate places."

Look, Hillary Clinton came in with EVERY advantage possible. She had all of the Democratic establishment, plus Bill Clinton, in her camp. Every donor and every politico was told to get in her camp. From the word go she has had BILL CLINTON campaigning for her every day.

Despite all of these advantages she is losing to a first term Senator, who happens to be black, that no one heard of before Summer 2004.

Please, Clintons, stop lying and stop spinning. We'll see you again in 2012 when we fund a primary challenge against you for your Senate seat.

Posted by: Choska | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company