Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Unmoved by the Billfest

Excuse me for not joining in the Billfest, but let me point out a few things about the former president's speech. First and foremost, 20 minutes of good behavior don't make up for weeks of churlishness. Yes, Bill Clinton gave a good speech for Barack Obama. Did anyone really expect him to get up there and do anything less? What was he going to say: Y'all made a huge mistake not choosing Hillary? Clinton did not get the prime-time slot accorded his wife, but his antics -- from the recent non-endorsement of Obama's readiness to be president to the leaked unhappiness over his convention assignment -- guaranteed that the spotlight would be where he likes it most: on him.

Would there be a presidential train wreck? "Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world," Clinton said. "Ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States." Very nice. Might have been nicer if he had managed to say it a few weeks ago.

There were also, I thought, a few subtle digs at Obama. I don't want to exaggerate this. Most of Clinton's speech was fine, better than fine. It might just be me, but I detected notes of condescension. When Clinton said that "with Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom supporting Barack Obama’s proven understanding, insight and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need," I heard the message: Aren't we lucky he picked a real grown-up to help him? When he said that Obama has "a clear grasp of foreign policy," I heard the echoes of a teacher grading the work of a promising but still novice student.

Overall, the former president, like Hillary Clinton the night before, did a good job for Obama. After all the soap opera that always accompanies everything Clinton, he delivered. But anyone who's watched Bill Clinton over the years won't be surprised if tonight's performance is not the final word, and if there are more, well, Clinton eruptions before Election Day.

By Ruth Marcus  | August 27, 2008; 11:43 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton's Bridge to Barack Obama
Next: Biden's Window Onto America, Our Window Into Biden

Comments

Ruth, take a valium! Bill gave a fantastic speech, and the fact that he cited his own experience as the last successful American president as the basis for his judgment that Obama is ready to be commander in chief nailed it.

Posted by: mjames2 | August 28, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

"It might just be me".
Yes Ruth, it is you-and about twenty million other die hard right wingers who still give Bush a positive rating and whose deep rooted bias makes it impossible for them to percieve reality.
Can't wait for your fair and balanced reviews of the Republican convention.

Posted by: thake | August 28, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Excuse me for not joining your slugfest.

But 20 minutes of Bill's time is much more than Obama should have deserved - given Obama's relentless racist smear innuendos of the Clintons during primary season. It was and remains outrageous. Bill was right to be disgusted. If he were not a public figure, Bill could have won a suit on slander.

How could anyone of us voters support a guy with such misguided values. If this were a courtroom, someone would get Obama for lack of professional responsibility as an attorney.

and this could be our president?
and this is a role model for young people?
and this is a call for change? I shudder.

Damn embarrassing!

Posted by: Lesley | August 28, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

For a paper whose so called Dean of the newspaper called the Clintons a dual headed monster, your drivel was music to our eyes..

Posted by: r_python | August 28, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, some times a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by: frederick2 | August 28, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Leslie - I consider you to have very little understanding of slander, or the workings of a courtroom. If you're so confident that Obama would so easily be judged, could you please provide just one bit of evidence against him? Just one? Please?

Posted by: Clancy | August 28, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Lesley,

It seems as though you are a now bitter Hillary supporter, which is understandable. However, Bill and Hillary are trying to convey that Obama and themselves are quite similar despite previous conflicts naturally associated with campaigning. Ideologically, Clinton and Obama are the same, and as a Democratic American, it is in your best interest to support Obama. Would you vote for McCain instead? What are his values? What are Obama's? What are Clinton's?

Posted by: Neil | August 28, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse


Yawn. Next fatuous insight, and make it snappy this time, Ruth.

Posted by: Parakeeta Byrd | August 28, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

your usual passive aggressive self comes shining on through. wapo wants drama, so teh MSM tries to drum it up. "i don't want to exaggerate this." your entire "reporting' style depends on it. the clintons have so much more of a grasp of what is needed here, they are on board and they will do what it takes to get O and J elected. let the Democrats deal with Bill, we do not need another conservative concern troll giving bad advice. try and do some reporting for once.

Posted by: preAmerikkkan | August 28, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I just thought of Boxcar Willie for some reason. Mysterious guidance?

Would there be a presidential train wreck?
"It was on that grade that he lost his air brakes you could see what a jump that he made. He was going down the grade doing 90 miles an hour, when the whistle broke into a scream. He was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle and scalded to death by the steam."

The whistle is going to break into a scream soon as the Camelot Express gains speed.

Posted by: Deflag | August 28, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

please SHUT UP. i have never witnessed an election where there are so many demands that the "despised" "losers" support and humanize the "winner." it's like you people want charity for obama - the poor black man who cannot make it without social work from the clintons. as a black man i have been offended by the protective stance white liberals have taken with obama.

Posted by: tony | August 28, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

"... It might just be me, but I detected notes of condescension. ..."

It was just you.

Posted by: synykyl | August 28, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Neither Bill Clinton nor any of the other keynote speakers have spelled out Obama's governing qualifications. Reason: Obama has none. Clinton was misleadingly kind comparing Obama to himself. At the time Clinton sought the nomination, he had served 3 terms as governor of Arkansas, 1 term as the state's attorney general, and a term as chair of the National Governors Association. Clinton had a history of governing, of leading. Obama has none, unless you count his stint as a neighborhood organizer with dubious connections.

Posted by: judithod | August 28, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

No matter how much Clintons support Obama now, they would be blamed if Obama loses the election. Their support would not be remembered if Obama wins the election. They just have to do what politicians have to do.

It is time for Obama to convince the voters he is qualified and ready to be a president. It is nobody else'job to convince the voters for him.

Posted by: Jenny | August 28, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

This is yet another bloodless analysis that conflicts with what everybody else saw. Par for the course and more proof that laypeople understand modern politics better than the "pundits." Bill knocked a home run.

Marcus et al.: Please get out of the booth, the newsroom or wherever else you're holed up and get down there and talk with the people. It's the only way you'll understand.

Posted by: mypitts2 | August 28, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Sorry but just because you and the racists on this blog who want to call Obama a racist, and the haters on Larry King right now and pretty much all of Fox News' negative spinner "reporters" on right now defending McCain would like to say that convention was a terrible sham does not make it true. Ultimately I will laugh when America gets what it deserves when it elects McCain--the draft, more terrorist attacks, greater national debt, more tax breaks for rich people like his wife, and no actual problems solved while we slowly become a third world country. America would rather be racist and keep a black man out of the White House than actually save itself. Stay divided, stay partisan, blame the other guy, never vote for what's really needed, then complain that things suck. That's the new American way. Europe laughs at us and thinks we're retarded because we keep electing the stupid guy.

Posted by: a_skeptic | August 28, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama lost my vote when he used the race card during the primaries.

God forbid if he became president. Anybody who criticized him or his policies would be called a racist.

I am glad McCain said he is not going allow Obama to smear him the way he smeared the Clintons.

Posted by: Mike | August 28, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Right wing brown shirt lovers of Fascism always attack the leaders of Democracy. There is not one single Fascist Republican can ever achieve the higher plane that Bill Clinton has.

Posted by: ghostcommander | August 28, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

I honestly don't think the author knows a single thing about politics. Bill was answering his generations questions about Obama, i.e. the exact people Obama doesn't have yet and needs. For some of them knowing that Obama has advisors who are more seasoned could be the difference in their votes.

If you don't understand this, honestly I don't get how you are fit to write this column. Politics is about getting people to vote for you. Did Bill lose Obama any votes with his comments? Answer: NO, Did he get Obama some votes: Answer: Yes.

Posted by: DCDave | August 28, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was pitch perfect and a great force for the unity of the Democratic Party and the good of the country.

Posted by: mnjam | August 28, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Yes I said it. McCain will bring back the draft. How else will we go fight for Georgia, "Bomb bomb bomb Iran", stay in Iraq for 100 years, chase Bin Laden "to the gates of Hell" in Afghanistan, and any other wars he would like to start? What? North Korea? Palestine? How much is that going to cost? Maybe he'll have to sell a few of his houses to finance it. But the rich people who are making more than 5 million won't have to pay for it, they get a tax break. And what do all those people coming back wounded from all those wars get? Well not college! Scrap the GI Bill and they can go find a doctor on their own. He wants to get rid of evil as he stated to Rick Warren. He should start by stepping out into traffic. Oh, but we can't say that. We're supposed to honor his service to this country and just let him do all these things to our country because he was a POW. Darn!

Posted by: a_skeptic | August 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

You know what... I'd buy the whole MSM meme of wanting to show conflict if they actually did the same reporting about the dissent from Ron Paul/ Bob Barr voters and how much the republicans hated McCain until they became the nominee... Ever been on a far right blog and seen how they had to swallow McCain. Funny I don't see the hand wringing and concern trolling about the dissention in the Republican ranks... No I'm sure the image next week will be everything s hunkydory over there.

Yup, seems like the only people who want to keep this going are newspapers and 24/7 outlets who can't talk about anything but soap opera. And you think we should come to you for political analysis when you give us cotton candy.

Clinton gave a great speech, he definitely gave Obama props and Biden spanked it out the park... of course Gov Switzer of MT and Dennis Kucinich gave the real red meat while you putzes were wanking over a faked fight.

Posted by: RppPolyp | August 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Ms Marcus,

If he had gone beyond what he said, it would surely be perjury.
There is no substantive experience - or has RUTH possession of a file that Barack was a secret agent from childhood infiltrating INDONESIA and a clandestine operative in an Hawaiin high school?

It was a real accomplishment that Bill C was able to extract from this pygmy resume, and brilliantly use the line against him in 1992 to support OBAMA. It was just astonishing generous as well considering the flurry of insults directed at Bill C. 8 years [even if justified!] and the disrespectful conduct to Hillary in the primaries.

Posted by: Micheal | August 28, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Ruth,
Indeed, it was you. Take the speech for what it was and knock off the deconstructionist routine of looking for something outre to write about. It was a marvelously effective and subtle piece of work and your time might better be used in doing a good rhetorical analysis of why it worked as it did.

Posted by: Roger | August 28, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Mike and Lesley

You played the race card. The new racism is to call blacks racist. They don't share "our values". "Elitist", "uppity". By not denouncing these republican attack lines championed by actual racists like Rush L., McCain aligns himself with those who vote against Obama because he is black. McCain will be the next POTUS because he is white. But America will continue to get worse because he is the inferior candidate. What do you expect to achieve when you repeatedly put low end students into leadership roles? Doom. Keep electing rich non-scholar low achievers and stay prejudiced. Having a white mom and white grandparents raise you is not enough to be "one of us". But being a C student at the bottom of the class is and it gives you the judgement and leadership to be one of the worst presidents in our history. Yes, lets continue more of the same. At least that's better than having a black president.

Posted by: a_skeptic | August 28, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

"... It might just be me, but I detected notes of condescension. ..."

Yes, it was just you. Very weak article. =(

Posted by: Sebastian | August 28, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton's speech was so full of lies, I was about to vomit. He said the under his administration jobs were created and there was a surplus. This is historical revisionism at its finest. His administration served in the Dot Com bubble. False wealth was created and lost. He oversaw a unreal economy that could not last. The jobs he said were created just evaporated over night. The surplus was a hoax because it depended on unsustainable tax collections.

He also said that the Bush agenda was actually enacted and was a failure. In fact, the Bush agenda was never enacted. Bushes "biggest" accomplishments was No Child Left Behind which was actually a Clinton boondoggle that Bush stupidly adopted.

Here is real history....

Reagan - a real conservative
Bush 1 - a liberal democrat pretending to be a republican
Clinton - a liberal democrat that had no real spine and therefore did not put as much liberal policy in place as he would have like. We can be grateful for this.
Bush 2 - a liberal democrat in name only.

Now we have McCain, a liberal democrat pretending to be a republican vs. Obama, a communist pretending to be a liberal democrat.

Posted by: ahumanbean | August 28, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was a pretty decent moderate Republican president, in that his accomplishments (welfare reform, NAFTA) were basically Republican in scope and spirit.

Unfortunately, his excesses were directly responsible for electing a less effective Republican successor.

Let's remember that Al Gore failed to win either his home state, or that of the two term incumbent president.

Or, judging from the enthusiastic applause for Bill tonight, let's forget.

Posted by: John D | August 28, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

It is what it is. Clinton praised and backed Obama. It's Obama against McCain. A brilliant mind in a young man who has passed every test in life though not born on third base vs. an old man(still younger than me)who has done many great and good things in life but whose head is stuck in the cold war. We have eight years of Republican jingoism, failed foreign policy, failed domestic policies and unrivalled corruption. A failed unnecessary war whatever its final outcome, and continued existence of the people who planned the bombing of the WTC. And we need to let these people stay in the White House. If the Dems ran Kucinich they should still be elected.

Posted by: bob tichell | August 28, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

humanbean:
have you had one too many hits on your bong
tonite??? go to bed.

Posted by: surlydoc | August 28, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,
Maybe it is just you, and perhaps a dose of a laxative would be in order for you. Why can't you graciously accept the wonderful job the Clintons did instead of scratching to find fault?

Posted by: rjc116 | August 28, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

For all that the Clintons have done for African-Americans, when they held the highest office in the land, the worse aspect of racism has surfaced: that it doesn't matter what the Clintons have done; if you don't back Obama, then you are anti-African-American.

Then, what's worse--regardless of who he identifies with--Obama is not African-American; he is Kenyan-American, since he chooses to identify himself racially as black, and he is not, descended from colonized American slaves.


Posted by: Clinton | August 28, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

To Lesley and others: Obama is not qualified?

As opposed to whom?

George Bush? A candidate who does not quite know how many houses he owns? Whoever is picked as running mate by McCain? The candidates of the Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc.?

Well, all right, some of the other presidential candidates may be more qualified (let's see, is Nader running?), but the real choices are down to Obama/Biden and McCain & co. And the question then becomes whether or not the Republicans stay in the White House.

Posted by: Jean L. | August 28, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, I'm really surprised about you not listening to your own words of wisdom, displayed in one of your recent columns, where you wrote about the magnanimity that the winner should show towards the loser:
"This is not a judgment about who was right and who was wrong in this arcane fight. It's a strategic point about what kind of attitude and effort it will take to reunite a party whose voters have been split down the middle."
Uh huh. So, do you think the attitude you show here will help in reuniting the party? Hmm?

Posted by: Gray | August 28, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Yes it was just you!

Posted by: Renay | August 28, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

People, go easy on Ruth. There are people like her who are so envious of the Clintons, what they have achieved, the clout they wield, etc, that they refuse to embrace any form of objectivity when dealing with the Clintons. Ruth, face it, the Clintons get all this primetime, not because they insist on it, but because they have millions of supporters willing to go to the mat for them anyday, everyday. Your piece can only come from a mind that doesnt wish Obama well. Anybody who cares for Obama's success would be grateful for what Bill last night. Why didnt it come many weeks ago? Because last night was prime time, Ruth. All the world wanted to hear what Bill would say last night, and so what he had to say had that much more effect and impact. Chill, Lady, you're too biter. And as is the case with all your other co-residents of Clinton-hateland, your bitterness is irrational.

Posted by: Milton | August 28, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

"Stop the love fest". Marcus is so filled with hatred. The &itch can't be happy if she's not attacking, smearing, insulting the Clintons. Why have a moment of solace, a moment that could start a reconciliation? Why have a moment of peace? This woman doesn't believe in forgiveness.

I say send her to Afghanistan, let the extremist muslims throw a sheet over her head and make her invisible. She doesn't belong here.

Posted by: catfight | August 28, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

"Unmoved by the Billfest".
You wouldn't be moved by a pair of garbage trucks. I have come to believe that you are a man who had a sex change. There's not a discernible smidgen of feminine thinking in you. To be with the boys you gave up the one thing women contribute to this animal world: compassion.

I so enjoy trashing you. You bring the worst in me. Thank you.

Posted by: marcusanus invertebrate | August 28, 2008 4:36 AM | Report abuse

G.W. Bush tapped "Dick Cheney" to make up for his inexperience. Look where it got us.

I do NOT make the same mistake twice.

Posted by: Nicole | August 28, 2008 4:37 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton transformed the office of Vice President, first by choosing a running mate who could rise to the challenge of being a partner in the administration, not an afterthought in waiting; second, by having the confidence in himself and his choice to let Al Gore actually contribute in meaningful ways to the success of the Clinton admininstration.

If one has that level of familiarity with Clinton's perspective on the office of the Presidency and what it takes to be successful in that office, then the comment that so disturbs you, Ruth, is an acknowledgement that Barack Obama understands as well as did Bill Clinton how important it is to choose a partner for the ticket, not a prop! Read a little history, Ruth, because you've obviously been asleep for the last 16 years!

Posted by: 33rdSt | August 28, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Marcus.

To paraphrase the Big Lebowski:The Dawg abides!


Posted by: Becca | August 28, 2008 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Sorry you remain unimpressed. But you were not meant to be part of the audience. Too many people at the Post have written asinine pieces about the Clintons. So go ahead and gripe. We are not looking for votes in the Post's editorial offices.

Posted by: bitterpill81 | August 28, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Churlishness? Seriously? Really. Who can blame him if he has been churlish? First there were the race-baiting episodes during the primary, and then after the primary was over, Obama virtually ignored him. That was dumb, dumb, dumb.

Clinton is, after all, a former president who happens to do pretty well in some areas of the country that aren't looking too good for Obama at the moment.

I am voting for Obama. But I think that, although it is true that Bill Clinton had some anger issues during the primary, he was set up by the Obama campaign and their surrogates(Clyburn) to look like a racist.

Can you blame the man for taking some time to get over it? It must be nice to be as wonderful as you are, Ruth. Apparently you never hold a grudge, and forgiveness is always instantaneous. Maybe you should travel around the country telling the rest of us how you do it.

Posted by: mollycoddle | August 28, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

You are one of the whiniest columnists I read -- and God knows why I keep reading you -- out of all that I read, both liberal and conservative. Stop being such a crybaby.

Posted by: bibleburner | August 28, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

My first time reading the Marcus snivel drivel.
And my last.
Ruth owes us all an apology for her inane and fatuous,
petty and delusional divisiveness.
WE CAN ELECT
McCAIN '08!

Posted by: JamesT | August 28, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

For the life of me i cannot fathom why Senator Obama, or should I say Howard Dean and his snivelling minions even gave the Clinton "Greatest Show on Earth" two whole days, countem, 2!! of the limelight, sendem both packing back to Hope Ark, or whence they came. His endorsement was lukewarm and you could sense the tension in the crowd. Mr. Clinton has not redeemed himself just yet.

Posted by: Rudester | August 28, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

"Obama lost my vote when he used the race card during the primaries."

What a joke, Mike.
Obama didn't play the race card; he addressed race like an adult while most people were just gossiping about it. Or making up Obama's life story on their own. Or whispering about Obama and race when they thought there weren't any black people around. Or spreading lies through emails that only the white people at work are supposed to be forwarded.
Don't pretend like he ever had your vote. Why would people have had to try so hard to PROVE Obama was racist with the whole Jeremiah Wright thing if Obama was already playing these "cards"?

Posted by: TJ | August 28, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday in her psychobabble talk-talk Ms. Marcus managed to extract from Hillary Clinton's tour de force only signs of a "chilly" marriage. Today, Ms. Marcus finds in Bill Clinton's full-throated endorsement of Obama's readiness to lead primarily a qualification to that finding--that Biden will be an asset in the area of foreign policy--and hence a backhand to the Obama candidacy? How about some critical comment on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address--how ineffective, self-serving and indicative of marital problems in the White House was that from your vantagepoint, Ruth?

Posted by: orray | August 28, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

"This is yet another bloodless analysis that conflicts with what everybody else saw."

Since when does ANYBODY believe anything that Bill Clinton says??? Hillary wants the Presidency in 2012. Nothing will stop them from getting that opportunity. Including Obama. Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama after Bill's convention speech - what an opportunity for Bill to torpedo Obama's campaign from the inside. This is going to be fun to watch.

Posted by: Harvey F | August 28, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

The dominant white media has no clue! They never have and never will....you cover race issues from a patronizing perspective full of "mia-culpa" and how the poor Clintons suffer! Journalism is like the Bush dynasty, it lies, works on half truths, anything and everything besides admitting to the fact that there is more racism in the industry then honesty....racist liberals....the worse thing is your own ship is sinking but you adhere to the Bushthonian theories....WAKE UP!....its not them its the enemy within!

Posted by: José Mc Murray | August 28, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

need i say anything,the vast majority has said it all-take a valium but make sure its 30mg.ynx

Posted by: collins | August 28, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

A reality column that accurately evaluates the Clinton's attitudes and Obama's celebrity status. We might as well have George Clooney or Chevy Chase or Richard Dryfus running the country as Obama. The real issue is the Democrat congress...the last 2 years have seen the major downturn. Harry, Nancy and the boys and girls are doing nothing but investigating and blowing hot air. Our country is headed for the rocks.

Posted by: rwbiles1 | August 28, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Finally, an honest opinion from the press! And one that I (mostly) agree with. The author is correct that both Clinton speeches answered the mail. Anything less would have reflected badly on the Clintons, and would have had serious ramifications on their political future. The Clintons don't make that kind of mistake, so this was an easy home run for both of them.

I disagree with the author on one thing. I don't think I would expect any further rumblings from the Clintons. They ran a tough campaign, even for a couple of months after it was over, but now they're ready to move on, at least in public. Hillary has actually moved on. Her speech included all the soundbytes setting her up for future political moves. Rust never sleeps.

Posted by: John B | August 28, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Now today and through November 4 . . . it is not the Clintons.


The Obama/Biden team has the ball.

No one else can be held responsible.

Let's see what the game plan is and how they execute.

Bill and Hillary have given their very best support. They have given more than the MSM expected. This shold be acknowledged and the acrimonious press should find other ways to amuse themselves.

Posted by: csavferg | August 28, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing that people continue to say that people who don't support Obama are racist. Convincing the media of this won you the primaries, but it won't bring the Clinton Democrats to your side. I'm a black male progressive who thinks the Dems are fairly conservative for my tastes, but participate in the party because it's the lesser of two evils. I am not a racist. I believe that overcoming racism requires more than merely electing a black man. Voting for a black man does not mean that your are not racist....not voting for him does not prove that you are a racist.

Posted by: Tony | August 28, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

"When Clinton said that "with Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom supporting Barack Obama’s proven understanding, insight and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need," I heard the message: Aren't we lucky he picked a real grown-up to help him?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard that same message. And I saw the most successful Democratic president of our time being forced by his party to try to craft a reason for voting for the useless candidate that has been nominated.

Yes, both Clintons damned Obama with faint praise whilst still doing the job they were there to do. I think they were as partisan and honest as it's possible to be under the circumstances.

I'm glad that I have the freedom to not only vote for whoever I want, but to campaign for whoever I want. What a shame that America's finest first family doesn't have that same freedom.

Posted by: Lynn | August 28, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Ruthie, baby, chill out!
Hey, a lot of emotion went into Hillary's campaign. She was close, but she lost. I think both she and Bill (Bill a bit better) sucked it up and did as well as anyone could expect of them. What exactly were YOU looking for?
No matter what Bill had said, there was going to be someone with a nitpick.

Posted by: TJ | August 28, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

For Obama crazy columnists nothing that Bill and Hillary could do is good enough. Possibly they wanted Hillary to lay flat on the ground and ask for forgiveness. And Bill should have done the same.
This is in spite of the fact they made a deeply moving case for the least qualified presidential candidate in a long long time.

With such attitude of Obama supporters I think it would have served their candidate right if both the Clintons had stayed home and had done nothing.

Posted by: iThinker | August 28, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, baby, Clinton can lecture. He was the only one in the room that has 8 years of very successful Presidency on his resume.

I like Obama, but his campaign did trash Bill Clinton, accusing him of racism. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but it's pretty clear that he feels passionately about race relations, and I completely understand him feeling bitter about being trashed in such a way.

Posted by: Hillman | August 28, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the obligation to "fall in line" and wholeheartedly support the candidate antithetical to our notion of free speech and public dicsource. Are we electing a president or crowning a monarch?

Posted by: Aleks Rohde | August 28, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry, Ruth, It will be okay. You'll get to cover the hate and fear fest next week in St. Paul. There will be plenty of gloom and despair there trying to sell we must elect Papa Bear, no doubt.

Posted by: Sara B. | August 28, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at how critical and unresponsive respondents have been about RM's comments on the Bill Clinton speech. It seems to me that everything she said was accurate and, in fact, insightful.

Posted by: mslote | August 28, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

That's right Ruth, keep it dumb and negative no matter how powerful the critique. Spin it bad for Obama, search for the subtle digs that undermine the message of unity and a vision of the future. Between Howdy-Doodies pseudo-intellectualism, Krautrocks gleeful nihilism and your complete lack of thoughtfulness, WaPo has assembled the biggest hacks in the business next to the WSJ.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus, sit down and shut up. Most of the Clinton drama is due to the press. I, for one, have had it up to here with the fear and smear negativity of Ruth Marcus and her fellow neocon travellers at the Washington Post. They thrive on smearing the Clintons and the Democrats so that they can put the likes of George W. Bush and John McCain in office. Let's stop listening to these fools!

Posted by: Mary | August 28, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately the deeply unprofessional Marcus is consumed by antipathy to Clinton how else to explain this description of a speech by Clinton that received a reception from the delegates that was completely rapturous. He couldn't get the audience to stop cheering him. Increasingly one wonders if the writers at the WAPO are losing touch with simple reality preferring to advance their own views wrapped up in a pretense of objectivity.

Posted by: John | August 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

It was a great speech.

Posted by: Tom | August 28, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that, eight years after Clinton ended his presidency with the highest ratings in history, members of the MSM still pronounce themselves mystified that people like and respect Bill Clinton.

Each of the Clinton speeches showed what a dire mistake Obama made by not tapping her for VP. The day he chose Biden will go down as the day he lost the race.

Posted by: Kevvboy | August 28, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the 'subtle dig' Ms. Marcus refers to could be inferred from the President's speech last night--I must confess I did not hear it that way. What else could he have done? "Ladies and Gentlemen, I was WRONG when I said Hillary would make a much better President. . ." --obviously not.

I listened very carefully for every word that might give a clue and I think he did as much as he possibly could to dispel any lingering doubts and he DID work the Clinton magic in a way that no one else could. If nothing else, the sheer force of Clinton's logic and powers of persuasion made it abundantly clear that he considers Obama to be a much better candidate than McCain. Now that he and Hillary have truly done what was needed, it is up to Obama and Biden.

Posted by: dch | August 28, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Well, reading these comments it has become clear that the Hillary supporters will NEVER stop whining. SHE LOST. GET OVER IT AND SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO ISN'T A RAGING EGOMANIAC! She played the "woman card" - "These men are criticizing me!" She wept, she slugged down beers, she pandered to the low IQ crowd with her "gas tax holiday" idea. She overstated her experience and she outright lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. She started her campaign with every possible advantage - money, network and name recognition, and she still lost. It proves her incompetence. Instead of pouting like petulant children, you should all unite behind your ideals - and that means supporting Barack Obama. The alternative is an extension of the Bush administration. Or is that simply the small price you'll have to pay to massage your heroine's ego?

Posted by: Make her go away, PLEASE! | August 28, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

To makehergoaway
and now Obama will lose

Posted by: dem52 | August 28, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Leslie you are a racist tramp. You are what is called white trash who lives in trailers.

Posted by: Tom | August 28, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

The words become irrelevant at some point. Politics is politics and analysis becomes irrelvant. There are rules of politics and Party. The rules started after our first President. His was no election. Hillary Clinton fulfilled her role. She became the "historic" opponent. She fulfilled the Party rule and role. President Clinton's (more often called Bill rather than President) role was the largest and highest. As the former Party President, head and leader of the Party, he was the one who had to call the entire Party to unify and support the Candidate. The audience didn't check his words. They looked, cheered, and listened to the former Party Leader. And that was that. It became time for the V.P. Nominee. Now it's time for the Party's next Leader. Politics is politics. Speech analysis was irrelevant. Tonight is grade time.

Posted by: George Samuels | August 28, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

The words become irrelevant at some point. Politics is politics. There are rules of politics and Party. Hillary Clinton fulfilled hers-the "historic" opponent fulfilling the Party rule and role. President Clinton's (more often called Bill rather than President) role was the largest and highest. As the head and leader of the Party, he was the one who had to call the entire Party to unify and support the Candidate. The audience didn't check his words. They looked, cheered, and listened to the Party Leader. And that was that. It became time for the V.P. Nominee. Now it's time for the Party's next Leader. Politics is politics. Speech analysis was irrelevant. Tonight is grade time.

Posted by: George Samuels | August 28, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

It was Bill Clinton's best speech ever. And I don't even like him. This review is too harsh except for the comment regarding his future behavior on the campaign trail. If he does nothing to help Obama, then I would agree it was probably all for show. I'm keeping an open mind and hoping for the best. If I see Clinton (both of them) actively campaigning for Obama, my sense is McGoo is toast. There just aren't enough fools, nocons, bigots, and low information voters out there to cancel out a real full court press by everyone. This election is way too important to be cynical and dismissive regarding anyone who might help the Democrats win. You either get that or you don't, but either way time is running out.

Posted by: maxfli | August 28, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama lost my vote when this became - you're with us or you're a rascist.
I thought Bill Clinton did him a favor, for God's sake.
Reality check, Ruth - his veep IS more qualified than him, and Joe Biden earned that status through decades of hard work and public service.
Why does BO need special treatment? He engages in class warfare, he's got a mouthy wife who says some wacky stuff (she's the political version of that awful Lauren Conrad girl from MTV. No one knows where she came from, why she's talking, why we're talking about her fashion, but yet, everytime you turn on the television, there she is, holding court.) and his message sounds scarily similar to Bush circa 2000. So why does a Post columnist have to pick nits to protect Obama from the mean former president? Please stop, your patronization is offensive.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

you boys and girls invest too much emotionally in these pols. whoever wins four years from now gas would still rise to six or seven a gallon. the US would still likely have troops in iraq and definitely in afghanistan. the nightly news would still reports daily killings in DC and prince george county.

the dems have been in control of congress for two years now, what have happened? look at all the corporate parties going on in denver right now.

here's how it works. they will take gas down to 3.50 maybe even 3 by election day. just like in 2006 when they took it from 3 to 2. then they will take it back up to 4 after the new year and then 5 by next summer and keep it there just like in 2007 when there was no election. this cycle repeats every 2 years.

Posted by: tom007 | August 28, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Words become irrelevant at some point. Politics is politics. There are rules of politics and Party. Hillary fulfilled hers-the "historic" opponent following Party rules and role. President Clinton's role was the largest and highest. As Party head/leader, he had to call the entire Party to unify and support the Candidate. The audience didn't check his words. They looked, cheered, and listened to the Leader. And that was that. It had became time for the V.P. Nominee. Now was time for the Party's next Leader. Politics is politics. Speech analysis was irrelevant. Tonight is grade time.

Posted by: George Samuels | August 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Ruth, it was just you. Bill was fantastic.

Posted by: Dee | August 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Double yawn.

Posted by: Robert | August 28, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

This guy has been a Senator for not even one full term. He never served in the miliary - has no knowledge of anything except constitutional law and socialism. He probably thinks most business owners are evil. He's supported by Hollywood, trial lawyers, and power-hungry, anti-business unions. I'm going to vote for Obama for change? For what, more taxes? We have won the war in Iraq that he thought was unwinnable - nice call Obama what are you going to say next that we all need to ride a bike to work? I know he's going to raise my taxes through the roof. Sorry folks - you kool-aid drinkers and Bush-haters can't see the forest for the tree you are hugging.

Posted by: Obama who? | August 28, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

all obama had to do was stifle his pride and choose hillary as his vp. had he done that it would all be over right now. the republicans wouldn't have a prayer, even with god on their side. (as they keep telling us). had he chosen hillary ( i don't have a thing against biden but his candidacy gives obama no boost ) the dems could throw most of their money towards taking back the senate. note to obama:
unless you WANT to lose, make sure your wife keeps her trap shut until november.

Posted by: surlydoc | August 28, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

In Marcus' assessment and the comments here I see anger against BC and BO for the silliest of reasons. The "race" issue is not as important as the "disrespect" issue. As a presidential candidate you cannot diss a former 2-time president during whose terms the country saw growth, prosperity and mostly peace. How did BO diss BC - by not only refusing to acknowledge the goodness of BC presidency, but by assigning blame to his presidency for the current turmoil (and saying Regan and Clinton in the same sentence)? I completely understand why BC is miffed and has avoided showing complete support. If you cannot respect the great in the past, what kind of leader are you?

If BO, his campaign, and his supporters think the Clintons made him grovel, I think he wasn't made to grovel enough!!!

Finally I am surprised that the elders in the party did not chastise BO for this blunder. If he is struggling for support in certain demographics, he has only himself to blame. For some one who is supposed to be "post partisan", "forgiving" and "hopeful," he has put nasty election politics and ego before the good of the country and party.

I need to see him address this issue in order for him to win my confidence.

Posted by: IllinoisMom | August 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The media and the public at large do not seem to understand that the Clinton supporters who are not going to vote for Obama aren't sore losers, and they don't need to "get over it." We're not voting for him because he's NOT QUALIFIED! I'm not bitter because Clinton lost. I'm depressed because my party elected someone who IS NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB. No speech about party unity is going to change that. It's morally wrong to vote for someone you think isn't right for the job. No woman, especially a black woman, could run for president with his resume. If you take away the pretty, empty speeches, there's nothing special about Barak Obama. Except, perhaps, for his enormous ego.

Posted by: Jinmd | August 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it was just you. He had the very unpleasant task of having to be enthusiastic in endorsing his wife's competitor. He bit the bullet and did it - he doesn't have to like Barack or feel that he will be a better leader than Hillary - he just had to pass the torch. Which he did, brilliantly.

"I heard the message: Aren't we lucky he picked a real grown-up to help him? When he said that Obama has "a clear grasp of foreign policy," I heard the echoes of a teacher grading the work of a promising but still novice student."

We are lucky Obama picked a "grown-up" to help him with foreign policy - he's wet behind the ears and he needs Biden's knowledge. You think he'd havea shot in hell of winning if he picked Sebelius? And Barack is a promising but still novice student in comparison to Clinton.

Posted by: Suzanne | August 28, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

tom007: you're right and you're wrong.
1. the dems DO NOT control the senate. (the name lieberman ring a bell??) in the senate you need the 60-40 majority to really be in control.
2. about gas prices. you are absolutely right. there couldn't be more evidence that the oil companies own the republican party, in fact they ARE the republican party even more so than the holy rollers.

Posted by: surlydoc | August 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that the Clintons had to do for Obama what he was too stupid or too stubborn to do for himself, and they get whacked again by churlish Obama thumb-suckers.

Obama won. If was HIS job to build unity yet the young man waited for someone to do it for him. I listened as pundit after pundit measured whether the Clintons had "done it well enough", etc. I screamed at my TV, "Why did the Clintons have to do anything?" Kennedy didn't do anything for Carter and he was thrown under the bus - oh...but he was a man, not a mere woman.

The message of the Obama campaign so far is, how dare anyone oppose the perfect one and it's okay if Michelle says she "would have to think long and hard" about supporting Hillary had she won, but Clintons are expect to lay prostrate before the royal Obamas and kiss their feet for weeks and weeks and weeks - and it's still not enough for the whiners.

Sickening that as a Democrat I have to vote for childish Obama or four more years of Bush.

The Obama crowd needs to get a grip, shut up, and move on if they have a prayer of getting their guy elected!

Posted by: Claudette | August 28, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Why the hate:)

Just because people say mean things to people in the past doesn't mean at some point they realize they need to move on.

I hope you're not married and ever said a cross word to your husband. Should he never ever forgive you?

Posted by: Love the Love Fest | August 28, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"20 minutes of good behavior don't make up for weeks of churlishness."

LOL, I said the same thing. Thank you for being an observant and educated American instead of a sheep.

"The media and the public at large do not seem to understand that the Clinton supporters who are not going to vote for Obama aren't sore losers, and they don't need to "get over it." We're not voting for him because he's NOT QUALIFIED! I'm not bitter because Clinton lost. I'm depressed because my party elected someone who IS NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB."

Excellent! Finally, I'm a proud American because I know there are folks like this out there who don't blindly follow a party.

My favorite politicians today are folks who are not afraid to go against their own party to represent their states. Bob Casey (D), Sarah Palin (R), Lieberman! Keep up the good work in understanding who you represent.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

You seem to be in the midst of a few weeks of churlishnes yourself, Ruth!

Posted by: Sally | August 28, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Postscript: In fact, I believe you're morphing into Maureen Dowd.

Posted by: Sally | August 28, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

It was a great speech, Ruth.

I guess that must've pissed you off, but tough.

Obama will be a great president and the Clintons are the new Kennedys in Democraticland. Very classy couple after all is said and done.

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | August 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry, this "love fest" will end soon enough. It was not meant for you anyway. Just a little patience. Your turn will come.

And hold onto your pants. You will need them for your love fest, when the Republicans sell you a dirty bill of goods. By the way, watch your wallet in that convention. You could lose it real fast.

Posted by: paul taylor | August 28, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Bill seems to have shown a reasonable degree of generosity over what must have been a very bitter disappointment to him. I'm only a foreigner without a finger on the American pulse, but it would surprise me if many Americans cast their vote with the question 'What do the Clintons think about Obama?' - from now on an essentially unimportant question, don't you think? - looming large in their mind. The Clintons and Obama have never, at least to my distant eye, seemed very far apart ideologically. Surely voters will now ask 'Will the country/the world/my interests be better served by Obama or by McCain?'

Posted by: MHughes976 | August 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Everyone!!!

Thank you Skeptic- You are right on the money. America would rather suffer than change, particularly if that change is bought about by an African American. Europe is waiting for the U.S. to prove itselft hypocritical once again; and that's the shame of being a citizen of this God forsaken country.

Read, Heed, and Comprehend.
friend of skeptic......

Posted by: DoM | August 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Sickening that as a Democrat I have to vote for childish Obama or four more years of Bush.

The Obama crowd needs to get a grip, shut up, and move on if they have a prayer of getting their guy elected!

Posted by: Claudette | August 28, 2008 9:15 AM
========================================

Claudette, you can break from the ranks and vote for McCain. At least try to watch the Republican convention and you'll see that McCain isn't four more years of Bush and that you are right in feeling that the Democrats betrayed you by nominating a junior, sophmoric candidate - we know.

Posted by: PAO | August 28, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Your article lacks the depth and any real understanding of the process of nominating
the presidential candidate. Bill Clinton has marketable and record of achievements.There was nothing wrong of him stating the positive accomplisments during his tenure and connecting to Would be Obama presiedency. This article neither has substance or any merit.

Posted by: Surendra Sangekar | August 28, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Stuff it, you stupid cow. Do you want Obama to win? Bill Clinton just gave him the best case for himself anyone has or will make. Leave it alone or continue to make thin ice: the Obamabot's conundrum.

Posted by: MiddleAgedWhiteWoman | August 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

With that mouth flapping as much as it does, Auntie Ruth, all that lipstick you wear must really get smudged.

I guess this is Auntie Ruth's idea of being "provocative," when all she sounds like is the bad-tempered crone that she is. She's about as insightful as a pet rock.

Posted by: Arcturus | August 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"Stuff it, you stupid cow"?

Disagree with Ruth Marcus, if you like, but please exhibit some maturity while doing it.

Posted by: David | August 28, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Ok, so a few months ago, even days ago, Clinton is saying Obama doesn't have the experince to be Pres and that Obama's campaign is vicious, etc. All of which I agree with. Now all is forgotten. Lovefest '08 and you Dems believe this. That is what is scary. As long as you hear what you want, with no factual basis, all is good. Obama is a fraud, period and no speech can change that.

Posted by: Mark | August 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, I'm sure you will like Bush's speech next week much more. He's honest and is a great speaker.

Posted by: Alfred | August 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Finally, some perspective. If the media wasn't so in the tank, so childishly cheerleading Obama we might hear more perspectives like this one. At least someone in the media remembers their job is to report and dissect the candidates, not cheerlead. This speech will fade quickly and be forgotten

Posted by: good job | August 28, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Bill gave an excellent, compelling speech. Sniping among rivals in a drawn-out primary battle was inevitable, but now that Obama is the nominee, the party is doing everything it can to unify behind him. I'll vote for him in November, not because of (or in spite of) his racial background or charisma, but because I agree with his values and positions on the important issues.

(On a side note - marcusanus invertebrate, I hope you're being sarcastic when you say "the one thing women contribute to this animal world" is compassion...)

Posted by: Calliope | August 28, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

If you voted for a Democrat who lost during the primary season and now say you are voting for McCain, then you are a hypocrite. Obama and Clinton share the same Democratic values. John McCain does not. To say you are a Democrat and then vote republican simply shows a lack of integrity, a lack of intelligence and a lack of foresight. Oh, and no sense of humor as well.

Posted by: Bob D. | August 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Claudette and the rest of the vagina voters GET OVER IT! Your period has ended. Now it's time to join your party and put a Dem in office or to vote for McCain and kill your sons and daughters in Iran.

That's your choice. I hope you chose for America and not for your vaginer. Listen to your bit head,not your tiny itsy-bitsy head with the big mouth.

Posted by: Martiniano | August 28, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse


Jesus Ruth. Just leave it at it was a good speech. Subtle digs?

Whaaaa? God, even when you hack pundits have nothing to criticize, you do it anyway -- you just make sh*t up, mind reading what someone REALLY meant.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Monk | August 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Whether you like Bill Clinton or not, he is one of the best public speakers of our time. Thought his speech was excellent and appropriate. What concerns me more is that the polls are very close when we have one of the worst economic times of our generation and the country in debt and confidence disintegrated.

Posted by: Jeff | August 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"All is jaundiced to the jaundiced eye."

How do these life forms, to borrow a phrase from Bob Sommerby, manage to get jobs at the nation's most renowned newspapers?

Bill Clinton's so-called "churlish behavior" is a myth spun by a media in search of conflict in order to attract viewers/readers. All the stories were attributed to unnamed "insiders", yet the top tier advisors on both sides indicated that the reported conflict was overblown.

Yes, Ruth Marcus and many of the Obama posters here and elsewhere epitomize the phrase "sore winners". Sorry folks, it's Barry's election to lose. The Clintons have done their part more than any previous runner up in recent memory, and I know they will continue to actively support the candidacy of Obama. But it will never be enough for Ruth and Obamatrons, and of course everyone, i.e. the Clintons, but Barry will be blamed should he manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, ala every Democrat since Jimmy Carter, save one named Clinton.

Posted by: mkevinf | August 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

PAO, JFK was junior and sophmoric too. Those traits are preferable compared to going backwards with an old, experienced war-horse. If you remember the past you will repeat it.

Posted by: Alfred | August 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I've seen a couple commenters pointing to how Obama "used the race card" against Slick Willy in the primaries, presumably during the South Carolina gaff. My reccolection is this was a media creation, helped along by some of Obama's supporters.

Can someone PLEASE site one example of Obama himself "playing the race card"? Or was it just his lack of a strong repudiation of his supporters at the time?

This is a serious charge and so far I don't see ANY real evidence of it. Please illuminate if you can. Thanks.

Posted by: Patrick | August 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Instead of trying to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, let amend it to allow Bill to run again.

Posted by: dtsc | August 28, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Clinton did amazing. can we please leave the past behind and allow e verybody to move on! The race between McCain and Obama may be close now, but I truly believe that in the coming weeks after the convention, the party is going to continue to unify and Obama will lunge ahead!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, In spite of all these naysayers, I heard the same things. He did act like Biden was the grown up, and that Barrack was finally picking up some of the basics in foreign policy. Bill and Hillary have both lost a lot of my respect. They did what they had to do, I don't hear much from the heart.

Posted by: Joe | August 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"... There were also, I thought, a few subtle digs at Obama. I don't want to exaggerate this. Most of Clinton's speech was fine, better than fine. It might just be me, but I detected notes of condescension. When Clinton said that "with Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom supporting Barack Obama’s proven understanding, insight and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need," I heard the message: Aren't we lucky he picked a real grown-up to help him?"
Hmmm, so let's see - one of the strongest critisims of Obama is a perceived lack of foreign policy and national security acumen and Clinton tries to defuse that by complimenting Obama's pick for VEEP and YOU think it was snarky? Is that right?
Yup, you're right: it's you...
Would it be safe to presume that you, personally, have no political aspirations or talent?

Posted by: Dmon | August 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Jeepers, Ruth. Are we obsessing just a little bit today? Lighten up, for Goodness sakes.

Posted by: binkynh | August 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

It's good that Obama chose a real grown-up running mate, Biden, to hold his hand.

You can thank Bill Clinton for two terms of George Bush. If voters had loved Clinton so much, they never would have voted for Bush.

Thank you, Bill Clinton.

Posted by: ttj | August 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Why should the Clintons have had to do anything? Why would what they did do be deemed not good enough? Who do the Clintons have anything to prove to? The DNC and Obama team should just be GRATEFUL for what they did do.
Good grief Obama handlers even went out and exchanged the Clinton flags for Obama flags...petty petty.
I hope to see Hilary back in in 2012 to run again.

Posted by: ciercee | August 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus:

Certainly you are one of those unhappy folks who simply can't take yes for an answer. Bill Clinton's Presidency, you will remember, was the most successful Democratic Administration since Franklin Roosevelt's and brought to the working man and famliy it's greatest benefits,EVER! And remember this is the segment of the voting public that will most likely decide the 2008 election and determine who will control Congress for a generation.

So please Marcus as far as THIS hard working middle class soul is concerned, if this fellow, Bill Clinton, decides to support Obama and will campaign for him, I susggest that you try to overcome your paranoid and depressive bent and simply say Thank You (or go and approch Carl Rove for a job on his staff-I'am sure from what his team has been churning out lately on behalf of John McCain he is in the market for another paranoid and depressive writer)...

BIRDDOG

Posted by: Birddog | August 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

It might be just me, Ruth, but I detect notes of condescension, bitterness, schaudenfreude, and shame in what you said.

Posted by: DFC102 | August 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Hillary gave a good speech and Bill gave a better one. I love Bill Clinton. He's a national treasure. They make me wish I could vote for Obama.

Posted by: Pat | August 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Bill! And I'm with the woman who said she's sick of being told that if you're a D woman who isn't backing Obama, then you need to get over Hillary's loss. I like BILL Clinton, not Hill, although she was great the other night. The policies I believe and stand for aren't what Obama preaches. Frankly, I've never been able to discern what in God's name he's blathering about, although I do have suspicions like those crazy right-wingers that he needs to put down the communist leaflets and some up with some sound governing principles because these pathetic attempts at PR - going after oil companies, raising taxes on the wealthy - does not a platform make. Being different doesn't cut it either, since he's not different than our current disastor of a pres - inexperienced in national public policy, not a lot of work experience generally, entitled education, talks about deconstructing washington (as if he hasnt been in the Senate for a few years doing nothing to "change the system"... see, there are these things Senators can write called "bills..." and "bills" can become "laws...")
Clinton deserves the respect of a twice elected US president. He doesnt have a mandate to prop-up Obama. You know, Bill coould have been too busy. Speaking gig worth money... penning a book... washing his hair out of the country, who cares. Obama should appreciate the fact that the Clintons made such a respectful and energetic showing after such a nasty campaign. I'm sure it's the absolutely last place on the Earth they wanted to be this week.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton did a bang up job with that speech! He followed Obama to a T all smoke and mirrors! It's not easy to make a purse out of a pigs ear or a president out of a inexperienced junior senator.

Posted by: independent | August 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Look, Clinton was just trying to appeal to the criticism that he's inexperienced. He was trying to redeem that criticism by supporting his veep choice. I'm certain that it echoes with many.

Posted by: Rosidae | August 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Folks, Take a break. Have a home remodeling project to do? Post it online at: http://contractorjoint.com/


And Freelancing Programming Web Design projects? Post it at
http://FreelancerNetwork.Org/

That simple.
Good Luck to McCain, The Clintons and Barak.

Posted by: FN | August 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I never knew that it is called the prime-time TV slot when most of the people from the Eastern Time Zone are sleeping.

Posted by: ing1 | August 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama lost my vote when he used the race card during the primaries.

God forbid if he became president. Anybody who criticized him or his policies would be called a racist.

I am glad McCain said he is not going allow Obama to smear him the way he smeared the Clintons.
____
Please explain to me how Obama played the race card....if anyone played the race card it was the Clintons.

You have the audacity to claim McCain won't allow to be smeared like the Clinton while he is so busy smearing Obama with racial smears.

Give me a break!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

It looks like more people are threatening to do a Barbara Streisand and move to the socialist country of Canada! The more far left nut cases that leave this country the better. Barak Hussein Obama is not ready to lead this country, nor does he has Foreign and Military experience. We don't need socialize healthcare and a weakening of our country by not fighting the radical islamic terrorists! God Bless the USA and the military.

Posted by: Scott | August 28, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Tony wrote: "it's like you people want charity for obama - the poor black man who cannot make it without social work from the clintons. as a black man i have been offended by the protective stance white liberals have taken with obama."

That was well-said, Tony. Thanks for pointing out the naked truth that the MSM (main stream media) never acknowledges.

Posted by: DoTheRightThing | August 28, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus: What astonishes me, as a relatively new online reader of the Washington Post (who hasn't yet established an opinion about the quality of the columnists there) is that you'd have so little professional self-respect as to write a corrosive review of Bill Clinton's speech. . . just to vent your obvious dislike of him. The speech -- as a speech -- was terrific, whatever you think about the man or his politics. It obviously moved people and meant something. Your delight in trashing it anyway, can't change blue to pink. But it does show how little respect you have for your own credibility and the valuable pulpit you occupy at the Washington Post; you've trashed only yourself. I'd have read your opinions on more debatable subjects with interest even if we disagreed. But why waste time on the rantings of a hack with a typewriter?

Posted by: Miri2 | August 28, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Ruth, it was just you. I am the one, who in an email to you not long ago, referred to you as a national treasure.
I'll give you a pass on this one; you must have been very, very tired.

Bill Clinton did what he had to do and he did it well. The pundits continuously are asking "Did the Clintons do enough?" They did. It is not the Clinton's job to prop Obama up. It is Obama's job to convince the American people that he can rise above his thin resume.

Scottsdale, AZ

Posted by: Nicki | August 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons said what they had to and no more, because they had to. They both damned Obama with faint praise. Don't be fooled; Billary is looking at 2012.

Posted by: DanM | August 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Gee Ms. Marcus, not sure what you mean when you say 'Clinton interruptions before election day' but I assume you probably wish they would just go away.
I thought Bill's and Hill's speeches were great. Watching Bill was a breath of fresh air. He came across as a leader and I was actually able to not worry about the future of America, if even only for 20 minutes....and I'm a Republican.

Posted by: Roddy | August 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wasn't a good president! I do not understand why people think this man was great. Let us talk about all his corrupt and evil conduct prior to the White House and during his so-called leadership. He wasn't only in bed with every woman he could rape or manipulate, but he was in bed with terrorists, communists, and evil dictators. I wouldn't be surprised if he had henchmen cover up his corruption via murder. Hillary is NOT president material. She is probably the most corrupt politician since Hitler. This is a very, very dangerous woman who doesn't care about anyone, but herself. She cannot even concede to the fact that Obama got the nomination and she didn't. She wouldn't give in or relinquish (and probably hasn't given up) her delegates until the DNC. This is an ego-maniac, sadistic FREAK! The majority of politicians should be in jail or in an insane asylum.

Posted by: James Serra | August 28, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that Democrats are constantly having to apologize for not being one-dimensional, invective-spewing, lying cowards like ReThuglicans? Wow, Michelle Obama can't be dismayed by the constant ignorance and racism in this country, Hillary can't be upset over not winning the democratic candidacy in a historic run, Bill Clinton can't be upset about his wife losing a close, bitterly-fought contest OR having to constantly remind the ignorant public that we didn't have these issues when HE was president, courtesy of a ReThug smear job?

The one good thing I can say about the wrong-wing is that sociopathy means never having to say you are sorry. The ReThugs are always "on message" and never apologize for not giving a crap about anyone or anything. They spread lies as if they own stock in Hell, without any accountability. I read George Will's article and he was outstanding at painting Obama as a pie-in-the-sky dreamer, never mind that "free market" and "trickle-down" (read:"tinkle-down" because it pisses on 99% of the public) economics has created a massive economic rift between 99% of Americans and the top-earning 1%. EVERY ReThuglican presidency has ended this way... higher inflation, rising prices, higher unemployment, and fewer people enjoying the benefits of their life's work. But, by appealing to the uneducated, superstitous, and ignorant, they keep putting people in the White House. They come with jury-rigged unemployment and GDP numbers and manage to get people to not see what's in front of their own faces, proving that, if you lie to someone enough, you can even dismiss reality.

I don't mind scepticism in healthy doses but second-guessing is an entirely different matter. I don't take expressing feelings that may be contrary at times to be "inconsistent" or "insincere." I think it's possible to respect our country and question its direction. I think it's possible to respect our troops and want them brought home to secure THIS nation. This black and white absolutism and notion that everyone's feelings are valid REGARDLESS of whether they are supported by fact or not are some of the most profound "gifts" given to us by the wrong-wing.

The "conservatives" have effectively killed reason. And they didn't have to apologize for it.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm really sick of the "thin resume" argument. McCain has a thick resume... almost all of it hostile to 99% of America. Let's have a look-see, shall we:

Rape the environment - check;
Suspend habeus corpus - check;
Support torture - check;
Tax cuts that primarily benefitted the highest earning HALF of one percent of the population - check;
Rob civil liberties, piss on the Constitution - check;
Support legislation that facilitates job losses and corporate greed - check.

Have I missed anything? Oh yeah...

Support overturning Rove v. Wade - check;
Piss on equal pay for equal work - check.

I could go on because his resume is SO THICK!

Stop please.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

No matter who it is speaking? The democratic convention was a big phony production! The dems are in trouble and they know it. Obama is so far left and out of touch that he is not electable. Obama will lose McCain will have his 4 years and Hillary will be back in 2012 and thats exactly how the Clinton's want this to play out!

Posted by: Bill | August 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I hope that Hispanic voters realize that if Baracky Hussein Obama becomes President, they will be at the bottom of the barrel - Baracky Hussein Obama will have to pacify the Black voters after gaining 99 % of their vote.

Democrats for John McCain in 2008

Posted by: gary | August 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

ReThug asshat alert:

Bill
gary

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Ruth, I agree with you.There's no way either of the Clintons think Obama's got a lick of experience or is in any way ready for the job. Biden will have to debate McCain!! They gave Obama plenty of push but he has to win the election, and he won't. He can't. Clinton will run in 2012.

Posted by: OldHat | August 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I find it annoying that everyone at the DNC falls in line like mechinical robots. It seems almost like a cult. I have much more respect for Hilary than Bill. I can't imagine cheating on your wife and getting so much respect from everyone. What is that all about.

Posted by: Michael Carr | August 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey, A_skeptic, I hate to tell you, the real rich pay taxes too. Most of them.
What will make you happy, for the top 2% to pay ALL the taxes while the rest of us ride free? Lunacy

Posted by: Mikey51 | August 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I'll just take a few points that I read. The brown shirts were socialists, NAZI,is the national socialists party. Barry is a socialist to the core. Fox News is the new CNN,,chameleon in the news, they ARE NOT conservative and minority owned by a 'prince' from the middle east. Most problems in the U.S. are traced to 'illiberalism', i.e. failing schools, energy policy, rampant illegal invasion leading to the U.S. becoming a third world country, medicare fraud, social security fiasco, need I go on?

Posted by: Drivel drivel drivel | August 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Here’s a tip: Watch the convention on C-Span. I didn't hear any of the constant blather about the Clintons. Instead, I’ve heard some fabulous speeches by ordinary people and politicians I never heard of before. Steny Hoyer of Maryland was quite good, and Brian Schweitzer of Montana was a standout. Last night, I heard John Kerry’s excellent speech, and when Barack Obama made a surprise visit to the convention stage, I was actually surprised. If I really want to, I can always catch up on what the gasbags had to say later on.

Posted by: V. Mitchell | August 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

To Michael Carr - Yes, Bill Clinton should hae waited until Hillary suffered a major physical injury, cheated on her, then left her for a woman with more money. You know, like McCain did with his first wife.

To Mikey51 - Taxes are almost the only thing the rich pay IN PROPORTION to their income. Because of fixed prices, the wealthy actually pay EXPONENTIALLY less for good than the other 99% of the population. So, yes, I say tax them more because higher taxes will NOT change their lifestyle as it will the rest of the country.

To Drivel drivel drivel - Considering the ReThugs have rode shotgun on all of the things you mentioned, by countering legislation to improve all of those things, your nickname could not be more accurate... drivel, drivel, drivel.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

And FOX is owned by Rupert Murdock, a staunch Australian conservative who has used it to influence American politics. But he's a WHITE foreigner, so I guess that makes it OK.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Unity, the very idea that the media can't get enough of talking about, will start when folks like you stop trying to divide us over nothing.

Posted by: rosalala, chapel hill nc | August 28, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes...it was you.

I will grant you that you have a wonderful imagination. Perhaps interjecting your own wishful thinking into the speech.

Did you call Bill Clinton to ask if you were right or did you just make it up as you went along?

Posted by: Paul Kruger | August 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Bill has deceiving the dumacrats for 17 years.. What's a few more minutes. The man has a legacy built on ice in the SAHARA

Posted by: Rich in NJ | August 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, an asshat masquerading as me... I'm flattered. Must mean I've done my work.

Thanks "James King"

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

This is to my man James King:
Rape the environment?? do you know what the environment is ? or is it his strong stance on police presence in your ENVIRONMENT? which would tie in his suspensions of haebeus corpus, and civil rights, in your environment.
Well as for cutting taxes for the rich. THEY CREATE THE JOBS DODO!! And of course overturning Roe v Wade. I guess you have enough children without father figures in your life. LEt me explain, simpley.. Mr. King you were not misinformed, you did not misread. YOU ARE JUST WRONG!!! 100% incorrct on all your thoughts of McCain. Only thing thick is tyour cocoanut. Thanks Rodney!!

Posted by: Rich in jersey | August 28, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

To Rich in NJ - Yeah, I'm so wrong. Your response isn't even coherent. But it IS racist, ignorant and just plain stupid.

Good for you. You REALLY put me in my place.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

As for the rich creating jobs... by golly, how did civilization ever get along without "jobs"?

People were WORKING long before they had jobs. Yes, I know that's amazing but it's true. Look it up sometime.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Since when hasn't Obama been playing the race card? Of course he did. A full 15% of his rather early delegates came from the southern states. He ran down south like his pants were on fire and lined up the Black voters and has been wooing the Black vote ever since. He just couldn't haul in the populous states. If Dems had "winner take all" as the Repubs do, Obama would have tanked and would never have been heard from again. Some of you Obama supporters have got to get real and face reality: he played the race card right from the beginning. Now should he lose - and he will - guess who's going to wind up holding the short stick??????

Posted by: OldHat | August 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

To Oldhat - This is, indeed, old hat. Minorities are a constituency, just like evangelicals and so forth. Every good politician shores up their base first. Bush went after conservative evangelicals, Hillary went after feminists and women, Barack after minorities.

To insinuate that Barack has not dealt with all constituencies in an even-handed manner is simply a falsehood. Hillary supporters say he dealt unfairly with women while Obama supporters think the Clintons crossed the line with race. But I think both candidates honestly would have welcomed ANY constituency that would help them get elected. If Hillary sincerely thought she could have gotten the Black vote early, she would have tried. If Barack could have gotten women voters early, he would have focused on them.

Playing to your base is simply politics. Get your die-hards first, then go for the rest.

Mountain out of molehill.

Posted by: James King | August 28, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

JamesKing, don't try to revise history. Obama played the race card by heading straight down south to woo Black voters and in the process he piled up a bunch of early delegates. Clinton was campaigning across the board and everywhere: she didn't just go to women's clubs. Obama focused on cities and metropolitan areas where there were large blocs of Black voters and he did it consistently. Later on and once he had bagged the Black vote, he expanded to other constituencies - like visiting every college campus in the country to woo the college kids. What will happen in the election is that huge numbers of white voters in the south will turn out to offset the Black vote and in the end McCain will take the south. Obama will reap the whirlwind, and deservedly so.

Posted by: OldHat | August 28, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I love history. It clarifies. It separates the wheat from the chaff. It strips away all facades. It reveals the elements hidden beneath. Fret not what the pundits say. Fear not what the partisan will do. Hold fast and wait. The truth will out, long after you and I have passed from the scene. And this grand old country will still be here. And this, too, shall pass. God bless you, God bless America, and may God, Allah, Buddah, Krishna, and all other names used to signify humanity bless this world.

Posted by: history | August 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Bills' presidency was the worst. He failed us at all levels. History will prove without a doubt most of the problems in the middle east we are having now were caused by this mans actions.

Posted by: Conservo | August 29, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

Did Billy-boy say "queer grasp" 53 seconds in to his ramble? What would Freud say?

Posted by: BeeMan | August 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton’s speech ignored the real record

Last night, former President Bill Clinton tried to color his eight years in office as wonder years for life and liberalism. Then he tried to contrast his two terms with President Bush’s two terms:

“Too much unilateralism and too little cooperation.”
Clinton bombed the Serbs in Kosovo with neither a U.N. resolution nor congressional authorization. He bombed Saddam’s Iraq for a few days with no congressional authorization. And when Europe showed no interest in stopping the genocide in Rwanda, he cooperated by letting 800,000 people die.

“A perilous dependence on imported oil.”
Clinton did absolutely nothing to reduce America’s dependence on imported oil.

“A refusal to lead on global warming.”
Clinton claimed to care about global warming, but in 1997 he didn’t even submit the Kyoto protocol to the U.S. Senate for a vote. And that was when average global temperatures had been on the rise for 10 years.

“A growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders.”
In 1996, Clinton took more illegal campaign money from Communist China than any leader in American history, making him personally dependent. Under Clinton, the national debt more than doubled, even after paying off billions in loans by emptying the Social Security fund.

“A severely burdened military.”
Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped. Certainly, the armed forces are not so obviously burdened when they’re not involved in two difficult and prolonged ground wars. But under Clinton, the invisible burden increased by allowing threats to grow with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, and by fleeing Somalia in an outright cowardly fashion.

“A backsliding on global non-proliferation and arms control agreements.”
Clinton had allowed both India and Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons in 1998, allowed North Korea to develop a nuclear weapons program with rewards like free oil, ignored Iran’s nuclear plans and hadn’t even noticed Libya’s nuclear program.

“And a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.”
I doubt Clinton used diplomacy more actively or more consistently anywhere. His Middle East peace talks were crammed in near the end of his administration, and they failed. And of course the power of his diplomacy did nothing to stop the Rwanda genocide or the Sept. 11 attacks.

During President Bill Clinton’s two terms in office, Arafat was invited to the White House more than any other international political figure. (Clinton met Arafat a total of 24 times in eight years.) Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate meetings were rare. They only happened twice. Woolsey told me: "It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the president. It just didn't exist." The revelation that Clinton froze Woolsey out because the CIA director refused to put a friend of Bill on the agency's payroll was confirmed by both Woolsey and the Clinton's consigliore Bruce Lindsey.

Another Clinton intelligence failure involved a refusal to help the CIA hire more Arabic language translators. In 1993, Woolsey learned that the agency was able to translate only 10 percent of its Arabic intercepts and badly wanted more translators. But Sen. Dennis DeConcini refused to approve the funds unless Clinton phoned him and said it was a presidential priority. Despite entreaties, Clinton never phoned the Democratic senator and the CIA didn't get those translators for years.


Posted by: pb | August 29, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"How long is the Beast allowed to have authority in Revelations? "

Revelations Chapter 13 tells us that it is 42 months...

... Almost a four-year term of a Presidency...

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is:


"...a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything..."

Do we recognize this description?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even if you don't believe in the Bible or it's teachings, how can we ignore the fact that this man has such close ties to the Muslim faith and it's beliefs?
And that the Pastor from his church preached hate against America?--No matter how much he may denounce him now, this was his spiritual leader for many years.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In a recent news broadcast, Barack Obama made this statement with pride, 'We are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . .." To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--then to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that.


How far has this nation come from what our founding fathers intended it to be!

Posted by: Shayna Arnold | August 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

a_skeptic - You're concerned that Europe is laughing at us... please do us all a favor and MOVE THERE.

You think they weren't laughing at us when Clinton was found to be receiving some pipe work done while ON THE JOB IN THE WHITE HOUSE. In any job I can think of... he would have been fired. I acutally think I remember distinct calls for IMPEACHMENT.

And you're ignorance is disgusting and despicable. If I have to hear one more time that people are RACIST if they don't want to support the Communist, Far-Leftist Obama... I'm going to knock someone out.

People like YOU perpetuate racism. You disgust me. That is all.

Posted by: Jules | August 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

@Jules
You are a REPUBLICAN!!!! Given the sorry, despicable, tragic, moronic last 8 years, I would personally feel being called the aforementioned would be worse (causing me to begin to harbor violent feelints) than being called racist. Also, are we becoming so desparate over there (the REPUBLICAN side) that the term liberal will no longer do but the old retro term Communist has be brought out of mothballs?

Posted by: A Hardwick | August 29, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

A Hardwick-

You know the saying "To assume something is to make an ass out of you and me"... that applies here. I'm not a Republican, but a Conservative/Independent/Nationalist.

And I would be very, very careful in saying that being a republican is worse than a racist. Racism is still alive and well and is not to be taken lightly.

I didn't even say I supported Bush. I agree that he has done some really moronic things that we will be paying for in many years to come... but that isn't reason in itself to support Obama.

Posted by: Jules | August 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I got an asshat at Wal-Mart, its good though it cover up the giant pustule on my forehead.

Posted by: James King | August 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I got an asshat at Wal-Mart, its good though it cover up the giant pustule on my forehead.

Posted by: James King | August 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Jules, you are a Nazi, admit it, Nazi pig. Obama will turn you into a goat.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company