When Bill Attacks

Intentionally or not, Hillary Clinton's campaign has found its most aggressive attack dog. His name is Bill.

In recent weeks, the former president has done just about everything to get his wife elected, including taking on Barack Obama in strikingly negative and personal language. In a December interview with Charlie Rose, Clinton alleged that voting for Obama would amount to "rolling the dice" on the country's future.

In New Hampshire he called Obama's record on Iraq "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Following New Hampshire he said that Obama's campaign had called Hillary "a racist" and feigned praise on Obama by saying: "It's been a brilliant campaign, and this is an example of how brilliant it is: It rests on a false premise."

At times President Clinton has been a brilliant ally for his wife during the campaign. At other times, he's taken her completely off-message, such as suggesting that he had opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. This week he's been at it again.

As Hillary attempted to disassociate herself from a lawsuit in Nevada, filed by allies of Clinton in the local Teachers Union, that threatens to prevent thousands of casino workers from voting at caucus sites set up on the Vegas strip, Bill endorsed the lawsuit, saying it favored one group of workers, namely those from the Culinary Workers Union who endorsed Obama, over others. (Read my recent post for background on the lawsuit and its players.)

On Wednesday, things got even more heated, when Bill had an angry exchange with a California TV reporter about the lawsuit, claiming that votes at the at-large caucus sites, on the Vegas strip, would count for five times as much, in terms of delegates, as the rest of Nevada's voting locations. (Click here to watch the must-see exchange.)

Reporter Mark Matthews later concluded that Bill's claim of a 5-1 advantage "is possible but highly unlikely."

But the facts haven't stopped Clinton from railing against Obama's union support in the state. "In this case the establishment organization is with him and the insurgents are with her," Clinton said on Tuesday. The Clintons as the anti-establishment? Even for a politician as talented as the former president, that's quite a stretch.

UPDATE: A federal judge just ruled against the lawsuit. According to CNN: "The Democratic Party can go ahead with a plan to let casino workers take part in Saturday's Nevada caucuses in 'at-large' precincts set up in their workplaces, a federal judge ruled Thursday."

Comments (60)

1. She NEEDS a pit bull...and it can't be her because if she acts like such a dog, the obvious terminology for a "female dog" emerges.

   And Bill's a master. He knocked Jesse Jackson and Sistah Soulja on their asses in 1992...and a few years later, Toni Morrison is calling him "our first black President".

   Mind you, what will be lost on drooling thralls like FRANKGRITS and HELENDAO, will be that ...

   She needs the Hubby to rescue her!

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 1:08pm

2. HRC needed hubby Bill to get the NY Dem senate nomination in '00, he was sine qua non for her then. And she needs him to get the Dem nomination now. Without hubby Bill, we would never have heard of HRC.

   Posted by Lit at 01/17/2008 @ 1:13pm

3. i think bill just wants to smell those white house carpets one more time...............

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 1:15pm

4. This so like the Clintons. In the end it's all about Bill and his "legacy" with Hillary "standing by her man" so she can ride along on his coattails to her rightful place in history. Eight more years of these two corporate sell-outs is more than this country can take.

   Posted by Steve1us at 01/17/2008 @ 1:18pm

5. Bill Clinton is the new Dick Cheney? There's something poetic about that, and he can be a living example of the effectiveness of gun control, if they can just make sure he doesn't shoot anyone in the face.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/17/2008 @ 1:24pm

6. The smart move, in my humble opinion, would have been not to comment on the lawsuit to the reporter at all.

   So much for staying above the fray.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

7. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

   For those of you who still have not heard:

   There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

   It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

   http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

   YES WE CAN

   Anne

   Posted by annevilla at 01/17/2008 @ 1:37pm

8. Bill Clinton is going to turn out to be a liability for camp Clinton. America is tired of the politics of the past and wants to move on beyond the Bush/Clinton era to a new chapter in American politics.

   Calling in chits and other favors he amassed as president on behalf of Hillary is one thing, but putting him out front to remind voters of the politics of the past is not very insightful, and is additional evidence that Hillary's advisers are over-rated and only know how to run a "divide and smear" campaign to match the past political strategy of Karl Rove.

   Hillary looked beyond the nomination when hiring these folks, when she should have hired a completely different type of adviser to win the "positive" campaign that resonates with the American voter of today.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 1:39pm

9. Crude, John. For some reason it brought to mind that scene from Full Metal Jacket. This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun.

   I'll expect Jessica Valenti will post something explaining how it has something to do with the patriarchy and why we need a few thousands years of matriarchy to make everything all better. If you can send one man to the moon, why not send them all - although I think having all the guns on the moon might be oppressive too. Men, can't live with them, can't live without them.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/17/2008 @ 1:51pm

10. He will hold their base for her.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 2:08pm | ignore this person

    But FRANK, doesn't it bother you, at least a little bit, that it appears Hillary can't do this on her own without Bill?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/17/2008 @ 2:14pm

11. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/17/2008 @ 2:14pm |

    FRITZ, FRANKG must still have me on Ignore....

    "Mind you, what will be lost on drooling thralls like FRANKGRITS and HELENDAO, will be that ...

    She needs the Hubby to rescue her!"----Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 1:08pm

    and EXACTLY ONE HOUR LATER...

    "He will hold their base for her."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 2:08pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 2:25pm

12. If the polls showing Barack now even with Hillary nationally, and Bill has already been acting like a partisan maniac-- then they're in major trouble. Talk about double teaming, makes Barack look twice as strong that he's been able to knock 25 point off her lead while Bill's bad mouthing him even. Apparently you can't fool enough of the people enough of the time... The problem then becomes if Bill gets even crazier and begins to make headway bringing down both Hillary and Barack.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 2:25pm

13. Senator Leahy Endorses Obama

    January 17, 2008 10:50 AM

    http://tinyurl.com/3datry

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 2:31pm

14. Katha Politt in The Nation 6 January 2008

    '...Obama ... said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity. ...'

    LA Times --- 16 October 2007

    '...The full extent of accused swindler Norman Hsu's political network was revealed for the first time Monday in campaign finance reports...Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) received $28,000 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee received $27,000. A political action committee for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) received $24,500, and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's campaign got $19,000....'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/17/2008 @ 2:35pm

15. The problem then becomes if Bill gets even crazier and begins to make headway bringing down both Hillary and Barack.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/17/2008 @ 2:25pm

    Hey,hey...onto something there.

    What if Bill screws up both Hillary and Obama so bad, that by the time one of them wins the nomination and goes to the Convention, they are so un-popular and the Party so divided, that the delegates decide to abandon their promises to HRC or BO and decide to nominate some "dark horse" candidate to run in 2008?!??!!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 2:42pm

16. the one endorsement that really counts and that is the endorsement of the leader of the democratic party and that's Bill Clinton.

    You guys are so full of yourselves you haven't even noticed that the Democratic Party has CHANGED since Bill "was" the leader. When Bill was the head of the conservative/centrist Democratic Leadership Council, things were different, as most Democrats were trying to be like Republicans with their "tough on defense" and "tough on crime" stance.

    The Democratic voter, however, has shifted left, and therefore the leadership of the party must shift left as well. This makes Bill Clinton an OUTDATED LEADER of the party that no longer speaks for the average Democrat. By the time you guys figure this out, Obama will be cruising past the Democratic nomination on his way to becoming the FIRST NON-DLC LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SINCE CLINTON, and the first post-FDR progressive President of the United States!!!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 2:42pm

17. '...Obama ... said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity. ...'

    HONESTLIB,

    You obviously didn't READ the senate floor statement by Obama on the Patriot Act. Here it is:

    Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

    Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

    Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

    This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

    * We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

    * We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

    * We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

    * We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

    * And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

    The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

    Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

    The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

    So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

    I thank the chair and yield the floor.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 2:50pm

18. Obama is getting endorsed by this one or that one but will never have the one endorsement that really counts and that is the endorsement of the leader of the democratic party and that's Bill Clinton.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 2:08pm

    Bill endorses Hill because he HAS to, not because he WANTS to.

    Plus, I would argue that at this juncture, Al Gore is the endorsement that has the most weight. If Gore endorsed Obama, that would seal the deal.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

19. So when you compare Obama's LEADERSHIP in the fight to improve the civil liberties protection in the Patriot Act with BOTH Hillary and Edwards support of the 2001 Patriot Act "AS IS", it is clear who is serious about protecting our civil liberties and who is "triangulating".

    Paul Krugman should stick to Economics, because he obviously is out of his league when it comes to doing "serious" political analysis.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 2:54pm

20. It is clear both Hillary and Bill will say anything and do anything to win and get back into power. They are very comfortable with lying left and right to try to get votes. To think I actually supported Bill when the conservatives were saying that he was a pathological liar...as it turns out, they were absolutely right for once.

    If the Clintons win the nomination it will be a sad sad day for politics and democracy.

    Posted by bridoc at 01/17/2008 @ 2:54pm

21. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'

    Obama never talked about "bombing Pakistan" - he said if there was "reliable intelligence" of Bin Ladens whereabouts in the ungovernable region of Northwestern Pakistan, he would not hesitate to take Bin Laden out! Hillary called this "naive" back in September, but now has changed her position to support Obama (as has Edwards).

    And what is wrong with putting Republicans in the cabinet who agree with us on the progressive issues of the day? If a Republican is serious about breaking America's addiction and dependence on oil, for example, who cares what his party affiliation is?

    And Krugman should count the number of attempts Obama made while a senator in Illinois to pass universal healthcare there. Obama finally prevailed in getting women covered, but if "anyone" studies his record there, Obama was the fiercest advocate for universal healthcare that that state has ever seen!

    Krugman's analysis is TOO SUPERFICIAL, and doesn't go deep enough to get at the truth. Anyone listening to him rather than uncovering the facts for themselves is either lazy or a bitter partisan who is stuck in the past.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 3:02pm

22. If Gore endorsed Obama, that would seal the deal.----Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

    Gore endorsed Howard Dean in 2004.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 3:04pm

23. "The problem then becomes if Bill gets even crazier and begins to make headway bringing down both Hillary and Barack."

    In favor of Edwards? Unlikely, but welcome.

    Posted by Lit at 01/17/2008 @ 3:08pm

24. Hillary called this "naive" back in September, but now has changed her position to support Obama (as has Edwards).

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/17/2008 @ 3:02pm

    Was she critical when Bill tried to nail top AQ folks in Sudan (was that the country) with missile strikes? Doubt it.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2008 @ 3:10pm

25. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/17/2008 @ 3:20pm

    But Gore's standing has changed since 2004. He is now St. Alfred, patron saint of the environment. People love him.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2008 @ 3:23pm

26. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/17/2008 @ 3:20pm

    But Gore's standing has changed since 2004. He is now St. Alfred, patron saint of the environment. People love him.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2008 @ 3:24pm

27. Hey Frank, polls work, sometimes it's the count that's wrong or er, in some cases-- stopped.

    NH CONTEST: DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS REPORTED ACROSS MANY CANDIDATES, WARDS, IN FIRST DAY OF ELECTION CONTEST HAND COUNTS

    Also: Diebold Memory Cards Unaccounted For; Public Record Request by Election Integrity Advocates on Ground Reveal 550+ Votes Read as Blank by Op-Scanner in Stratham...

    Clinton, Kucinich Observers There, Nobody from Obama or Edwards, Says Election Attorney...

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5568

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 3:25pm

28. Bill Clinton is the leader of the democratic party until he's dethroned. He hasn't been yet so stop your whining.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 3:14pm

    As soon as Bill became a self-serving partisan attack dog for his apparently too weakly wify, he ceased being an impartial magnanimous presidential figure imparting wisdom beneficial to our nation, party or me.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 3:39pm

29. But not to worry, if Barack wages a more respectful campaign and ends up getting the nomination, he will have Bill Clinton's endorsement and then the deal would be sealed for sure.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2008 @ 3:19pm

    But then THAT would involve YOU FG, going against orders from Bill, since you've said if he gets the nomination, you're voting Republican?!!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 4:03pm

30. Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/17/2008 @ 3:24pm

    Well...that's what his followers keep telling us anyway.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 4:04pm

31. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 4:03pm

    BTW, what I'm referring to....

    BLOG | Posted 01/15/2008 @ 10:59pm Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton by John Nichols

    "When Obama becomes the obvious nominee?"----Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2008 @ 5:21pm

    "Obvious nominee is redundant. If he is the nominee so be it. I will be voting republican in that case."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/16/2008 @ 7:45pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 4:17pm

32. If Obama was around in 2001, he would have voted exactly like Clinton and Edwards and you know it.

    WRONG!!!

    That is PURE SPECULATION on your part, FRANKGRITS, as it is doubtful that Obama would have voted for the Act in 2001 if he were in the US Senate at that time because of his background as a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.

    Barack has ALWAYS been the strongest advocate of civil rights and civil liberties, and even got the police and other law enforcement to support a racial profiling law in Illinois.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/17/2008 @ 4:24pm

33. BET founder apologizes to Obama

    From Suzanne Malveaux CNN Washington Bureau

    (CNN) -- The founder and former CEO of Black Entertainment Television apologized Thursday to Sen. Barack Obama for what appeared to be veiled comments this week regarding the Democratic presidential hopeful's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

    Bob Johnson, a high-profile supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, said he sent Obama a letter and also was reaching out by phone.

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded Thursday afternoon, saying, "Obama accepts the apology. We're going to leave it at that."

    Johnson drew criticism following remarks he made Sunday at a Clinton campaign stop in Columbia, South Carolina.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.obama/index.html

    Bill better be next.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 5:25pm

34. "In Johnson's letter to Obama he wrote, "I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the uncalled-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 5:29pm

35. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/17/2008 @ 5:32pm

    Believe that if you want, but he would win in November 08 hands down over any of the current bunch (Dem and GOP both).

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2008 @ 5:51pm

36. Hey BT, you got something there-- Al's been right on all the issues, has Obama's presidential and rock star aura, is all over 'change' and innovation, but then again also has 10 times more experience than Clinton! As well as 100 times more experience than any of the repub's running, not to mention all his change/innovation awards will make them all just look, well just plain silly by comparison.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 6:29pm

37. It would put Bill in a pickle though.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/17/2008 @ 6:30pm

38. I watched the Clinton/Rose interview before and my impression is that Bill Clinton was trying his best to point out why he felt his wife was a better choice while still not saying anything particularly damaging about Obama. This is a campaign after all and he is an advocate for his wife, so I think he should be allowed to draw a contrast. His "role the dice" analogy was just a way to highlight a weakness in Obama's argument essentially, isn't it? He is merely asking the audience to compare accomplishment with rhetoric. While I am not a supporter in the primary of either one of these campaigns, I still think Mr. Clinton ought to be able to add a legitimate point to the campaign. When did arguing your advantages to the public become "out of bounds?" Mr. Obama on the other hand shows himself quite able to argue his counterpoints. Isn't this just the exercise of free speech?

    Posted by Erik at 01/17/2008 @ 7:25pm

39. He didn't.. he shot the blue dress...........

    I couldn't resist the opening.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/17/2008 @ 1:34pm

    You don't need a polygraph to get a Clinton to tell the truth...just a blue dress.

    Posted by Sliver at 01/17/2008 @ 7:38pm

40. "Obama's campaign had called Hillary "a racist""

    I like that quote personally from the man helping the campaign that has called anyone who attempts to verbally confront Hillary on any matter in this campaign sexist. Bravo Mr. Clinton

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/17/2008 @ 7:53pm

41. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/17/2008 @ 6:29pm

    But of course you're NOT saying he will run this year....

    cuz that's just crazy!

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 7:55pm

42. ...just a blue dress.

    Posted by SLIVER 01/17/2008 @ 7:38pm

    Remember, Bill is a perfectionist, depends heavily on what color "blue" is....and, it's not sex if she didn't "inhale"!

    Posted by Happy at 01/17/2008 @ 7:56pm

43. Posted by LIT 01/17/2008 @ 1:13pm - in part:

    Without hubby Bill, we would never have heard of HRC.

    Exactly.

    She is an empty suit, even worse; she has to hide who she really is. She would have gained a smidge of respect from me if she or Monica's boy friend would have said, "yeah, we are behind the law suit, the plan to hold caucuses in casinos and hotels was going to hurt our chances at winning in Nevada"

    Honesty from a politician, let alone a Clinton?

    Posted by Econ Major at 01/17/2008 @ 8:02pm

44. Democratic Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York, the 42-year-old brother of the late president, made his announcement just four days after New Hampshire.

    "I'm announcing today my candidacy for the presidency of the United States," Kennedy said on March 16, 1968. "I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies."

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 8:04pm

45. Re: When Bill attacks ...

    That's right thing to do. Bubba is too soft for too long. Be a man, jump on bad guys who attack your wife.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/17/2008 @ 9:01pm

46. Be a man, jump on bad guys who attack your wife.----Posted by HELENDAO 01/17/2008 @ 9:01pm

    Cuz she can't defend herself?

    You want to use that idea for a...future Commander-in-Chief?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 9:08pm

47. Please Democrats--defeat the Clinton machine---The divisiveness of the Clintons will tear this country apart. Bill needs to fade into oblivion. If New Yorkers want Hillary as their Senator I guess the rest of us will have to live with it, but do not allow the cold, calculating, and devious Clinton' anywhere near the White House.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/17/2008 @ 9:26pm

48. On this thread, FRANK forgot to mention how "How do you know a lot of those write-in ballots weren't for Hillary and got thrown away?"

    and now, he's going to go back and sleep with his wife...uh...Morgan Fairchild!

    Yeah...that's the ticket!

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 9:44pm

49. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 9:08pm

    Well, I beleive even if a woman's the defense secretary or a body guard, her husband still has to defend her. Too old fashion? But if Hillary did many times for her man, what's wrong if Bubba returned the favor? Look at the way the feisty Mr. Obama attacked Hillary and you also want to jump in even not being her man.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/17/2008 @ 9:57pm

50. Posted by HELENDAO 01/17/2008 @ 9:57pm

    So she needs Bill to defend her against political opponents and reporters....

    but SHE'll defend us against Kim Jong-il, Ahmadinejad, and Al Qaeda?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 10:09pm

51. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 10:09pm

    How right, you slight devil. Well, baby, never forget that survival in Amrican politics is much much much harder than beating guys like Putin or Gadaffi or Ho Jintao or any other foreign.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/17/2008 @ 10:16pm

52. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 10:09pm Read this The swift-boating of Hillary by Obama:

    ----------

    Ad: 'Hillary Clinton does not respect our people'

    The radio ad aired by one of Obama's labor allies re-injects ethnicity into the Democratic primary contest in sharp terms.

    "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people," the ad says in Spanish (original and Clinton campaign translation after the jump), referring to the lawsuit that failed today to shut down special caucus sites on Las Vegas' strip. "Hillary Clinton is shameless."

    "Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people. Sen. Obama's campaign slogan is 'Si Se Puede.' Vote for a president who respects us, and who respects our right to vote," the ad says, according to a transcript provided by the Clinton campaign and confirmed in part by a union official.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/17/2008 @ 10:26pm

53. Posted by HELENDAO 01/17/2008 @ 10:16pm

    Ya think Her Majesty would like to say that "It's a lot tougher facing a political opponent and confrontation press than some of the worst dictators in the world" and then talk about how "a woman is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief"?

    Posted by HELENDAO 01/17/2008 @ 10:26pm

    Gee, let's see...FRANKGRITS on the Culinary Workers who want to vote said "a lot of them are illegal immigrants" and Bob Johnson said that Obama was doing drugs while Hill and Bill were fighting for civil rights...and yet...

    HILLARY is being "Swift Boated" by somebody saying she doesn't respect Latinos!

    Gotcha.

    BTW, you know FRANKGRITS has promised that if she doesn't get the nomination, he's voting Republican.....you too?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 10:36pm

54. I've repeated this hoping someone would notice:

    Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's C-SPAN broadcast seminar for college students in Arkansas a little more than four years ago? His prescription for winning a presidential race contained three items:

    A) show people that you have the qualities that people like in your opponent. B) show people something about your opponent that if people knew it, they wouldn't like them so much. C) show people something that your opponent can't possibly offer that you can.

    First Hillary came out for change (after Barack-Iowa), Second they trotted out the (false) Iraq war and abortion claims Third Hillary was a woman (the New Hampshire tears)..something Obama can't be.

    Posted by hrayovac at 01/17/2008 @ 10:43pm

55. Hillary Clinton claimed she has no opinion about the Culinary Workers - but Bill Clinton does???? How is that honest????

    Why are the Clintons always willing to use Republican tactics against Liberals - but never against Conservatives????

    Posted by conshame at 01/17/2008 @ 11:43pm

56. When it comes to the mostly non-white Culinary Workers, its scorched Earth and dishonesty. When it comes to Republican Authoritarians, it's bi-partisan compromise.

    Posted by conshame at 01/17/2008 @ 11:45pm

57. Back to the museum with this guy.

    Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/18/2008 @ 05:58am

58. It is obvious that the Clintons wanted it both ways in regard to the Nevada lawsuit to curb union voters caucusing in casinos. Hillary unequivocally stated on Meet the Press that she had nothing to do with the ligitation, while Bill vehemently and angrily defended the merits of it. (Oakland exchange with reporter) This is the usual double message the Clintons communicate. To win an election and obtain power, they will be duplicite, dishonest, and more.

    Posted by mozart453 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:16pm

59. posted by MOZART453 01/18/2008 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person

    piano concerto KV. 453 was written for Barbara Ployer, and is famous in particular for its last movement, although it is altogether a great work. (Wiki)

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:19pm

60. but I digress.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:20pm