Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down

The troubling thing is, either Bill's nasty and intemperate attacks on Obama were done at Hillary's behest, or they weren't. And if they weren't, it raises the issue of what kind of loose cannon Bill Clinton would be in the second Clinton presidency. If Hillary can't control what Bill says and does in public now, chances are she won't be able to do it then, either. And that's leaving aside the issue of Bill's uncontrollable *private* (but ultimately, inevitably public) behavior, an issue that nobody is even hinting at in the media at the moment but that many former Clinton Democrats like me can't help worrying about. Humiliating Hillary as First Lady was one (terrible) thing; doing it as President is something else again. I just dread it happening again.

Martin Luther King, Jr., talked about his dream of living in a nation where people will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.



Barack Obama ran and won in the Iowa caucus by promising to unite "red" states and "blue" states in a common national cause.



Then he was ambushed by the Clintons, who knowing there are more white voters than black voters in the country, sought to define Obama as the "black" candidate.



( As Newsweek is reporting, Sen. Ted Kennedy has correctly accused Bill Clinton of injecting race into the campaign.)



Frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach that race is being used--in 2008!--in a Democratic contest. And now the Clintons will parade in front of black churches on MLK Day, claiming that is was all one big misunderstanding.



We know what the meaning of "is" is. And this "is" wrong!!!


Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Despite the aggressive, highly publicized campaign against the Clintons in the 90's, they were never found guilty of any crimes. Bill had an affair with an over-aged intern - if that is a crime, then most of the men in our society would be in jail. The soap opera was a product of the republicans and not fact based, and obviously successful in causing society to question the morality of the Clintons. Again, they were cleared of all charges, but somehow we prefer the hooplah created by the media than the truth. And hooplah is exactly what Obama's campaign is all about. I find it distressing that we prefer a candidate who is evasive at best, and unproven, than one who has been tried and tested over many years, and has demonstrated her capacity by emerging strong. I'm not willing to take a chance on an unknown idealist. I wouldn't hire an idealist unproven talent to run my corporation and I certainly would not elect him to run my country

All manner of change is not acceptable. Change in and of itself is not necessarily good. I'm voting for the candidate with a proven track record of change in the areas that matter most to our country. If you prefer an idealist who spouts pie in the sky rhetoric, than go ahead and vote for Obama.

It's funny how no one talks about Bill Clinton being impeached. It's a big secret. If many people knew that, Hillary wouldn't stand a chance.

iam a strong Obama support -- adn another Democrat who will not for a Clinto again. I will vote for McCain who will be a much better and respected presidietn than Clinton --- I will also not vite for her again for US senator in NY -- she got my vote twice -- nto again.
I think referring to her as a former first lady runnign for President --as the mayor of Atlanta did yesterday -- is much morfe accurate than the first woman viable candidte for pres.

If Obama is fortunate enough to win the nomination of the Democratic party, who will he be calling up to ask for mercy, or to complain to when the Republicans start their assault, George Bush?
Rest assured, he ain't seen nothing at this stage, this is playing footsie.
Get real Obama, real politics is a contact sport, aka hardball.
You are not running unopposed here like you practically did in IL

Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

HILLARY 08

Bill Clinton is not wrong by saying Obama has not always been against the war. In July 2004, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on authorization of the war. He also said in July 2004 that there was not much difference between his position on Iraq and George Bush's. Those two statements were addressed on Meet the Press on Nov. 11, 2007. Based on those statements, Clinton is not wrong saying that Obama has not always been against the war. Obama could not have always been against the war if he was undecided on the authorization vote, as he said he was, in July 2004. And how could he be against the war if his position was the same as George Bush.'s Obama's positions are inconsistent.

HRC can NOT win in November. Period. What is more important than that fact? Nothing.

Take a look at all of the polling out there. Ask yourself how she's supposed to turn around the half of the country that has been hating her for some 15 years? It's crazy she has gotten this far. It seems the Dems have found yet another way to lose a general election: let the machine and an ego-driven, ex-President persuade us that we need a Clinton dynasty to match the Bush one.

Get ready for the McCain administration, folks. 1,000 years in Iraq just around the corner!

And Cindy McCain versus Chelsea Clinton in 2016. Yippee!

There are alot of things I don't like about Hill, but the worst of them can't come near the distain I have for Bush/Chaney. Bill got a BJ; Bush/Chaney f***** the nation, the Constitution, the enviroment, jusitice, and the people of Iraq. The BEST thing about Hillis she has the vindictiveness (I hope) to continue investigations and prosecutions against the criminals now in the executive wing. And please don't give me that, "Let it all end" bs. A deterent has to be created. DO you think all this, or Iran-Contra would have happeded if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon and let the Dick sit in a jail cell for a few years? Besides, do you think the Rightwing is going to "play nice" if Hillary wins?

As much as I believed in the Clintons at the beginning, they have lost me purely on the choice of campaign that Hillary has chosen to allow to stand for her. Previous to declaring her intentions to run, she was a different person on the issues that she appears to be now. It's like she's been channeling her husband too much, even after she "found her voice". Didn't she have a "voice" this whole time in the Senate?!

Here's the thing. Who is Bill embarrassing? You, Jonathan? Why? Because he criticizes somebody in a political race? Oh, my heart's a-flutter. When will Democrats, including slimy little quislings like Rahm Emmanuel -- he's from Chicago, isn't he? what other politician is from Chicago? Oh. -- stop snitching on other party members to the press. Ted, Rahm, if you don't like what the Clintons are doing, be men: call them on the phone. Don't embarrass the party by snitching to Jonny Alter. Why is it that Democrats always do this coward's maneuver?