(or Hillary for that matter) should be able to "... show admiration for a president who did what he said", I  hope you would agree that, by doing those sorts of "admirations", Obama and Clinton are taking the risk of losing the Democratic base vote (by them not showing up at the polls) -- those who believe in the progressive agenda -- not the conservative agenda of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.  The sooner both candidates understand this the better for each of them.  

(Not directed at you Lowell)  And I hope that we can take some time away from the candidates to talk about the issues:  the war, the environment, the economy and what to do about it and, with it, the liberal/progressive approach versus the conservative/regressive approach!  By the results of the last election, the voters clearly said they were ready for the liberal/progressive agenda.  Lowell, I appreciate that you and others continue to blog the issues.

She took those comments and ran with them in Nevada.  She shot and she scored a primary win.

More importantly for the Clintons, they understand the importance of momentum going into Tsunami Tuesday and the massive pool of delegates on the line.  If Obama had pulled out that Nevada victory, he would have launched into a nearly uninterrupted series of victories leading into Feb 5.  Florida has no delegates, but South Carolina does, and he has basically come from nowhere to be the palmetto frontrunner.

Hillary said from the beginning "I'm in to win."  Whether the Hill and Bill, good cop / bad cop routine causes lasting scars within the party is the real danger, and it's something we must be very aware of.

The republicans may wake up and actually nominate their only marginally viable candidate, John McCain, and if we nominate Hillary, that may be the one thing that could happen to unify the Republicans for 2008.

Despite all the polls and trends and money and Bush dissentery in populace, only a strongly unified Democratic party will win back the White House.  

Party unity is our mandate.  With it Dems will earn a governing majority and will be able to truly face the future.  Without it, it could take another 4 or 8 years for America to really address the critical issues we face.  On the economy, middle east, and the climate crisis, we're already deep in the yellow zone.  Time is running out.  There are no time for divisions.  We must emerge from this primary season united.

I agree that Obama's comment about Reagan changing the "trajectory" of the nation was a harmless comment.  Reagan indisputably had great communication skills, and used them masterfully.  Did he change the "trajectory" of the nation?  I have no idea.  

What I found more interesting was that the Meet the Press panel's primary interest in talking about the Democratic candidates was in the context of what they were saying about Reagan.  Secondarily, they were interested in criticizing Bill Clinton for campaigning for his wife, and how that supposedly reflects badly on her.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, Jon Meacham, Peggy Noonan, Tom Brokaw, Michele Norris, and Tim Russert.  Peggy Noonan was one of Reagan's speechwriters, wasn't she?  Now a Wall Street Journal columnist.  Look, these celebrity pundits are only interested in the Democratic candidates as foils for their favored Republicans.  Doris Kearns Goodwin wasn't defending Obama, so much as she was defending Reagan.

Did you catch Brokaw's comment, when he likened the voters to a herd wandering aimlessly over the landscape looking for a watering hole?  Real great, Tom.  In politics, that would be called a gaffe -- when you mistakenly say what you really think about something.

Think about it, all these folks are being paid to tell us what we, ourselves, just heard, saw or read.  Are we so dumb?

They are provocateurs....it makes money, sells books, can get you on a lecture circuit.  

I can make up my own mind and don't need their opinions.  If I want entertainment, then I'll read a book, choose a movie, or listen to some music....

someone I respect greatly, someone like Doris Kearns Goodwin?  Are you telling me you NEVER listen to anyone else's opinion, that you only go on "what we, ourselves, just heard, saw or read?"  Well, personally, I find it VERY helpful to hear what people like Mark Shields, Josh Marshall, and others I respect have to say.  Obviously, it's your right to ignore them, but I  choose to hear what they have to say...with skepticism, of course.

I have no problem with Doris Kearns Goodwin as a presidential historian, or even the observations that she made about the importance of great communication skills in a President.   I'm fed up with the Meet the Press format.  

I believe Tim Russert and his staff often put together his shows the way a lawyer puts together a trial.  Not always, but often.  When they do, the whole object is to make or prove certain points, and I think during those exercises he brings on people to say what he wants them to say, and what he knows they almost certainly will say.  Cross examination is saved for those he regards as "hostile witnesses."

Doris Kearns Goodwin has been on MTP a whole lot.  Here's what she had to say in part about Reagan in 2004, during the Meet the Press tribute to Reagan:

MR. RUSSERT:  The issue of accountability.  I want to bring in Doris Kearns Goodwin and Andrea Mitchell, if I can.  In 1983, the terrible loss of 282 Marines in Beirut, the barracks blown up.  The president again went to the country and said this:

(Videotape, December 27, 1983):

PRES. REAGAN:  If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president, and I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  Doris Kearns Goodwin, how often do we hear that from a president?

MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:  Much too rarely.  But I think that was part of the magic of Reagan, that he was able to establish a national bond with the people so that he projected his own sense of confidence, his optimism, his jauntiness, onto them.  It wasn't just that he was confident.  They felt more confident and more trusting, and he revitalized the office of the presidency, just, interestingly as FDR did.  . . . So it'll take the biographies coming out, the memoirs coming out, people thinking about the arms race and what Reagan did.  But there's no question, nothing will take away that bond that he had with the American people, which in a democracy is maybe the essential quality of the leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/51...

So Russert knew what she was going to say, and she was there to say it again.

By the way, Peggy Noonan was on the air for the 2004 MTP tribute to Reagan too.  Maybe it was just chance that they were both on again yesterday to talk about Reagan, but I doubt it.

Obama's comments are pretty small fish, but there is an election going on, and Obama's comments are fair game. The problem with them are that it buys into what is essentially a conservative fairy tail.

So, Lowell, I have to disagree with you, Obama and Goodwin (who is a great historian) about your analyses of Reagan as a political figure, independent of his mean-spirited, cruel and ill-advised policies.

I understand that Ronald Reagan is a great hero to conservatives -- well, ok, they need their heroes too -- but in my recollection (admittedly, I have might have been under the influence of various mind-altering substances for part, well, most of the era) he was not transformational in the mold of, say, FDR. Or in the mold of what Obama might ultimately prove to be (though I am undecided as between him and Hillary - I like them both).

Consider one aspect. Reagan is credited with forming  a unique electoral coalition, and arguably he did in attracting the votes of many urban, disaffected Democrats, but that  coalition did not survive him, unlike FDR, a true transformation figure, who spearheaded a coalition that survives to this day. Reagan in fact transformed nothing.

I suspect a hundred years from now, after the current generation of conservatives looking for validation of their screwy ideas (particularly the economic ones) has died out, Reagan's historical significance will be seen as fairly minor, defined more by the crocodile adulation bestowed upon him by acolytes than anything of substance he accomplished in his own right.

If Grover Nordquist has his way, though, people will wonder why everything in their town bears Reagan's name.

Your comment needs repeating!!!

"Reagan is credited with forming  a unique electoral coalition, and arguably he did in attracting the votes of many urban, disaffected Democrats, but that  coalition did not survive him, unlike FDR, a true transformation figure, who spearheaded a coalition that survives to this day. "

...Reagan's coalition has held together for 27 years and counting.  

I was reading something into az's comment.  What I was assuming (really reading into it):  that he was saying that the Reagan Democrats were attracted to Reagan but economically Reagan failed them and did not lift them up.  

I see your point, though.  

Perhaps one could argue that the Reagan Coalition, which I would define as consisting of three basic parts - social conservatives, so-called supply-siders and a large swath of traditional and urban, but economically disaffected Democrats held together for Bush in 1992, but where has it been since then?

Since 1988, the GOP has won one the popular vote for only one presidential election (2004), and that victory was not based on the Reagan coalition -- in fact, it expressly rejected that coalition -- but rather on an appeal to a narrow portion of the party's socially conservative base. Take a look at the electoral maps, and watch as the West coast and the Northeast begin to turn blue in 1988. At best, the so-called Reagan coalition survived two election cycles (1984 and 1988) past its emergence, but as I said, 1988 is iffy.

Project out an reasonable expectation of Democratic victory in 2008, and it translates into 4 democratic popular vote victories and one GOP victory in the 5 elections after Reagan/Bush I. That is simply not an enduring coalition.

The coalition built be FDR, in contrast, held for almost 8 election cycles, up through 1968 (the Hump lost, but the FDR coalition held), interrupted only in 1952 and 1956 with Ike, whose election was based on his war hero status more than his identification with any party agenda.

Lowell, I take the time to respond because I find the subject matter interesting, not because I think it has much relevance to the current election. The flap over Obama's statement ought to be a non-issue, and I wish the Clinton campaign would just stop trying to exploit this sort of idiotic stuff. I think she is a better candidate and a better person than that.  

and good point about Republicans not winning the popular vote in 1992, 1996, or 2000.  Plus, they lost Congress in 2006, and show no signs of gaining it back in 2008.

I've read and enjoyed your comments and a diary would be interesting to read.

You should know better than to believe anything that is said about the Clintons. The serial hatred against them is like turrets, pundits and the right spit out lies with impunity.

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

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.

No matter how you spin it, Obama heaped praise on Reagan and that is not wise in a Democratic primary, whether you agree with his point or not (I am in the latter group).

on the conservative (or, if you prefer, neo-conservative) movement which did indeed change America's trajectory. To this day we are still discussing social, economic and foreign policy within the framework he set up, and which was very, very different from that of the previous 50 years. In that sense, I have to agree, he came into office and did as he intended, implementing a very different concept of government and policy under the guise of restoring America to what he claimed was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Before he won the Republican nomination and went on to win the Presidency, he had tried to do so in the previous electoral cycle; in those days to describe someone as a "Reagan Republican" was to paint them as pretty crazy, unrealistic, right wing, not mainstream. But once he won the election and was installed he began to replace that view of himself and the conservative "movement" with a new reality from the getgo, with which we are living to this day. That Bush I and II have given us the full flowering of the "movement" does not invalidate the fact that it all began with Reagan's Presidency.

We might dislike the results of conservatism, but we should not fail to recognize that Reagan's accomplishment was to change rhetoric into deeds, and that, I believe, was what Obama was trying to explain. Reagan promised and, unlike most politicans, delivered.  

Obama sees, I think rightly, this country at a similarly important juncture politically.  

Where Reagan's moment crystallized feelings, institutions, issues, and vision into a big-idea movement ready to lead the country, (down the tubdrain, I agree), so Obama is looking to take the moment and lead this country back... to undo many of the things that conservatism screwed up, while also promoting and reinforcing the new progressivism of freedom, democracy, and authentic strength.

It's midnight in America... time for a new dawn.

You are right in both your comments.  You both are bright, well-informed, well-versed, and analytical thinkers and writers.  

Unfortunately, the public, for the most part, cannot distinguish the nuances that you (and Obama) make on what was said and what they heard.

He just needs to be more careful when he speaks and also needs to speak more to the Democratic electorate.  

If a statment needs to be explained, it wasn't good to begin with.  

Just because a statement requires further explanation doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.  Sometimes, complex concepts require lots of discussion before they become clear.  For instance, the more I think about what Obama was saying, the more I think he was onto something important.

At the end of the day, if you turn off Democrats, how can that be good for winning a race?

The electorate isn't as smart as someone like yourself, nor are they going to think about and analyze this statement.  

I agree that he is definitely into something very important.  But if we want to change people's minds about Democrats and bring the Democratic agenda to the White House, then the Democrat candidate must sell his case, whether it's a movement, an idea, a method, etc.  I just don't think he did that here, at least to the everyday Democrat who doesn't want to hear Reagan and Clinton compared.      

... to have addressed the Democratic base within his comment, if he felt he must a) talk about Reagan and b) talk negatively about Bill Clinton.  He didn't seem to do that and he put Clinton in the negative column; ergo, he made the left angry ... and that is not a good thing.  

makes the "left angry."  If you haven't noticed, the Clintons aren't particularly popular on the progressive blogosphere.  Stuff like "triangulation," "the era of big government is over," "ending welfare as we know it," NAFTA, etc., etc. doesn't make the "left" very happy.

Yes, I agree that some of the progressive blogosphere do not like some of Clinton's policies and thought they were bad.  However, when he left office, the public thought he had been overall good for the country. He left with a 66% approval rating, which was a unifying thing to do.  And in 1999, an LA Times poll found that 59% of the public said that the country was in better shape because of his leadership during the previous six years.  And if Bill Clinton were president today, I'd take a serious bet that he would have seen that NAFTA would have been seriously amended to correct any deficiencies.  

Not sure what you meant by "the era of big government is over" when, under Clinton, the size of the federal government actually shrank substantially in relation to the economy, while the economy flourished, most Americans became wealthier, and there was an enormous surplus which Clinton wanted to use in part to help Social Security and Medicare.  

But back to your assumption.  I agree that here and elsewhere on the net there has been strong criticism of both Clintons in some blogs.  However, it's important, at least to me, to address changing from a Republican to a Democrat presidnet than to attack another Democrat...and yes, that goes for the Clintons and the Edwards.  

Clarification:  I do think the candidates should rightfully critize the records and plans of each other if it is justified (problem is that there's not a hair's worth of difference between them)... just cut out the robocalling to disenfranchise, cut out the character criticizing, cut out the race-baiting

... but I really don't think this will happen....the prize is too big.  

of the national progressive blogosphere are happy with triangulation, Dick Morris, etc.  I must have missed that.

As far as government shrinking under Clinton, that's because the Cold War ended, but also because Clinton didn't follow through on his pledges to invest in infrastructure.  Anyway, he was the one who declared, "The era of big government is over," so I'm not sure what you mean by "not sure what you meant."

Anyway, we could go on and on like this.  The question is not the past, though, but the FUTURE.  How do we want to move ahead in the next few years?  Do we want more of 1990s' Clintonism or something very different at this time?  I vote for the latter.  How about you?

I'm getting to feel that Raising Kaine is beginning to be a "my way or the highway" to those who express an opinion that might differ from those who support Obama, which is certainly the condition/right of any blog to be (nor is it expected for any blog to necessarily be democratic).  So that's my loss here on RK.

But I find it a bit useless and frustrating when a two sided discussion can't take place without someone jumping down another's throat.  RK has changed for me, and I'll say no more on that.  

Although she's not a national progressive blogger, Vivian Paige is supporting Hillary Clinton.  

I just reread what I wrote and don't see the slightest bit of anger in there.  I also don't see any "my way or the highway," just me making a case.  You are more than welcome to express your pro-Clinton views.  I'd be very curious, for instance, to hear your views on Clintonism and how they apply to the early part of the 21st century.

And I don't particularly like the way the Clintons left the Democratic party, or what they're doing to tear it apart today.  Yes, there really was a vast right-wing conspiracy, funded by multi-millions in private and public money.  But Bill Clinton could have saved himself quite a bit of trouble by simply telling the truth, sooner rather than later.  Some of those rightwing allegations, it turned out, were accurate, and he lied about them, in a serial fashion, for over a year.

To now see this disbarred attorney and ex-President on national t.v., calling Obama a liar and purveyor of a "fairy tale" because Obama is supposedly  insufficiently anti-war, all on behalf of a candidate who until very recently was the most unapologetic Democratic booster of the Iraq war, is just too much.  To listen to the demand that Hillary Clinton, above all other candidates, not receive legitimate criticism because she is (1) female, and (2) previously subject to rightwing attacks, is way too much.  Clinton supporters essentially demand a a pass, an immunity from criticism that she and her minions do not grant other Democratic candidates.  The bottom line is, we don't have to go through all this again.  We have better choices, and it's time to move forward.  And no, Lowell's not angry, but I sure am.  If Hillary Clinton can't stand up to scrutiny, and she ticks off half of the electorate, how is she going to win a general election?

Wow--Where to begin?  "Some of those right-wing allegations...were accurate, and he lied about them, in a serial fashion, for over a year."  OK, spotter, he lied about Monica.  What are the other allegations you say were "accurate" and that he lied about?  Even the accusing paragons of virtue (if you are over, say, 35 years of age, you know them--if you are younger, you may not because this all started 15 years ago) admitted that they probably (Hah!) would have lied, too, had they been in Clinton's shoes.  The other allegations?  If you believe an allegation is scandal or is the same as truth, I hope for your sake you never have to face an accuser in court, if you are innocent.  The jurors might think like you.

Obama tried to seperate himself from Hillary by being anti-war from the start to present.  Bill C. said this was a fairy tale because his votes to fund the war obviated his avowed feelings.  To my mind, and I like Obama--I've nothing against him--what Bill C. said what the absolute truth, and I don't know how you can deny it.

I'm a lukewarm Hillary supporter and I definately and essentially do NOT demand that she be exempt from criticism because she is a female and was subject to the attacks she has endured from the right wing.  This is part of election  process discourse and I and other Hillary supporters expect that.  I don't know who you have quoted, but if you have accurately quoted someone, then that person is a fool.

We don't demand a pass for Hillary or an immunity from criticism (I've been VERY critical of her, for example, in my comments), and most assuredly I am not a minion of Hillary.

We DO have choices and whether they are better--Obama or Edwards--is the choice of YOUR mind, not mine.

Lowell may not be angry, but you are because you believe we are stopping her from standing up to scrutiny?  Who said that?  She ticks off half the electorate?  We'll see.  Time and familiarity changes things.  Roughly half the electorate has voted Republican, so at this point in the primary process, I'm not concerned.

As I've said, I'm not anti-Obama, I'm just pro Clinton for many, many reasons.  As for Obama's speeches, uplifting as they are and praised as they are, the late and great Sammy Cahn said it better than I possibly could:

   It seems to me I've heard that song before,
   It's from an old familiar score,
   I know it well that melody...

I'm old enough to also ask "where's the beef?"

The talk of the lions and the lambs lying down together in the peaceable kingdom is to me a fantasy of Hicksian proportions, given the realities of today's life.  Republicans prefer the garotte and the dirk across the throat.  They haven't joined with Democrats in 13 years, preferring to practice exclusionary politics.  That's why I prefer the harder-edged Hillary over Obama, with Edwards and Obama as second choices.  Although in my secret heart I REALLY would have preferred Howard Dean (before he went insane and screamed) and Chris Dodd, with Wes Clark as a VP (maybe).  I like the way they would wage war.

 

  Well, Gennifer Flowers, for one, who as you will remember was the source of Hillary's original heart-felt "humanizing moment," the very convincing "stand by your man" speech on Sixty Minutes.

 That's my point. Do we really have to go through all this again?  What kind of brazen chutzpah does it take for Bill Clinton to call anybody a liar?  (Redundant perhaps, but his attitude goes far beyond mere ordinary chutzpah.)  The Clintons are hardly the only available qualified Democrats.  Must the Democratic party once again be held hostage to this narcissist?  It's just not worth it to be stuck in 1998 again, instead of moving forward.

So, after Obama firmly stated, as a candidate for the Senate in 2003, that he supported repealing or replacing the Patriot Act, branding it "shoddy and dangerous" in a response to a National Organization for Women survey of candidates, he then voted to reauthorize it.

Just as he was firmly against the Iraq war and then voted to fund it, as Hillary did.

Two major fairy tales.

Now, spotter, you tell me the BIG KAHUNA, that Bill Clinton had had an affair with Gennifer Flowers 15 years before he became President and she became long in the tooth.  You're right--HOW CAN WE GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN!!!  OH, THE HORROR, as Kurtz (not Howard) said!  The chutzpah that such a man, a man who had an affair with Gennifer Flowers long ago, could attempt to tarnish the Obama reputation just because Obama voted for taking our contitutional liberties away and funding an immoral war.

I concede, spotter, you are right.  We don't want to be stuck in 1998 again, when things looked good and the ghettos were at high employment and we had SURPLUSES.

BEAM ME UP, spotter.    

He lied fifteen years ago, and last week, and many times in between, because that's what he does.  He's a complete narcissist who doesn't understand the difference between his own desires and the needs and those of the Democratic party and the country.  That's why he left us with the legacy of George W. Bush.  See the please be quiet Bill post for more.

I'll take your word for it about Clinton.  I'm not a psychiatrist so I'll accept your professional judgment.  You know, you should have broken the patient-doctor privacy relationship and gone to the authorities about his "condition" before the 2000 election and 4,000 Americans might still be alive.  

Seriously:  This sounds straight out of Rush Limbaugh.  

Why don't the conservatives just sit back and take a breather.  They can conserve their energy for 2012 while we defeat ourselves this time, as usual.

and Democrat-negative, that I fear that, if HRC gets nominated, the words some use here will be recalled by the Republicans and as you say we defeat ourselves once again.  If everyone would take a deep breath, quit the sliming of the Clintons, like Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and others do, maybe a Democrat could get elected.  But, unlike the Republicans who rally around Republicanism, we here are bastardizing, not discussing and debating, accomplishments of Democrats.  Can we not do better?

Let the candidates sling all the mud they want.  And they all do and did last night!  It's democracy, politics, and a way to get to know the candidates.  But when Democrats slime Democrats, (sorry to reuse the word but that's how I see it), we are playing right into the hands of the opposition.

We'll stop sliming the Clintons when they stop sliming Obama.

After reading all the comments on RAISING OBAMA, I think the best thing for you, me and my wife to do is to go out and get a magnum of good chardonnay and get smashed.  The only thing I've learned from this discourse is that Bill and Hillary are racists because they are looking at Obama's record as opposed to his words, and that Bill C. is a narcissist.  Obviously, other candidates who run for big-time public offices because they think they can run everything better than others are not narcissists like Bill, rather, they are "public spirited."  Yeah, and I'm Barry Bonds.

So, AnonymousIsAWoman, it's either go back to university and get a PHD in psychiatry to fully analyze why Bill loves himself, or grab that magnum of chard.  I guess I'll choose the wine, and quickly, for the way the market's tanking in response to  Paulson's and Chimp's Band-Aid recovery plan, by next week I won't have enoughh in my Total Wine account to afford the magnum.

Thanks for your comments.

I'm not sure I grasp your intense dislike of Bill Clinton. The only two lies you specifically assert he uttered were about Lewinsky and Flowers (I'm not sure he lied about Flowers, but whatever -- it doesn't really matter).  Of course, we all lie, sometimes about small things, sometimes about big things. These particular untruths don't bother me much -- seems like it ought to be between Clinton and his wife. It got dragged into the public sphere by Republicans, not by Clinton.

You also assert Clinton lied last week, but I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If it is to Clinton's assertion that the story the Obama campaign tells about his consistent and prescient opposition to the War has some inconvenient facts in the way (like votes for funding), and his characterization of that meme as a "fairy tail (something to which you refer, above)," I understand you might not like the argument, but it isn't lying. It's not even a particularly aggressive argument, in my view.

And your suggestion that because Clinton lied about one or more personal and potentially embarrassing matters somehow morally disqualifies him from advancing this particular argument, or asserting that someone else might be lying, is baffling. I guess we should all just shut up in that case.

Well, check that. I don't want to speak for anyone else at RK. Perhaps there are folks here who have never lied about a personal matter to avoid embarrassment or hassle or some other adverse consequence.

Finally, the idea that Hillary Clinton can't stand up to scrutiny or criticism is absurd on its face. It is difficult for me to think of a single person in public life who has been subjected to as much mean-spirited, personal criticism in recent years than Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about her, but she can take a punch. And, yeah, she can hit back, too.

It's in his book, which to my knowledge is the first time he publicly acknowledged the truth.  Really, you'd think being the first President to lose his law license would have slowed him down some, but apparently not.

but it is telling that Flowers, and only that narrow factual point which I said was of no concern, is where you chose to respond.

And in fact, while Clinton admitted an affair with Flowers in his book, he specifically denied her allegation that they had a twelve year long affair, as well as her allegation of sexual harassment.

as for losing his law license, Clinton opted not to challenge the effort to disbar him because he no longer intended to practice law and wanted the problem to go away.

Spotter, if you don't like Clinton for the policy decisions he made as President, I can respect that. But your hatred of him based on the assertions you make is simply not supported by the factual record.

I don't think you need to justify your feelings at all, but I do think we all need to justify our facts.

Someone else asked for an example, I gave one.  YOU questioned my facts, which were accurate.  I explained, and you backed off.  Now you're questioning my facts again.  Read up on it.  I don't intend to spend the next few months, or the next few years, making lists of Bill Clinton's lies.  The fact that you even have to defend him should show the weakness of his position, and Hillary Clinton's.  We are over them.  We need to move on.

Sorry, Spotter.

I pointed out that both your examples of Clinton's lies were about his personal life. You have offered nothing else.

As for Flowers, well, as I said, Clinton did admit an affair, but he specfically denied her allegations of sexual harassment and of a twelve year affair on page 387 ("The fact is, there was no twelve year affair.")

So, yes, there I questioned your "facts," which were not accurate, and therefore not facts at all.

You comment, "The fact that you even have to defend him should show the weakness of his position" begs the question. I am not defending Bill or Hillary Clinton, but rather historical accuracy.

Also, Spotter, I have been respectful and not at all accusatory. Talk about not be able to "stand up to scrutiny."

I'll get you the whole list.  It'll be tough, since Hillary's coming up with some new ones in the debate as we speak.  And then you can explain to me why those lies, which you acknowledge are in fact lies, don't count.  And the Democrats will lose yet another important election, thanks to their inability to get rid of the Clintons and move on.

That an Obama supporter would spend his time trying to document every "lie" that a Democrat who is not running for office has told ,rather than doing campaign work for his candidate, truly is mind boggling to me.  

I'd think that work like calling for a candidate, canvassing, positive blogging, things like this will go a lot farther than going on a "lie-hunt".  Support from other Democrats, when you need it, might be hard to find when you engage in "tasks" such as this.

"But what I don't want is the experience of playing a bunch of political games, tit-for-tat, partisian nonsense that doesn't actually solve the problems that hard-working Americans are facing." -Barack Obama  

Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?  Hillary's lackies, Bill included, are engaged in virtual slander/libel daily, and when we try to fight back, we're told to "be good Democrats."  

Tell me, why should I be a good Democrat when Bill Clinton can't?

Bill Clinton's behavior has been, frankly, disgraceful.  And not to get all "5th grade" here, but THEY started it, not the Obama camp.  

be quiet.  He's really hurting all Democrats, including Hillary.

not get sucked into this war of words.  He must defend himself ,  but do so strongly but diplomatically.  It is difficult, however, to avoid calling the misrepresentations about his record what they are, untruths.

because I think it is counter productive to the ultimate goal. I'm no Hillary supporter. As I have said, I like them both.

But the fact is that the personalizing, hate-filled slams against Clinton do come right out of the GOP playbook. For me, I don't think any thing she or Pres. Clinton did crossed the line -- aggressive, sure, but across the line, no. In fact, I think the mud thrown has been relatively gentle when put in the context of, say, what Kerry went through in 2004 or even McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

Also, it takes two to tango. When the media firestorm erupted over Pres. Clinton's "fairy tale" comment, I didn't see Obama's people out there saying, "Hey, wait. You guys are misconstruing what President Clinton said." No -- they used it to their advantage.

Misrepresentation? I guess how you see it depends on where you view it from.

This is par for the course for a political campaign. I do think, however, when it comes to the Clintons, if they seem to sink lower than others, it is due in part to the fact that for some reason they are held to an impossible standard.

For example, if President Clinton did indeed step back from the campaign, how many hours (maybe minutes) would it be before a major media outlet started speculating on how it means that their marriage is on the rocks?

As for me, I'm a Democrat through and through. I'll be supporting, with my words, money and vote whoever it is  that my party nominates.  

To repeat, re-repeat, and re-re-repeat, when Bill Clinton said that Obama's story that he had always been against the war (exact wording forgotten) was a "fairy tale" because Obama had compromised that position by voting for further funding of the troops, he was NOT calling attacking Obama racially nor was he calling Obama a fairy.  If you cannot attack a candidate's words that you believe contradict his RECORDED votes, and you are called a racist for doing so, Heaven help us--this ain't the America I'd like to live in.  Particularly when the man criticising Obama is himself black!  That is, William Jefferson Clinton, our first black President.

Did our ex President suddenly become Michael Jackson, with skin reverting to white and a Bull Connors' attitude to boot, with dobermans ready to bite?  THis is the same Bill Clinton who could guide the country confidently; speak with Greenspan every week, and knowledgebly, too, according to Greenspan; watch smile as 21 million jobs were created and prosperity reigned; and at the same time enjoy the services of a competent cadre of his chosen leaders as well as the services of an aide who chose him.  Give me this "disgraceful" behavior over the moral perfection of the current Christian administration anyday, particularly now as the stock market and the economy and our housing prices sink into the China sea.

I have not heard ONE realistic view of Clinton's words ("fairy tale" become racist attack) from the Obama supporters; however, a strong Democrat, David Schuster, supports my and Dianne's view of what Clinton said. To me, and David, and many other strong Democrats, mamy black, too, Clinton's words were absolutely not racist nor false, only logical ad fair.  And as my final salvo across RAISING OBAMA's bow, are this morning's attacks of Hillary's record by Michelle Obama a racist attack on the wife of our first black President?  Does Michelle have a hatred of whites?  Or just of white women candidates running against her hubby?

My feelings are that there is undue criticism of the catalyst in this issue, Bill Clinton's remarks.  I am definately NOT a racist and I am extremely sensitive to racism, having worked in the South during many of the key days and months of the civil rights movement.  And I cannot believe that a rational person could parse the words of the master parser himself and find racism there.  If he's a racist, then I'm a Christian!

Go after Hillary's voting record and differentiate it from Obama's.  That's the first thing to do for Obama and unity.

But to go on with these ruinous comments with the frankly idiotic accusations coming at Dianne (and some at me) with no proof of their validity, and the psychiatric evaluations from people who, by the content of their characterizations sound like THEY may need a psychiatric consult or a course in Logic 101, this is madness.

Lowell, how about stepping in as the fair-minded one we know you to be and look fairly and closely at the words of Bill Clinton and the chronology of the argument.  It would do us all good.

   

But if it makes you feel more comfortable and you think it helps, then I can understand.  

But consider this:  if Obama doesn't attack Hillary's record, and relies on blaming Bill, then he's weak for that and that's how it appears.  So go after your opponent.  

Think about it, guys.  The Republicans are already saying Obama's letting Bill Clinton get under his skin and they will use that as a sign of weakness, a sign of not being able to his eye on the ball, immature, etc.  He needs to let go of Bill Clinton (and so does RK) and fight his own battles because when he is the nominee, he will be fighting BIG lies.  

Get tougher, Senator Obama; a much bigger opponent is awaiting you.  

I listed lies, which of course don't count, because he's Bill Clinton, and he gets an (unearned) pass.

Apparently I'm not the only one permanently offended by the Clintons.

And, for the record, you and az keep conveniently referring to "Obama supporters."  I have donated to exactly two candidates, Bill Richardson and John Edwards.  I was torn between Obama and Clinton only three weeks ago.  Hillary and Bill's despicable behavior since then has decided it for me, thanks.