The Clintons play dirty when they feel threatened. But we knew that, didn't we?

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.

The problem is not Hillary Clinton per se or the sharp exchanges and personal accusations that squeamish political reporters deplore. That's what politics is always about. Tough, even nasty conflict is educational, also entertaining. Politics ain't beanbag, as Mark Shields likes to say.

The one-two style of Clintons, however, is as informative as low-life street fighters. Mr. Bill punches Obama in the kidney and from the rear. When Obama whirls around to strike back, there stands Mrs. Clinton, looking like a prim Sunday School teacher and citing goody-goody lessons she learned from her 135 years in government.

I thought Obama did quite well in response, looked strong and stayed in character. But we shall see. He was compelled to play defense and to hope the audience recognized foul play. It's possible the Clintons won on points, simply by making Obama look like a confused young man who had to keep repeating what he had actually said.

The style is very familiar to official Washington, not just among the Clintons' partisan adversaries, but among their supporters. The man lied to his friends. All the time. They got used to it. They came to expect it. I observe a good many old hands among the Senate Democrats are getting behind Obama. It would be good to know more about why they declined to make the more obvious choice of endorsing the power couple.

We are sure to see more of Mr. Bill's intrusions because the former president is pathological about preserving his own place in the spotlight. He can't stand it when he is not the story and, one way or another, he will make himself the story. I used to be sympathetic toward Mrs. Clinton on this point. No longer.

She is using her egocentric husband to do the low-road hits for her campaign. He is good at it--a real charmer if you've never seen his act before. Or is Mrs. Clinton's husband using her? People can ask that question without disturbing the principles of feminism.

Evidently, many of the mainstream party faithful want the Clinton team as their presidential nominee. It's their choice, of course. But does the rest of the country really deserve this?

Comments (67)

1. Damn, isn't it the truth? Well said.

   What is it going to take to set their ship sailing into the sunset?

   Posted by Lil at 01/23/2008 @ 12:12pm

2. What is it going to take to set their ship sailing into the sunset?

   Posted by LIL 01/23/2008 @ 12:12pm | ignore this person

   simple. votes for the other guy should do it.

   Posted by emile duBois at 01/23/2008 @ 12:23pm

3. "from her 135 years in government."?!?!?

   Typo or is Mr Greider atypically trying a little humor?

   Well, regardless, he better load up on the Pepto-...cuz it looks like he's going to be "queasy" for 4-8 years. She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed may have surrendered South Carolina (60% Obama-15% HRC, she has no shot there)...but the upcoming Super Duper is full of "ladies and Latinos" and that's all she needs (as shown in Nevada).

   Hate to say it, but I think JOHN JOMAMMA MAASCH had it right a year ago (and to today)....She IS going to be the nominee!

   Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 12:34pm

4. Thanks William for allowing me the cathartic experiencing of seeing some of the truth told about the Clintons, in a place in the media.

   What is shocking to me is that, after 8 years of the radical lunacy of George Bush, and after 8 years of self-serving, craven, and dishonest capitulation from the Democratic Party DC establishment, the primary voters of the party and the nation's voters in general seem so willing to nod and smile vacuously as the Clinton Two-Step comes back to town, exactly on schedule.

   For Christ's sake! The phrase "ego candidate" never had so much meaning as it does when used to characterize the Clintons' candidacy. After 8 years of Bush, there is absolute no reason beyond entitlement and ego for Hillary to run. She has not just failed to resist the Bush administration, in the few meager years she has actually held elected office (courtesy of her husband), but she has actively gone along with him, in almost all of his worst excesses, purely in the self-serving pursuit of her personal presidential ambitions.

   It is a genuine cause for despair, to see this corrupt, lying, bloody political duo so casually allowed to start playing its same old tune, all over again, with impunity.

   So, thanks again, for being one of the few honest, candid voices anywhere in media, with respect to the Clintons.

   Posted by Zero at 01/23/2008 @ 12:43pm

5. Also, not that they will ever see it, but thanks as well to Barbara Ehrenreich and Maureen Dowd, who have the character and decency not to jump on the pseudo-"feminist" back-Hillary bandwagon, but, to instead, buck the tide and write honestly about Hillary and the Clintons.

   Posted by Zero at 01/23/2008 @ 12:47pm

6. C'mon, after all she's suffered? Doesn't she deserve to be empress? Haven't we pardoned the Pardon Sellers?

   One hopes against hope for Edwards.

   Meanwhile, settle back, pop a med & enjoy the spectacle of recesssion, more war, shrinking dollar, the Super Bowl -- our birthright.

   Posted by sloper at 01/23/2008 @ 1:09pm

7. US women wanting to vote for Hillary because she is a woman really, really should two things before voting:

   1) consider what Maggie Thatcher has done for British women during her time as a prime minister, namely basically throwing back the movement for gender equality at least a decade.

   2) Read this article by Tracy Fishman on Obama's stance on women's rights (sorry, for one reason or other, linking does not work): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a -vot_b_82842.html

   Posted by elziax at 01/23/2008 @ 1:22pm

8. Speaking of egocentric liars, here's a link to an article about the Center for Public Integrity's report detailing the 935 -- that's nearly one thousand -- false statements made by Bush Administration officials in the run-up to the Iraq War. Included are Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell and others.

   Posted by RLawrence at 01/23/2008 @ 1:23pm

9. Failed link. The 935 Bush Administration Iraq War lies story is at www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

   Posted by RLawrence at 01/23/2008 @ 1:27pm

10. Posted by RLAWRENCE 01/23/2008 @ 1:23pm

    RLAW...does it matter any more? Anybody left to be convinced?...one way or the other?

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 1:28pm

11. I think the point Greider is making is that we can do better than the lies of the Clintons or Bush/Cheney.

    It is time to move away from this sort of dirty politics of the past and elect someone that we can be proud of!

    The classic tell-tell case is the difference between Obama and Clinton on marijuana use in their youth:

    Clinton: I "almost" tried marijuana in my youth, but I didn't inhale.

    Obama: I tried marijuana in my youth, and yes I inhaled; isn't inhaling the point of using it?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/23/2008 @ 1:45pm

12. Well Frankgrits will reappear sometime soon to inform us that all of these dirty tricks and lies are just necessary to get Hillary and Bill back into the White House.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2008 @ 2:09pm

13. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/23/2008 @ 2:09pm

    FRANK's MIA on a lot of these "Clinton hit pieces", LVLIB.

    I think he may be on the verge of giving up on "TN" because it's so "anti-Clinton"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 2:11pm

14. I think he may be on the verge of giving up on "TN" because it's so "anti-Clinton"!

    Posted by MASK 01/23/2008 @ 2:11pm

    Yeah, I noticed a lot of complaints from him that liberals here just don't understand how vital the Clinton's are and will regret it if they don't support her.

    I mean, I continue to support Bush overall, but I find him to be like all presidents and people in general, a decent but flawed person. I disagree with Bush on many things and never have expected him to be perfect; there is no such politician, left or right.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2008 @ 2:24pm

15. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/23/2008 @ 2:24pm

    plus, bush is good for the cluster bomb business.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/23/2008 @ 2:29pm

16. 935 lies, cataloged.

    Here's the actual report from the Center For Public Integrity [tinyurl.com].

    And Mask, it will always matter, and every Bush apologist needs to be reminded every day, until they apologize no more.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

17. NO!! We don't want this! The country can't afford another Clinton term! Hillary is toxic. It was clear before her little fake "moment of clarity" in the New Hampshire diner and it's really sad that people fell for that whole crock. The real Hillary is now showing her true colors and broomstick and she's got her flying monkey, Bill leashed up and ready to sling poop on anyone who threatens to speak truth!

    Posted by how2be1 at 01/23/2008 @ 3:06pm

18. Here's the actual report from the Center For Public Integrity [tinyurl.com].

    And Mask, it will always matter, and every Bush apologist needs to be reminded every day, until they apologize no more.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

    Why would we apologize for just another leftist piece of trash. I looked at it and just going by their front page, there is not one lie listed.

    There is nothing to apologize about in the decision to resume hostilities with Iraq. It was and remains a legitimate response to a dictator that was unrelenting in his desire to rule the middle east and provoke death and destruction to the US and Israel.

    your posting DR H is meaningless just as is every other leftist attempt to rewrite history.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/23/2008 @ 3:19pm

19. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/23/2008 @ 2:24pm

    Well, that's true. You haven't been as slavish devoted to Bush...as FRANK is to "Akasha"! 80% maybe though...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 3:20pm

20. And Mask, it will always matter, and every Bush apologist needs to be reminded every day, until they apologize no more.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

    As immediately noted by LVLIBERTY....sorry, Doc. They ain't going to apologize.

    Despite no "slavish devotion", guys like him ARE devoted to their ideology and STILL think that invading Iraq was a 'neat idea' and have come up with additional excuses for it.

    But no minds will be changed at this point, nor apologies offered.

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2008 @ 3:22pm

21. Goodness. Are we really going to reward the guy who tapped the intern while his wife was helping herself to the silverware?

    I never thought we'd say this but.... END DYNASTIC RULE IN THE US!!

    yes, I'm voting for Obama.

    Posted by capitolist at 01/23/2008 @ 4:00pm

22. Its funny how the comments have devolved into how Bush lied, when the story is all about the Clintons and how everyone knows how much they lie. Keep your beady eyes on the ball folks! Well, if The Nation believes Bill is a big liar, how come they defended the slob for eight years? Its no use fighting this, Hillary is going to be the Dem nominee and poor Barack will join poor old John Kerry in permanent obscurity as a has-been politician who was crushed by the Clinton/Soros/Move-On/Center for Whatever/Podesta/Ickes/CNN/MSNBC machine. Barack is history, and is only getting a small taste of what Billary and pals have in store. When are we going to WAKE UP and move past the Clintons? Huh? Also, Billary is preparing something BIG for the week before Super Tuesday that it will drop on Barack and that will be the story until the votes are cast - its in the works, friends. Count on it.

    Posted by Volkmeister at 01/23/2008 @ 5:19pm

23. Of course, the question must be asked: Is Hillary running for president or is Bill running for a third term? I seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace pulling the same stunt with his wife.

    Posted by Krogy at 01/23/2008 @ 5:33pm

24. By the way, not to defend the indefensible Clintons, folks are mentioning the report produced bt the "Center for Public Integrity" outlining the 935 "lies" of the Bush administration after 9/11. In the interest of intellectual integrity, has anyone bothered to match the so-called "lies" to similar, if not identical, statements about Iraq and Saddam Hussein made by Democrats before Bush took office. . . anyone, anyone? If the "study" is worth anything, it should detail pre-Bush/Cheney statements made by Bill Clinton, and his entire administration, including the CIA and FBI. If you bother to do so, you will be less inclined to swallow what the report is trying to convey. Oh, by the way, did you know that the study was funded by a George Soros organization? I forget, is he a Bush supporter? Nah! This report does nothing except waste paper and valuable resources that can be better used by Billary in attacking Barack.

    Posted by Volkmeister at 01/23/2008 @ 5:35pm

25. The question I have for liberals is this: Are you so sick of the tag team sleaze of the Clintons that you wouldn't vote for Hillary in a general election? I know that would be much to ask of anyone who hates Republicans but, nevertheless, would liberals refuse to vote for Hillary in a general election?

    I admit I'm a Republican but would like to think I'd despise the Clintons even if they were Republicans. After all, we all know they only care about themselves. Hillary would just as easily run as a Republican if she and her tag team partner thought that was the easiest way back to the White House.

    Posted by NewMex at 01/23/2008 @ 5:51pm

26. WOW: You guys all are echoing what we Republicans were saying about the "TWO HEADED MONSTER", as Maureen Dowd called it, during its 8 year tenure in the White House from 1992-2000. The Democrats unwavering support for the Clintons through one sleazy episode after another is the primary reason for W's VICTORY in 2000 (Don't give me that crap about the Supreme Court giving Bush the election). If Democrats had truly denounced the Clintons in the 90's the 2000 election wouldn't have even been close. If Bill had been convicted by Congress, as he should have been, your man Gore would have been President and George W. Bush would be turning up beers in a red neck Texas bar. You have only your selves to thank for the power these two and for that matter W have. You shouldn't have sold your souls in the 90's. McCain was the man in 2000 and he is the man now!

    Posted by scar at 01/23/2008 @ 5:58pm

27. Excellent article. I ended by high school years with a Bush as President, I started and ended college with a Clinton, I became a teacher under and Clinton and a Bush, and here I am with 2 children who may be subjected to another Clinton. I can not take it. In the desire by us independents to rid our selves of this quazi-monarchy and to rid ourselves of failed neo-con policies, we will divide the nation and the conservative candidate will win, and we will continue to become a paper tiger in the world. The people need to realize quickly that the hatred of the Clinton's outweighs any positives and in the end she will loose in the general election. Mark my words, either the Bush Admin will produce the charred remains of a body they purport to be Bin Laden shortly before the election, OR they Dept of HS will come out with a new terror warrning at the same time. The pattern of reports from the DHS follow really near to the election cycles. The Sheeple will follow what ever they are frightened by, be it the Clinton machine or the Buch Propaganda Office. I want a new, fresh face to take a crack at the job, and I don't want to continue this Bush-Clinton Oligarchy into the future: Jeb Bush is still out there, Chelsea is still out there, and there is more to follow unless we take a leap of faith and CHANGE. Yes, it is hard, but it beats the hell out of doing the same crap over, and over again. Plus, if Hillary looses, as I am sure she will against the likes of McCain (and I'm no Republican, it's just how I see it at this point), she will no longer be viable as a legit. candidate in 2012, and we may look to Obama again and say, "well, that was stupid, we should have picked him to begin with". But it will be too late, and the nation will be a shell of its former self.

    Posted by Buckley at 01/23/2008 @ 6:33pm

28. Of course, the question must be asked: Is Hillary running for president or is Bill running for a third term?

    Posted by KROGY 01/23/2008

    Indeed, the question must be asked, and the answer debated..... and not only here at the Nation's blog.....

    Maybe we could phrase it thusly: Which Clinton is Obama running against? Of course, the answer to that question is, both. Perhaps then we should get back to the original point of which Clinton will actually be running things, should they win. Of course, we probably already know the answer to that, too, because if Hillary can't keep Bill from shooting off his mouth on the campaign trail, then how can we really expect her to control him once he's back in the White House? And, what will that mean to the presidency?

    These questions likewise need to be asked, and answered.

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/23/2008 @ 8:01pm

29. Hillary has TONS of experience. Unfortunately, it is not legislative experience. Barack beats her on that. [planningcommunications.com]

    Nope. On "DAY ONE" she's gonna use her 35 years of experience as a ballbuster to start attacking the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that dogged Billary for eight miserable, scandal-ridden years. After all, THAT'S her "experience."

    Posted by zelduh at 01/23/2008 @ 8:47pm

30. More gratuitous attacks on Clintons. When they respond to critics, they're slimed as slimey. The public has turned off to the media entirely at this point -- the pundits, the cute writers -- pseudo-sophisticated views are now out and you may have a rude awakening in November, which I think you will.

    Posted by scorber at 01/23/2008 @ 8:50pm

31. More gratuitous attacks on Clintons. When they respond to critics, they're slimed as slimey.

    Posted by SCORBER 01/23/2008

    Note, the reference to "They", as in, Hillbillary, the package deal, the co-presidents. Not Hillary, the actual candidate.

    I rest my case.

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/23/2008 @ 8:59pm

32. Oh why is it we hate our greatest progressive president in recent memory! We so quickly forget the balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, and the boom-net economy. Are progressives just plain dumb or have they forgotten the value of 35 years of competent performance. Barrack Osamma is a small time political wheeler dealer who accepts favors from wealthy slum lords (Resco's wife helped buy him a house in Chicago after he was a Senator, but he didn't know...); BO is a liar. He has achieved nothing and I'll bet he isn't even black. Jesse Jackson was black and he is no Jesse Jackson!

    Posted by rvormwald at 01/23/2008 @ 9:14pm

33. Damn, the Hillbillary shills are out in force tonight! Bill isn't running! Or, is he?????

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/23/2008 @ 9:21pm

34. Rerhaps the unmentioned reason that many Democratic senators are endorsing Obama instead of Clinton is that thay are weary of having their FBI files used to pressure them. The ghost of Craig Linvengstone may still be lurking in the halls of the Capitol.

    Posted by tadzio at 01/23/2008 @ 9:28pm

35. Thank you for that; it felt good. While I fear the Clintons may indeed deceive the dems into nominating Hillary, I strongly suspect that, between the heretofore dormant republicans and the scorned Obama supporters, a consensus shall develop around the notion of "not over my dead body will Billary be president again," and so the Clintons unquenchable thirst for self-aggrandizement will end with their being blamed for again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and allowing a republican to again take the white house. With any luck at all, both Hillary and Bill will be roundly reviled by not only their long time enemies, but also their newfound democratic ones, and we shall be rid of them once and for all, good riddance.

    Posted by chanayut at 01/23/2008 @ 10:13pm

36. How DARE Bill Clinton campaign for his spouse! It's two to one--like an out-of-control tag team match. And William Greider is right! She's using him, or he's using her, or WHATEVER, but I DON'T LIKE THEM. And they're not being nice to Obama.

    Give me a break! The Obama supporters are the biggest crybabies I've ever seen in a national election. You think this campaign is dirty? No, claiming McCain has an out-of-wedlock black baby in South Carolina--that's dirty. Or claiming Clinton had one. What the Clintons have said about Obama is absolutely fair game in any presidential election. Greider may offer the obligatory, "It's not beanbag," but then he goes on to complain about hardball politics. What a joke. HRC made it clear from day one: "I'm in, and I'm in it to win." If anyone thought she was going to lay down for a freshman senator (or any other candidate), they simply didn't take her seriously from day one. What I like most about her is her thick skin. Go ahead and whine, fellas, she's getting ready to be president and she won't start whining when Ahmedininajad starts in on her and she won't expect to kumbaya all her opponents.

    Dudes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the freakin' kitchen before the Republicans start in on the Dem ticket.

    Oh, and William Greider? While you're wondering about those Senator endorsers of Obama, you might want to mention that Hillary has endorsements from 77 members of Congress, including ten senators. Or is that expecting too much fair play?

    Posted by jthannon at 01/24/2008 @ 12:53am

37. Mr. Grieder: Nice hatchet job on Hillary Clinton and her husband. Wow, chopping up the Clintons has never been done before and you deserve high marks for disguising the venom of old wags with new 21st century packaging.

    I don't care if you don't like Hillary, or would not want to have a beer with her, or him, but Hillary is the most qualified person to be the next President of the United States in either party. People (voters) recognize that, and that's why she's going to win the Democratic nomination and the general election.

    And, as your 401(k) fattens in the next eight years, and our troops make an intelligent exodus from Iraq within a year of her taking office and America becomes a place that nations once again admire, please feel free to repackage your silly and sophomoric drivel about Bill and Hillary Clinton and tell us how awful he is, and she is.

    PS. I'm nominating Barack Obama for the William Grieder Whiner of the Year Award for 2008. Hope you will show up to present it should he win.

    Posted by Politicalpuck at 01/24/2008 @ 06:26am

38. LVLIBERTY1 gives credence to the:

    You can fool some of the people all of the time.

    Posted by Lil at 01/24/2008 @ 07:09am

39. This is rich:

    "The Obama supporters are the biggest crybabies I've ever seen in a national election"

    Waaaaaaa! Those mean old boys are ganging up on poor little Hillary--whose feelings are hurt because no one likes her and she sheds a tear because it is "so difficult" now that she wasn't just elevated onto the throne and she had to call out the royal pitbull and all the ladies-in-waiting claiming her genitals are paramount while she swings her dick with the best of them. Give me a break--she and her feminist ladies trashed the women sleazy Bill groped and I cringe everytime I see her smug little look of self-satisfaction.

    Don't think for a moment that any self-respecting woman would line up behind that.

    Posted by Lil at 01/24/2008 @ 07:24am

40. I can tell you that myself, some friends and family have gotten turned off by the Clinton's behaviour to do anything to win and will not vote for her if she gets the Democratic nomimnee. Their behavior and distortions like at Meet the Press in which Hilalry said: "Sen. Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.'' When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto's death will ''call into issue the judgment'' of ''taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.'' and their recent attempt in voter suppresion in Nevada has shown a lot of people another side to them we did not know existed and it does not look pretty. In their quest for power at all costs, they have split the party -- there is a deep divide.

    They seem more like Karl-Rove Republicans than Democrats it is a shame to see their moral demise!

    Posted by bacalove at 01/24/2008 @ 08:11am

41. "935 lies, cataloged.

    Here's the actual report from the Center For Public Integrity [tinyurl.com].

    And Mask, it will always matter, and every Bush apologist needs to be reminded every day, until they apologize no more."

    Posted by DRHAMMER 01/23/2008 @ 2:35pm

    To all who read this and thought I was looking for Bush supporters to apologize for the lies, maybe you should learn how to read.

    For the record, it means that Bush apologists should be reminded daily why they should not be Bush apologists.

    And to LVLIBERTY1, thanks for coming out from under the bridge long enough to critique my post. I know you must have much more appreciative audiences elsewhere, yet you just keep giving.

    Bless your little heart.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/24/2008 @ 08:42am

42. FROM 'HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT WEBSITE' - PRESS RELEASE 12/12/07

    "...She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks..."

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

    GO OBAMA!

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/24/2008 @ 09:28am

43. Posted by DRHAMMER 01/24/2008 @ 08:42am

    You're right, Doc. Did mis-read it.

    But I don't change my answer. Guys like LVLIB will be around for the next 40+ years telling us how "We were JUST on the verge of 'winning' in Iraq...when you libs pulled the plug...we had ONLY lost 4500 GIs and spent a measly 2 trillion dollars, and you surrender-monkeys just HAD to get out, huh?"

    Look at Vietnam...same guys still around today claiming we "were winning, if only...blah, blah, blah". And those guys still think the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was "justification" for us propping up a corrupt and unpopular government and losing 59,000 GIs and hundreds of billions there too.

    They definitely won't apologize, and they probably will never stop being apologists...ever.

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 10:26am

44. This article is based on lies.

    Consider: Obama's voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton's, and collects money from the same corporate donators.

    Obama whispered "race" and the Clintons became "racists" (Obama himself says "he regretted allowing his staff to push race with media)

    N O T H I N G Hillary Clinton has said is racist, so where the f*ck does this accusation come from? How's it feel to be white, and in a fair fight with someone who's black, be deemed as a racist after years of proving your not? How does that FEEL?!

    Obama is a RACE BAITER.

    Racist?

    How about Obama's making fun of Hillary's Indian supporters? D-Punjab...Is THAT ethnically racist? Why, it's the equivalent for Obama of D-Farrakhan's Ghetto. How's that feel?

    Let's see...Hillary's comments regarding LBJ and MLK, or Obama's D-Punjab But hey, it's ok...there's not *that* many Indians that will be voting, huh?

    Obama's friendship with Rezko...oh, he didn't know that this guy was involved in illegal activities? Maybe he should have read the Chicago Tribune.

    Obama's the "anti-war" candidate? Really? SO you're saying that even though he lives in the BIGGEST DEMOCRAT stronghold in the Midwest, had he been in a position to vote for the Iraq Resolution (NOT The Iraq WAR Resolution), he wouldn't have suffered politically?

    Better yet, someone who approached Hillary Clinton 3 years ago for "advice and mentoring" would suddenly out of the blue veer from his IDENTICAL voting record to Hillary's, and vote NO on the Iraq Resolution?

    Wow, you people are ignorant.

    Posted by joshdestardi at 01/24/2008 @ 10:46am

45. I just canNOT believe that the people I considered more savvy to political/media manipulation that you people would make blanket statements like "clinton's behavior" WHAT BEHAVIOR? Sheep.

    Posted by joshdestardi at 01/24/2008 @ 10:47am

46. You people actually want a noob to try to extract us from Iraq, deal with Iran, fix the economy? I initially said "any dem over any republican" But after Obama's race baiting, I will NEVER vote for him, EVER.

    Posted by joshdestardi at 01/24/2008 @ 10:48am

47. William Greider usually writes well-researched, carefully reasoned pieces. This is a different kind of piece, more worthy of Maureen Dowd than Greider. It shows that if readers dislike somebody, they will applaud when the somebody is insulted, even if the insults aren't based on anything relevant. Call it "Clinton baiting".

    Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/24/2008 @ 11:16am

48. Something must have struck home at Clinton Campaign HQ....

    given they've put the "Blog Rapid Response Team" into play.

    (Don't worry, they all disappear as soon as the thread gets buried!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 12:35pm

49. People (voters) recognize that, and that's why she's going to win the Democratic nomination and the general election.

    Posted by POLITICALPUCK

    Masky, Yep.

    They're starting that inevitability line of BS, too...... You'd think they'd at least try to be original.

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/24/2008 @ 1:15pm

50. What a bunch of hypocrites all you lefties are proving yourselves to be. Slick-willie, indeed. When Clinton was running against a Republican all we heard was what a clever liar he was, news articles about how sometimes lying is done for someone's good, how wonderful he was, why, the press fell all over themselves fawning over them. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you all see how devious they are, how they hit below the belt, lie, scheme to destroy people's lives and guess what? They didn't stop once they were in the oval office. it just continued. 500 FBI files, anyone? have you guys read the archived documents just released from the clinton health care plan from jay rockefeller? "the media is willing and waiting for guidance..." and also describing the strategy to get opponents, to disclose their "lifestyles". the "vast right-wing conspiracy" had nothing to do with that. And there's plenty more where that came from if the clintons would release ALL OF THEIR ARCHIVES. come on. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET BACK INTO THE OVAL OFFICE AND WOE TO THOSE WHO CAME AGAINST THEM DURING THIS CAMPAIGN.

    Posted by dittomom at 01/24/2008 @ 2:27pm

51. Great post, Mr. Greider. The Clintons aren't Democrats, they're Clintonites - it's like Argentina, where the wives run and the Peronists rule. I think the Clintons will sacrifice the Democratic Party, it's just a shell, to advance their dynastic ambitions. Similar to the Bush family using the GOP as a shell for their personal ambitions. Crony Capitalism, as practiced by both parties, fosters these crime-family dynamics. The Clintons' adoption of Atwater's Southern Strategy is another example of shared practices by the establishments of both parties. It's not about ideology, it's about power and money.

    Posted by fougasseu at 01/24/2008 @ 2:50pm

52. Mr. Greider, I guess you did not watch the Philadelphia Debate where both Obama and Edwards ganged up on Hillary. Your hero, Obama, has never directly answered Hillary's and Edward's questions about the cost of some of his plans or about who is covered under his health plan and other issues posed to him. He's a great dissembler.You give no concrete examples of the low ball politics of the Clintons but Obama and Edwards can call Hillary a liar and in the pocket of corporate interests who has been bought and paid for as she does their bidding! Of course she's a woman and therefore cannot fight back and her husband cannot defend her. But the main thing that gives me an ulcer and breaks my heart is the following:

    Any Black person or for that matter anyone that went thru the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's or who even went to Harvard Law in 1991 who forgets the following does not get a pass from me: How can Senator Obama forget about this:

    In 1980 Ronald Reagan kicked off his general campaign for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He went there to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them". In essence he was continuing the successful Republican "Southern strategy" of Richard Nixon. However, for Senator Obama to put Ronald Reagan on pedestal for the movement he created is unforgivable:

    In 1964 James Chaney ,a 21-year-old black man from Meridian, Mississippi; Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old Jewish anthropology student from New York; and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old Jewish social worker also from New York, all civil rights workers, were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

    There is no excuse for Senator Obama not to remember this. For all the cities in the South for Ronald Reagan to choose to start his campaign in this place which is hallowed ground was and is unconscionable. Senator Obama has to be held to a standard that all candidates should be held to and this glorification of Ronald Reagan and conservative ideas is very troublesome.Black Americans as well as all of us should know how little Senator Obama knows about the Civil Right movement of the 1960's. He is trying to back away for his admiration now.

    There can be no excuse for his ignorance! This alone should make him not eligible to be our nominee.

    Posted by mpauls at 01/24/2008 @ 2:55pm

53. Posted by MPAULS 01/24/2008 @ 2:55pm

    Do you guys get paid by the Hillary campaign, or purely volunteer? If paid, mind saying how much? Always curious about that.

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 3:42pm

54. I'm not supporting Clinton. I'm just disappointed to see a journalist who I admire write something that sounds a lot like Ann Coulter. It's light on information and heavy on personal bias, and the expected bias of the readers.

    Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/24/2008 @ 3:53pm

55. Posted by ROD BICKLES 01/24/2008 @ 3:53pm

    I'm sorry but if you're...

    (A) a "mysterious new comer" to the "TN" blog

    and (B) calling William Greider out for "sounding like Ann Coulter"

    You're on the HRC Campaign Staff payroll!

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2008 @ 3:59pm

56. Posted by MASK 01/24/2008

    Actually, I'm unemployed, but maybe they'll cut me a check for freelancing.

    Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/24/2008 @ 5:42pm

57. It's amazing that the Clinton tag team seems to get rewarded for being all teeth and slinging mud. Conversely, on the GOP side, you see candidates crying foul over every little thing, and the media does its best to crucify candidates for pointing out deficiencies in others. If they can't stand a little criticism now, how will they ever be able to lead the country??? At least on the Dem side, we get to see a little about how they might handle pressure if elected.

    I don't know if any of the candidates have what it takes to be an effective POTUS. One thing's for sure, we need someone who can find the right solutions, and get things done. The real problem is most of these people don't have a clue what the real problems are, let alone have an idea how to fix them, and much less have the ability to get them done.

    I could never vote for anyone supporting this political Global Warming drivel, Government health care or Fair Tax. That pretty much eliminates all of the serious candidates except Romney. I just don't know if he's got the political fortitude to deal with and motivate congress to get things done.

    Posted by whala at 01/24/2008 @ 7:52pm

58. This article hits the nail on the head.

    Posted by LisaAK at 01/25/2008 @ 11:59am

59. All you're saying is politics is rough and the Clintons are really good at it: "Politics ain't beanbag." A boxer doesn't get to blame his opponent for being better than he is.

    The upshot of everything the Clintons say is "Obama is all talk, no action." Try using the same tactic on Eisenhower -- Ike is all talk, no action? No traction. If Obama could counter 'all talk, no action' by pointing to some action, the Clintons couldn't tie him up in knots. They are just exploiting Obama's huge weaknesses -- and keeping it a lot cleaner than the Repubs would -- the Repubs don't have to worry about alienating black voters.

    Yes, the Clintons are good -- better than anyone on the Repub side. They beat the crap out of Newt Gingrich and they'd have beaten Karl Rove.

    Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards don't compare to Hillary in '92 as a political spouse, nor to Bill in 2008. The Clintons are just better than the competition.

    By the way, where's Oprah? She could come to Obama's defense -- she's a match for Bill in commanding media attention. Her woman's demographic--Clinton's base--told her to stay out of it. Obama's base can't silence Bill like Hillary's base scared off Oprah -- because Obama's base ain't paying Bill's salary. It's called juice, baby, and Hillary's got it.

    Posted by whoframedrudy at 01/25/2008 @ 2:08pm

60. Once again, William Grieder hits the nail squarely on the head. I always enjoyed his column in Rolling Stone. I wasn't thrilled with the Clinton Administration's marriage to large corporate interests. How's NAFTA working for you? It has bled the people of Michigan dry. I'm so sick of smarmy politics/politicians because they treat us like chumps. And while the Republicans can't govern their way out of a paper bag, Hillary Clinton is not much better. More of the same won't produce different results. We desperately need bold leadership to correct the neocon debacle, not someone who is as polarizing as Shrub/Darth Vader.

    Posted by GoCards1978 at 01/25/2008 @ 5:42pm

61. Failed policies of W&Co? Really?

    ... while paying the price of playing dumb & looking incompetent (vide Gonzales), W&Co nonetheless got what they wanted: 1) huge shift in wealth to the top, 2) permanent large imperial military presence in MidEast, 3) protection for many (if not the most grievous) corporate malfeasors, 4) major rollback of constitutional protections. Just a few of some rather large accomplishments, especially in view of fact that W&Co got a Dem Congress to go along ... how failed is that?

    And they got away with stealing 2 elections. How incompetent is that?

    And now they've locked in the next emperor(ess) to their most of their goals.

    W&Co didn't lose, they've won. They just look & smell bad, weeping all the way back to their estates & mansions & yachts & Lear jets.

    Watch what happens as the disappointments with the Dems mount up in & after '09. So many more weapons for dealing with dissent now in place. Buy your Blackwater shares, quick, before the price soars.

    Posted by sloper at 01/25/2008 @ 10:32pm

62. A politically savvy dynamic duo the likes of which we haven't seen. The glib statesman and the ball busting bitch from hell make a formidable good cop/bad cop team. Republicans should brace themselves - paybacks are hell. Only one problem - Bill's cozy with Geo HW Bush, and Hillary with Newt the Neutered. Are they CIA agents working for Bush Sr. since college?

    Posted by outtanames999 at 01/25/2008 @ 11:13pm

63. Well, I wish to apologize to my associates on the right. I stood blindly by during Bill's 8 years of duplicity and deceit. Not this time. I am 55 years old and have NEVER voted GOP in a presidential election - until now. If the Clintons (yes both) are nominated - I will vote GOP this year.

    Posted by murrieta at 01/26/2008 @ 10:57am

64. We have the attention span of little children. Rather than appointing a special procecuter for Bush and Cheney, we are delighting in conflict within our own family!

    This story of Democrat infighting is mainstream news today.

    2 trillion dollar war, economic crisis/uncertainty (understatement), elimination of the middle class, no healthcare for millions of poor children, a base of Christians led by an evil liar (sound familiar?), and what do we focus on??????

    The personal faults of the Democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How can we restore impartiality to corporate media now that the rich have total control of what we hear?

    Posted by procecutebush at 01/26/2008 @ 11:35am

65. Are they CIA agents working for Bush Sr. since college?

    Posted by OUTTANAMES999 01/25/2008 @ 11:13pm | ignore this person

    If the Clintons (yes both) are nominated - I will vote GOP this year.

    Posted by MURRIETA 01/26/2008 @ 10:57am | ignore this person

    Outta, they are BOTH members of Skull & Bones... and beholden to the highest bidder as always.

    Murr, I'm only 53, but my position on this issue ie exactly the same as yours. I'll hold my nose and vote McCain/Romney/Huckabee/whoever, rather than those two classless, amoral, egocentric, power-mad misanthropists. They are NOT Democrats!

    Posted by sjduskin at 01/26/2008 @ 1:28pm

66. What is it going to take to set their ship sailing into the sunset?

    Posted by LIL

    What it will take is a loss to John McCain in November and 12 years (at least) of GOP control of the White House. And it seems to me many of the party faithful (many, not all) are content to go along with this.

    McCain will clean her clock.

    Posted by hhemwm at 01/26/2008 @ 1:57pm

67. Posted by MPAULS

    Clearly you believe the lies Bill Clinton told.

    Not once did Senator Obama praise Reagan's ideas. He said that Reagan changed American politics and made the Republicans the party of ideas. This was a statement of fact. He never once praised the Reagan agenda, he merely pointed out that the Democrats needed to shift the initative back.

    You are flying off the handle. And to throw in the comment about Senator Obama being ignorant of the civil rights movement is such a tremendous presumption that it reminds me of, well, Bill Clinton's complete and utter mischaracterization of Senator Obama's remarks.

    Get your facts right.

    Posted by hhemwm at 01/26/2008 @ 2:00pm