Political Punch

First, Bill Clinton should realize that both Obama and Clinton share near equal experience in elected political office. As a woman, I think it offensive to judge less of Clinton's role as a political adjunct than of Obama's service prior to the senate. Former President Clinton is paying dues to Hillary (overdue - how surprising?!). I think both candidates are refreshing sincere. I prefer Obama for several reasons, primarily because he is eloquent and inspiring, not to mention that he doesn't carry former President Clinton's baggage (sorry Hillary, but you picked him).

To the above writer, it's "Barack Obama" or "Obama". If you are going to refer to all other candidates by their last names, do the same for him...

Bill Clinton, a very popular President among black and Hispanic population did nothing but fool the Black and Hispanic population into believing that he was helping them.

George Bush who many Blacks and Hispanics consider to be anti Black and Hispanic did make a difference for Blacks and Hispanics.

I would just like to point out that during Clintons 8 years as the President, how many Blacks or Hispanics were in his cabinet and appointed to high levels during his term?

I am not a George Bush fan for other reasons, but the fact is George Bush appointments of Blacks and Hispanics during his Presidency was unprecedented.

Hate Bush for reasons you may choose to do so but we should not be fooled by another Clinton as the President promises, who in the end will only be a puppet for Bill (The First Black President.) Joke! Do the research.

Sirron Kyles

Where exactly is Hillary getting 35 years in experience. I just looked at several sources and I only see elected offices since 2000. She was hired by a college because of her husband and apointed or given several positions because of being married to either the govenor or president. But experience in elected office is not 35 years.

My wife is a teacher and I hear about it and discuss it every night. I'm an executive for a software company and she has been to conferences, meetings and discussions nightly about my business. Neither of us are qualified to do the others job so why is it that getting second hand exposure is qualified as "experience"?

It is so unbecoming of 2 term ex-president for Bill Clinton to carry himself the way he did during Rose's show. It shows that he is not a statesman nor a decent politician. These two--Bill and Hillary deserve each other. This is a good example of why we need a new chapter--new generation and new vision in the White House. The Clinton are not owed this important position. This experience his wife (or the Des Moines register accepted )touts is inappropriate. Since Laura Bush went to 40 countries, would she claim to be experienced in foriegn relations)? It's laughable.

As for Bill Clinton, I wish someone digs up the tape when he gave a speech at the democratic convention in the late 80's. He was green and graceless, and greedy enough that he gave a speech that went on forever, even after he was repeatedly booed by the delegates to get off the podium. Obviously, the young Obama has more grace, intelligence and savvy than Bill or Hillary had at the time and now.
After 8 years of Bush, let's turn the page and have someone lead this nation in a more positive way.

Bill Clinton continues to lie and spin to us. I recall the speech he gave years ago at the "Democratic" convention and they were booing him off the stage. He was young inexperience and self promoting. He lacked then what Senator Obama has now which is wisdom and strenght. He needs to reflect back and be truthful about himself, even as president he showed a lack of wisdom and discipline in dealing with personal problems he himself created. If he wants to continue to redeem himself with his wife, I, applaud him but I do not support him in hi attempt to do it by getting her elected "President", it would be a terrible burden for all of us to bear.

Bill Clinton continues to lie and spin to us. I recall the speech he gave years ago at the "Democratic" convention and they were booing him off the stage. He was young inexperience and self promoting. He lacked then what Senator Obama has now which is wisdom and strenght. He needs to reflect back and be truthful about himself even as president he showed a lack of wisdom and discipline in dealing with personal problems he himself created. If he wants to continue to redeem himself with his wife, I, applaud him but I do not support him in hi attempt to do it by getting her elected "President", it would be a terrible burden for all of us to bear.

Clinton's words on the Charlie Rose show have been taken out of context for them to fit the echo chamber. There is valuable truth to the fact that Obamba lacks experience for the job. This is not a position for on-the-job training.
In massachusetts we now have a Governor who had his supporters that,"Together we can," "believe" and "trust me." This has been a disastrous learning curve for the new Massachusetts Governor, who had more experience than Obamba coming into this job!

Bill Clinton is a political Richard Scrushy. Just like Scrushy got off clean by stuffing the jury with blacks and preaching in a black church, Clinton uses blacks for his own purposes when convenient.

We want a change and his name is Obama

Bill is not helping Hillary - sour grapes.

If Hillary wins in Iowa, it will prove the dictum that we have the best government money can buy. She will buy her way to a win with corrupt corporate money because the corpies want her in the worst way to win. She's in their pocket and they know it. Watch where the money flows this year. It won't be to the Repubs, the corpies know they will lose this year because of the Bush mess...but watch the big banking, pharmaceutical and telecom, maybe even oil money, go to Hillary. They can control her. Obama would be OK to them too, they could probably get to him...but Edwards is the one the Repubs are afraid of...he could carry the old Confederacy and is the only Dem to appeal to southern voters. I think they are really afraid of Edwards, which is why though I am very poor, I'm giving Edwards campaign all I can. Repubs are fine with the Hill and the Ob..but not with Edwards. He scares them with his talk of fixing the rigged, two-tiered system.

I agree with some of what Bill Clinton is saying, but the truth of the matter there seems to be a whole lot of resentment in his tone of voice, sorry Bill. If the Democratic voters think that elected Obama as our candidate to win the presendential bid will win the White House, " YOU'RE AN IDIOT". No matter how bad Bush has screwed things up, the Republican party will tear this one term senator to pieces, esecially on foreign policies and immigration issues. All Obama has shown me he can do is copy other candidates position on things and ride Opray's back, we can't win electing him, I hope those that will be voting realize this.

Jeff

Obama doesn't have Bill and Hillary's experience taking kickbacks, bribes and payoffs.

This promises to be a most interesting presidential campaign. The Democrats can't seem to decide whether they want to blow their great opportunity to win the White House by nominating Bill Clinton's wife or Oprah's favorite senator. And the Republicans seem to want to concede holding the presidency by nominating the Rev. Hackabee. It will be fascinating to see which party is more intent on committing political suicide in 2008.

A number of the commentators willing to skewer Bill Clinton haven't even watched the 55 minutes that comprise the Charlie Rose interview. What is wrong with this generation, so willing to take any interpretation and headline spun by the media without at least seeing and thinking through something for themselves. Is this the horrible legacy of MTV and Facebook that everyone is too lazy to scrutinize the the media's (echo chamber) interpretations and ingesting it hook, line and sinker? That's like taking the word of one witness of an alleged robbery without looking at further evidence and then spreading around the rumor without proving it.

I watched the entire Charlie Rose interview online today, and yes, Clinton's words have been taken out of the context. When he said, "it's a miracle that Hillary might win" - he meant it in the sense that she was far behind Edwards and Obama in having a ground campaign there and yet has done pretty well there. He meant it as a positive that she in fact might actually win Iowa.

Thank you Bernice L for watching and being objective. You said:

"I watched the entire Charlie Rose interview which was excellent.

As a supporter of Sen. Obama, I believe that the critics are taking liberty with former President Clinton's words.

Yes, no doubt, he praised Sen. Clinton. Everything he said was justified."

Amazing the sense of entitlement the Clintons feel for the presidency. Unilike Hillary who is where she is today due to who she is married to, other DEM candidates earned their position.

I also resent the statement that Bill made that by electing Obama, people would be just electing a symbol (here read race).

Am I missing something all is this same Clinton dynasty that always uses African Americans and their most scared institutions (the Black Churches) as symbols in elections.

The fact that Obama got into the race has made the votes for the African Americans extremely important. At least the candidates are now showing up earlier than they would have if Obama was not in the campaign

Looks like Bill is hard at work building that bridge back to the 20th century.

The audacity of hope sure seems to have the man from Hope more than a little shaken.

I don't have any reason to dislike Obama - on the contrary, on paper, he appeals to me a great deal. But I agree with Bill Clinton. If you judge him on the manner in which Obama has managed his campaign and his debate performances, Obama simply isn't ready.

Once again, Hillary will only divide this nation. She may be a very good administrator and senator, but she just doesn't have the leadership capabilities to inspire this country as President. The reason that Obama is rising in the polls is that he has the charisma to inspire others. Honestly, the only way the Democrats can loose the presidential race is to nominate Hillary.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Hillary or Obama, it's head Republicans win or Obama democrats lose.

"As to Hillary's experience.... As a senator she introduced 339 bills.... Her performance rate, according to the non-partisan GovTrack.us, is "very poor" in comparison with other senators."

Well, for one, Obama's and Edward's records are so much worse. And Obama has had only 1 year of US Senate experience before running. Also, she's done more as First Lady. Her experience there is invaluable.

And: Somebody mentioned Lincoln as an example of someone less qualifed than Obama when he ran for the presidency. Firstly, isn't it funny that you would have to go back to the Civil War Era to find another example. Secondly, Obama's integrity is nowhere near Lincoln's. His is the most dirty campaign in this primary. He has said the most number of inaccurate statements about his campaign and his opponents by a wide margin. Also, the requirements right now are much more stringent than what it was before. It would be a foolish proposition to vote for Lincoln with his experience had he run for the presidency today. The presidency now requires so much more. He could still be a good president, but I would imagine him to be as effective as George W. Bush.

In hindsight Bill Clinton might be saying Hillary Clinton should’ve never went to Iowa. The truth of the matter is there’s a chance that she might come in third in Iowa and she could’ve pulled third without even going. A lot of campaign resources were spent there and the image of the perennial frontrunner have been tarnished there as well.

Hillary does worse in republican matchups than ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT. (in current national polls)

It seems the dems are intent on throwing away another election.

Hillary won't win in a general election. She's the most unelectable dem of the bunch.

On the subject of Hillary's experience we keep getting nebulous offerings from her supporters like "Hillary spent her life working for substantive change." She's "been in the fight". Can someone PLEASE outline one real success of her political career. One real thing that we can all understand and judge as to what it means relative to her experience.
By the way, I am experienced enough to know that when Bill's hand start shaking like they were in teh Charlie Rose interview: he is seething with anger.

I watched the interview carefully with Charlie Rose. And now I've carefully read all the notes written and the different takes each has had on Bill's performance. Here is my take: Bill was as captivating as ever. He was clear, cohesive and energizing about his current endeavors around the world. On the issue of the democratic primary, he clearly advocated for his wife whom he believes (and probably is right) would make a fine candidate in the general election given her many years of service trying to help others. She has been in the thick of many anti-Clinton debates, both personal and political and she came out with a sense of self and purpose. She seems to have good character and wants to help turn this awful tide the country is on. Having said all that, I'M STILL GOING FOR OBAMA. Whether he is "electable" or not, he inspires me. That is what I want in a President!

As to Hillary's experience.... As a senator she introduced 339 bills, 293 of which died unnoticed in committee. Her performance rate, according to the non-partisan GovTrack.us, is "very poor" in comparison with other senators. Her experience consists of introducing bills that sound noble and/or currently critical, but she fails to muster the support to make any difference at all. Most of her successful sponsorships are for pure fluff.

I don't care who is elected as long as it isn't the inevitable Hillary or Giuliani. These "public servants" must be taught a lesson that they are not entitled to the office. Their experience is a sham. An average person following basic rules of ethics and with advice of many qualified people in government would do a fine job as a President.

REGARDLESS WHAT CLINTON DID, OVERALL HE BROUGHT US AND THE WORLD REAL AMERICA. 90% OF THINGS HE'S DONE GOOD. BUT, DON'T ASK HIM ABOUT OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IF HIS WIFE IS ALSO ONE OF THEM. I AM SURE GEORGE SENIOR BUSH SAID THAT HIS PET MONKEY WOULD BE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT, BUT IT TURNED OUT HE WAS ACTUALY THE WORST ONE WE EVER HAD. SO CLINTON SPEAKING FOR HIS WIFE AND AGAINST OBAMA IS SENSELESS, IT SIMPLY HAS NO CREDIBILITY.

Why don't the Clintons just withdraw from this campaign and stop trashing Senator Obama? This is not going to sit well with members of the Congressional Black Caucus or African Americans in general. Bill and Andy Young just need to give it a rest. This country wants to move forward not go backwards to the 90's.

Regarding this:
"Dick Cheney has plenty of experience. Would we want to elect him president because of it? -You should ask this question to the Republican voters and you might be surprised by their answers."

I would not be surprised as Republicans are generally of two stripes : 1) rich, corrupt people scamming the hell out of the rest of us and 2) borderline retarded folks they scam into supporting them. No matter what happens, a percentage of our populace is always going to be corrupt or retarded.

Why don't the Clintons just withdraw from this campaign and stop trashing Senator Obama? This is not going to sit well with members of the Congressional Black Caucus or African Americans in general. Bill and Andy Young just need to give it a rest. This country wants to move forward not go backwards to the 90's.

EDWARDS deserves more mainstream media coverage. The mainstream media is attempting to make this a two way race. What happens when all the pundits and paid political operatives are wrong and the race eclipses Hillary Clinton and instead becomes one between Edwards and Obama? Moneyed interests in the corridors of Power in NEW YORK CITY, THE HAMPTONS, GREENWICH and other urban and corporate centers are behind Hillary not because they like her or believe her to be a credible leader but because they know the Clintons will play ball with Powerful interests and they incorrectly perceived her as inevitable. HILLARY CLINTON is BUSINESS AS USUAL, no threat to the existing social order. The Clintons and their DLC friends are chasing down funds from BUSH'S EAGLES. Their support is a mile wide and inch deep. No, I am not a Clinton hater. I am a Clinton realist, who volunteered on the 1992 campaign and learned my lesson. Nobody in the media ever asks the very obvious question. Why did the Clintons make New York their home?--MONEY & MEDIA.

Mr. Sleazy and Mrs. Cheesy... What else would you expect from the Clintons?

I don't think Obama will have adulterous sexual affairs in The Oval Office.

I don't think Obama will be impeached, if elected.

Bill Clinton was a mediocre President.
And Hillary is the cuckolded wife of a mediocre President.

Bill sold out the American people with NAFTA, WTO and the Millenium Telecommunications act (allowing for media monopolies).
Hillary works for the special interests and ALWAYS has scandals bubbling around her.

It's time for a change.
It's time for an honest politician with integrity and vision.

Sorry, running on 'inevitability' is arrogant.
Voters don't have a choice because Hillary is 'inevitable' ?
NO THANKS

Obama/Edwards 08
Integrity counts

The Clintons personal life is fair game because they have defrauded the American public about who they are and what they represent. Their home life is a sham, their promises hollow. They are soul less political creatures

Bill Clinton should not even be talking about the electorate taking chances. America took a huge leap of faith in 1992. In 1992, America overlooked the character of highly flawed man, with a background of corruption, drug use, pathological lying and elected him President. We overlooked the scandals, the womanizing, the lying and ties to organized criminal activity and drug running in Arkansas. Perhaps the truth is that in America the only way to raise the necessary funds to run for President is to sell one's soul to one degree or another. But the truth is that nearly everything written about the Clintons is TRUE. The Clintons are a FRAUD. Hillary is obviously a lesbian or bisexual and Bill Clinton has never stopped sleeping around. The Clinton marriage is a political marriage based around their own personal ambitions, hence the reason why they will do anything and attempt to ruin anyone who gets in the way of their governing. America would be better off if we simply turned a page on the Bush-Clinton era and looked for new leaders. History will show that back in Mena, Arkansas there was an interesting tie between the Bush and Clinton political clans.

I can't help myself: My adoration of Bill Clinton does not extend to his wife. Bill Clinton was governor of a smallish marginal state before being elected. He had other qualities, tho, such as the abililty to craft an inspiring message, ambition, intelligence, and a broad worldview honed from his study abroad. Obama has all of those qualities, plus he's an expert on the Constitution, advocated for poor folks, and served as a state senator. Shut up, Bill; you aren't helping your wife.

The nerve of some people, challenging Hillary as the automatic nominee.

Memo to Hillary: I know it's not your cup of tea, but if you hadn't so long ago abandoned your, shall we say, "wifely duties," we wouldn't be in such a mess as we are in today.

I can't help myself: My adoration of Bill Clinton does not extend to his wife. Bill Clinton was governor of a smallish marginal state before being elected. He had other qualities, tho, such as the abililty to craft an inspiring message, ambition, intelligence, and a broad worldview honed from his study abroad. Obama has all of those qualities, plus he's an expert on the Constitution and served as a state senator. Shut up, Bill; you aren't helping your wife.

I urge everyone to read Andrew Sullivan's article about Obama in December's The Atlantic. He makes a compelling and persuasive case as to why Obama should be President. Am going to save it for use in general election should he be the nominee.It will be a must read for your GOP and Independent friends.

still a press punk huh?

nothings changed since roll call.

delete a comment that makes fun of you. shock!

ya know what your ex gals say about you is soooo true! i know 2 of em. they do agree on you!

Ill say hey to nancy for ya!

"Dick Cheney has plenty of experience. Would we want to elect him president because of it?"

You should ask this question to the Republican voters and you might be surprised by their answers.

You certainly want someone on your side to have some or any experience to lead the country and to change.

However, all the parents of my children's friends that I know, none wants to see a former drug user to be the next president of our country.

I agree with a poster above, that Obama, as like-able as he is, is just screwing things up. I don't think he is a good choice, even though his point of view is different and possibly refreshing. he is however a candidate that does not recognize how important it is that we all work to stop the Republican dominance which we have at present. That is the most important thing. I like Hilary, baggage and all. I think she should have her chance. I watched the so-called hysteria of her failed health care program in the early years of Bill's presidency. It did not fail because it was a bad idea, it failed because of the rage and greed of the opposition, that is what I remember. It was a good program torn to pieces by the Republicans. Or memories seem so short. Obama is a starry-eyed disaster. Clinton is a damaged old warrior, and this is the better choice. The Republicans will fight so dirty this time, we haven't seen anything yet. The most gifted leader is probably Richardson, but he has no power to get people up on their feet. He would make an honorable and effective president, Kuchinich also. We are not mature enough as an electorate to actually study and vote for virtue. Give me the old party warhorse if we have to go to war with the republicans, and that would be Clinton. We urgently need someone who can kicjìk some a$s, and she is the only one remotely with the stones to do this job.

I doubt Bill has ever told the truth to anyone, at anytime, about anything. He is going to sink his wife's chances, although she can do herself damage without his "help". The Republicans' best chance of winning the White House again is if Hil and Bill get nominated.

Bill Clinton is right when he says voting for Obama would be "rolling the dice". Conversely, a vote for Hillary would be the same. Do we want something new and different or do we want the same-old-Washington-insider political machine? I wish I had a crystal ball to look into and find the correct answer to that question. To be honest, our current situation makes me want to "roll the dice". Just look at the resumes of some in the current administration. Dick Cheney has plenty of experience. Would we want to elect him president because of it?

I saw the interview and I don't think agree with Mr. Tapper. Bill Clinton seemed very relaxed.. and very rational.
I think his approach shows great respect for the electorate. I have heard him talk in these terms before as he outlines the assumptions that go into different choices. Edwards is my first choice but I would favor Hillary over Obama... The Clinton's have weathered the incompetent media and know see to know how to manage them..

I've read all of these posts and I am surprised that no one saw what I saw in the Rose interview . But I'll get to that below .

Last summer at a barbeque ( I was the only adult male) I was asked ( as a male) about Hillary . I said then that while she shopuld get the nomination , Bill would screw it up . They all laughed and agreed that his extra curricular sexual activities were a potential liability but I was quick to correct that impression . I said that it was not the sex that would sink Hillary although that too was a problem , it would be the fact that Bill would not be able to control himself politically , would impose his hugeness on the scene and deminish Hillary in so doing . They did not get that at all and all said that he would be an asset in that regard . Then we have the Rose interview .

It was so clear in this interview that Bill was saying : ' Vote for me , I have experience and better yet , I'm the best politician in the Democratic party. So who ya gonna choose ...me or that kid Obama ? " Hillary who ?

I like Hillary & Obama may the better person win the Presidency. At this point in time anybody will do a better job than Bush/Darth Vader.

Hillary's experience?? Travelgate? Health Care / secrecy? Missing documents? And in the senate, a vote, FOR A WAR, without reading the classified documents she knew her staff had no clearance for? THAT's rolling the dice! Go, Obama!

Let's ask Monica Lewinski's mother if we can trust the judgment and integrity of Bill Clinton.

Then we can ask the judge to tell us why Bill was fined $90,000 and was disbarred, for lying to a grand jury during a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Let's ask historians if they believe that Bill Clinton was 'against the Iraq War from the very beginning".

Yep, Bill has a great deal of credibility in judging someones character and telling us the truth.

Im afraid that even Hilary gets nominated she will lose bc she has totally turn off people.Independents that are the key to winning in general elections TOTALLY hate this inordinate ambition to get to the white house even of it means destroying anyone on the way.

Her campaign now is about Mr Obama, not the Iraq war, not healthcare,not education, not jobs, JUST politics of personal destruction.

Cant believe this.New polls up show Obama at 33 Hilary and Edwards tied at 24. Wait and see how voters punish the Clintons for all these attacks.

One of the reasons that Hillary's health plan failed is that the health industry spent $100 million in TV ads featuring "Harry and Louise" ads. Doesn't anyone remember this? I don't read any postings on any blogs that mention this.

Hillary's experience? Organizing the Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn prepares you to run the country? Or is it that sleeping with Bill Clinton automatically qualifies you for the job? In that case, there are a lot of qualified women out there...

It is beyond ridiculous to be talking about Hillary's experience. She was first lady not the President. In her first term as Senator she voted in lock step with the Bush administration on every major issue. That is not leadership. On every issue she takes a poll to decide which way she will vote. I challenge any of her supporters to name something that she has done as Senator that is significant. To bring up Obama's teenage drug use is beyond silly and to act like the Republicans have no dirt on the Clinton's is naive at best. Does anyone really believe that there have been no "bimbo eruptions" in the years since Bill left office? I am offended by the attitude of the Clinton machine that Hillary is the presumptive nominee and that Barack Obama has no right to run for President. I am a loyal Democrat, but I will not vote for her if she wins the nomination.

I don't care how long he was in office, being Governor of Arkansas gives you enough experience to do one thing.

Be Governor of Arkansas again.

The Clinton's are in a downward sprial. It is sad to see the Clinton's go negative; this only feeds into the public's very real and deep concerns about what another Clinton White House will look like for the next 4-8 years. We really have to move on and leave the Bush-Clinton-Bush years behind. We owe to ourselves for a better future and more amicable relatonship between the major political parties - something we have been lacking for a long time. Obama will give us a new direction and provide opportunities to work together for a better future...

I watched the Charlie Rose interview. Bill Clinton was brilliant, as always.

As for Obama's experience, what was it? It it the experience of drug using?

I am a liberal, but I would rather vote for a Republican than for a drug user, because I am also parent.

Democrats who are congratulating themselves on what a great field of candidates we have are kidding themselves. We're in big trouble, and the name of our trouble is the Celebrity Candidates, Clinton and Obama.

Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage. Many swing voters despise her and would never vote for her. Many voters remember with distaste her disastrous failed attempt at health care reform in 1993. Many polls like the one Daily Kos held show that the Democratic activist base dislikes and distrusts her. The right attacks her as a "left of center liberal", while the reality is that she is taking large amounts of money from the insurance, pharmaceutical, health-care, tobacco and arms industries and underneath her vague reassurances has taken no stand for either getting out of Iraq or for not going to war with Iran.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton is right about Obama. The right wing and the press will tear him to shreds. He has not been "vetted" by hard-fought and dirty campaigns where all the problems in his past have been dug out and all his weaknesses probed and exploited. And he has shown much more enthusiasm for campaigning than for providing the country with leadership in the Senate, where he has missed many critical votes. The many people who are sickened and fed up with the Democrats' disgraceful performance in Congress are unlikely to give him a pass on this, but will see him as being part of it.

Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and, yes, Kucinich would all be much wiser choices, able to withstand attacks and hit back, able to give concrete answers to questions that concern the voters, and able to stand on their records of leadership. Unfortunately, the media long ago decided to cast this drama as a race between the two "front runners", Obama and Clinton, and have framed the national discussion around this contest. Even more unfortunately, the activists, including most of the blogosphere, are moaning about the press but are letting this happen. We need to understand that we have an absolute need to find ways of reaching 100 million voters without going through the major media, whatever that looks like. We absolutely must find a way to create and disseminate our own independent mass media. The alternative is to continue to allow the owners of the great media corporations to choose our presidents for us. Consciousness of this difficult but inescapable challenge has not yet begun to sink in widely.

Finally we need to be clear that our candidate must be able to whip up a band-wagon, a hard-hitting no-punches-pulled campaign that can win by a landslide. For if the vote is close, the Republicans are well set up to steal it again.

What we need now is a surge of support for the "anybody but Barak or Hillary" candidate, be it Edwards, Richardson or Biden. (Or Kucinich. Don't sneer. No one else running comes close to Kucinich in representing the interests and views of both the Democratic base and the majority of the voting public.) Edwards might be able to do it, he has the fire in the belly and has been adopting some of Kucinich's positions. Richardson and Biden have great credentials, but can they bring the crowds to their feet roaring? How we who see the debacle coming are to choose whom to get behind I don't know. We have no cohesion, no progressive decision-making body. We are a proto-movement, not yet a movement.

Failing to stop Hillary and Obama, some of us may be able to get ourselves to campaign for the winner, but realistically we should start seriously contemplating how we will deal with a President Huckabee or a President Romney or (gasp) a President Giuliani.

I am still amazed that people believe Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning the general election than her opponents. She is not a popular middle of the road candidate. Her popularity only declines as you look from left to right in the political spectrum. No one can win the general election without some support from independent voters, or cross-over voters. I know several, previously self-described "solid" republicans, who have re-registered so they can caucus for Barack Obama on Jan 3. None of these people would or will ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

Who is this Bill Clinton? He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Go with Oprah! She can do no wrong!

This political infighting within the Democratic party is not good for our country. Any of the candidates would be an improvement upon the current administration and their messes. Who is more prepared to fix the problems of the Bush years right away on January 20, 2009?

I'll remind Slick Willie that the greatest president in the history of this country, had served one House term in Congress before being elected. His name was Abraham Lincoln and he will be remembered long after everyone has forgotten Billary.

And not for nothing, but that disingenuous creep has only himself to blame for her problems. He set the stage for Americans not to trust a Clinton. If he'd kept it in his pants, no Bush, no war, not nearly as many problems for Hillary. He's a snake-oil salesman, one of the best ever.

Mark Penn is looking to just barely eke out a victory for Hillary. Obama is the only candidate who has any chance of delivering a mandate.

I have great respect for Hillary Clinton but the experience of the Clinton years was not anywhere near perfect. Their overbearing approach to reforming health care doomed their initiative; Horrible personal behavior permanently taints Bill's presidency; While in office Clinton did little to further the campaign against AIDS (he makes Bush look good on this issue); His handling of Rwanda was appalling.

A further objection is the notion that somehow familial association qualifies one for the presidency. We have been down that road once with disastrous consequences.

Obama's great selling point is that he is bright, independent, thinks on his feet and is open to new policy directions. He is infinitely more electable than his opponent.

Clinton's comments about his decisions on running for President don't exactly square with what he told the people of Arkansas, He told the people of Arkansas that if they elected him again, he would fill out his full term as Governor. History shows that he broke that promise, but as always he had a good excuse, which was that the people of Arkansas then wanted him to run for President. Lies come easy to the Clintons.
As to Obama's drug use. All he has to do is say he didn't inhale.

I saw the interview and to say that Clinton was shaking is proposterous. If anything, Rose should have stopped yacking and allowed Clinton the chance to finish his thoughts (Rose just cannot allow his guests the floor most of the time). I am a Democrat in the camp of people who think Obama just does not have the substance (which Hillary does) to lead our great nation. And the fact that Oprah is campaigning for him I think is evidence of Obama's lack of substance. The Oprahs, Tony Robbins of the world may have money and appeal to the masses, but the rought and tough substance just is not there behind the curtain.

It's a pity that our former presiddent Bill clinton did not consider Obama's prior experience. None of the candidate who are in the race for the white house has prior presidential experience. Everybody knows that Bill cliton wants his wife that he betrayed with the monica Lewinsky case while he was in the office. I do not see Hillary's presidential experience, she never run as president of the united states, Her husband did. I am asking mysef what experience Bill cliton is looking for Barack Obama. Please, Mrs cliton Would you want him to have Monica Lewinsky experience? I do not think that Barack Obama need that dirty thing. This guy he just doing goog and he is in the best position to win, don't thrill.
Barack Obama has proved his wisdom to make good decisions, he has experience and I deeply think he is enough ready to be the next president of the united states of american. Obama is committed to doing and is willing to do good things for american that why he represent change, his value does not wait much longer to president.
For those who are telling the truth about Barack Obama.

I watched the Charlie Rose Show last night, and the Bill Clinton I saw was as slick as ever. He's svengali-like in his ability to draw you in emotionally, sound authoritative and aw-shucks friendly at the same time. He can simultaneously lie and make you forget/not care that he's lying. It's mesmerizing and somewhat frightening.

But I too noticed the tenseness, the change in tone of voice when talking about Senator Obama . . . about his getting into the race. He sounded irritated and resentful. Don't watch Bill . . .listen to his tone of voice.

Nobody believes that Hillary's campaign website listed kindergarten and third grade examples of Senator Obama's presidential ambitions as some sort of joke. There was absolutely nothing on that webpage to indicate that this was an attempt at light-hearted ribbing. And think about it, in the midst of battle the Clinton folks do not joke around! Bill Clinton told us last night that "Hillary thought it was funny" . . .that it was a joke.
I don't think so, Bill!

We all need to remember that this is the president who told investigators, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Regarding experience---It's like the light at the stern of the ship. It shows you where you've been, not where you're going.
I know where Senator Obama is going and I'm going with him!

Forget the career politician. Vote for Obama.

Posted by: dano | Dec 15, 2007 1:02:57 PM

Yeah, sure. Let's have another 4 years of a completely inexperienced presidency.

Would you hire a surgeon or CEO with little experience? If you did you'd pay a high price.

Experience matters.

If you 'believe' that everything will just 'work out' if we 'hope,' you will be very disappointed.

~

Join the club, Bill.

I'm pissed off that Sen. Obama is running.

He has zero chance of being elected.

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have the on-the-job training to succeed. Study after study have confirmed that trial by fire is the best way for CEO's to improve their game.

Obama has @#$% everything up.

I wish he would just go away.

~

I watched the entire Charlie Rose interview which was excellent.

As a supporter of Sen. Obama, I believe that the critics are taking liberty with former President Clinton's words.

Yes, no doubt, he praised Sen. Clinton. Everything he said was justified.

She is being given a run like they did not expect, but this is life. They should know that nothing worth having comes easily.

The Democratic party is indeed blessed with having a bevy of excellent candidates this time. I'll bet that the GOP only wishes they were as lucky.

...and I might add that no one has 'experience' of the future, which is where the successful candidate will be operating. If you look at the current crop of candidates in terms of their instincts for solving problems, I don't see HRC amongst the front runners based on her health care fiasco in hubby's administration.