The Clintons are making a lot of mistakes. I can only explain it by saying that it has to be arrogance. I think arrogance has been the hallmark of Hillary's campaign from the start. I have a Dem friend who says the Clintons' pictures are in the dictionary under the word "narcissists".

once seemed to have the ability to inspire with an articulate voice about his vision for all Americans.  We aren't hearing that vision so much these days.  

It's a sad statement about what happens when political families become too cloistered inside Washington.  

You are hurting your candidate more than you are helping him by writing diaries such as this and characterizing President Clinton in such a disgusting way.  If you have a beef with the facts, then outline the facts.

It is obvious that you do not like the Clintons but you don't make much of a case for Obama.  Talk about his record, his character, his performance.  If Obama is a strong candidate he can withstand criticism if his position/record are defensible.  

This doesn't help Barack Obama at all.  Heck, I'm supporting OBama and the title of this diary turns ME off!  C'mon, Lee, you can do better than this.

Talk about his record, his character, his performance.

But, that's exactly what Lee did.  He explained OBAMA'S RECORD based in the facts, the context of the Russert interview, and made a logical conclusion that Bill Clinton was being disingenuous with people in asserting that Barack Obama was "for the war".

That kind of distortion of Obama's record (ie FACT) is about as Rovian as it gets, and perhaps the ones who should be "withstanding criticism" here are the Clintons?

That's exactly what Lee was doing, and it is no more out of line or irrelevant or nonfactual than Clinton's incorrect characterization of Obama was.

Some may not like the tone or title, but it clearly shows the frustration about how this primary is being run.

Lee makes valid A point that may be overshadowed by his anger.

The cold hard fact is that Clinton is trying to twist the truth about this.  

Can you give specifics (not opinions or feelings) on how Hillary and Bill Clinton have twisted the truth so a response or agreement could be in order?

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war, so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq. Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, '4, '5, '6, and '7.

If the Party is more important than the war and speaking out about it... " so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq." then when is the good time to have the courage to speak out AGAINST the war?

If Obama is so concerned about the unity of the Party (Kerry), why then did he run against Hillary who the Party seemingly was united behind.  

This all doesn't make factual sense to me.

Hillary's been "for the war" and "against the war" as well.  Frankly, I wouldn't "go there" if I were a Hillary supporter.  In general, I see this entire debate over who was "for the war" and who was "against the war" as pretty much sterile at this point.  The question now is, what are we going to do moving forward?

As far as Obama running, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  Are you saying that nobody should have run against Hillary Clinton, and that the entire party was "united behind" her?  If so, I strongly disaqree.

I think I dashed off this reply too quickly.  The point I was trying to make was that Clinton can legitimately challenge Barack's assertion that he's always been against the war based on his comment about Kerry, etc.

On your second comment/paragraph, I apologize for the confusion and attempting to make a very poor point.  

I'll leave it there, if that's okay.  

of the Clinton supporters that people cannot stand! We should all drop down on bended knee for the Clintons.

Like I've said before, Bill and Hillary Clinton are the LAST people on the planet who should be accussing other people of lying.

I'd like to provide President Clinton's words, that have turned into a controversy.  I believe they are about the media's lack of attention to Senator Obama's claims on his position on the war:

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want.

In my opinion, President Clinton was stating his feelings that the press had given Senator Obama a "free ride".  In my opinion, President Clinton has not accused Senator Obama of lying but accused the press of poor journalism.  

And lastly, in my opinion, a campaign to win an election should have the right to make statements such as President Clintons'.  

...because he WAS asked about it!!!  CONSTANTLY!!  For Bill to characterize the press the way he did, was inaccurate, and the further implication that he waffled in any way whatsoever, while showing respect to the 2004 nominee, is hogwash.

The issue is not whether Barack Obama was accused of lying.

The issue is his record opposing the invasion of Iraq.  He was consistently opposed to the invasion.

There are a lot of issues swirling around.  They basically have to do (it seems to me) with a certain amount of uh..., frustration in some circles at Barack Obama's success as a Presidential candidate.  I don't mean to be coy about this, but it is hard to be polite etc because it has been so nasty.  And for someone (not you Dianne) to accuse an Obama supporter of writing a hateful diary is just another example of how some people are approaching this campaign.

It is wrong that a variety of issues have gotten so twisted up and distorted.

On my own behalf, I absolutely did not initiate any attack on a candidate or a surrogate speaking on behalf of a candidate.

but what I saw and read was that Bill Clinton found what he believed were holes in his record.  Very small holes though.  Since he is campaigning for Hillary, he was getting pretty frustrated that the press was not addressing them (the small holes) and thought they were giving Obama a ride.  He's allowed to believe that and to say it.  What the public thinks of it is another story.  

I really don't think Clinton has actually challenged Obama's overall anti-war position but he thought he would take what he saw and felt was wrong with the press and went with it.  As you know, it is what campaigns do.  And even Obama admitted that his campaign staff used the race issue in the 4 page talking paper.  Frankly, I'm glad that they fought back with the that talking paper in SC.  I want to see Obama fight for what he sees is right and what he believes in.  After all, if nominated, he will face the Republican trash machine very shortly.  Believe it or not, these sort of situations will make him a better candidate to face the Republicans.

I think that Dianne and I have made some progress on the Iraq question.  This could continue, but I think the point has been made.

To the other Clinton supporters:  Other Obama supporters here have expressed harsher opinions than I did.  Anyway, I don't think Obama supporters are criticizing you.

At the risk of being repetitious, I'd like to offer the opinion that Obama has run an outstanding campaign.  One tv commentator said he's writing the textbook on how campaigns should be run.

I am also extremely proud (as someone else expressed) of him as my candidate for POTUS.  I have shown a willingness to exercise independent judgment (saying it is fair that he should be tested on the experience question), but when it comes to the subtext (race, gender, personal) stuff, we should not give any quarter.

Obama is an honorable person and he has run an honorable campaign.

You've stated it very, very well.  Thank you for putting this "problem" and "solution" into such an eloquently written comment.  

And not worth the click it took to write this comment.  

The title alone is worthy of Redstate or FreeRepublic.  Why are you turning on one of our own in order to make Obama look good?  It isn't necessary and makes you look like lame.

Hateful things have happened in this campaign.  Most of the attacks have been sort of subtextual and seeking to dredge up underlying fears related to our history going way back and other fears people maybe subject to experiencing.

If we're going to move on and have a constructive dialogue.......and we do depend, of course, on our Pres candidates to lead the way on that.....I am one who would like to focus on the issues.

I do not believe that winning is the Only important thing in politics,  If, however, an opponent plays dirty, I do not want the candidate I am supporting to allow him or herself to be slimed.

Michael Dukakis made that mistake in a big way.  Subsequent candidates also made the mistake.   Our candidates must be prepared to defend themselves.  Otherwise, the public may conclude that a candidate for office is not capable of defending America.