Durbin warns BILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL O'Clinton

[peoli]

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking party leader in the Senate, says President Bill Clinton’s comments about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are getting “too personal,” and called on the former president to refrain from attacking Obama’s integrity.

“I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,” Durbin said. “I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.”

The unsolicited comments – in a phone call to Politico from Springfield, Ill. – were a sign that the Obama campaign is going to react aggressively to perceived attacks on the senator’s character.

“I really had hoped … that it wouldn’t become too personal or too negative,” Durbin said. “I don’t think that’s good for either of the candidates or for our party. There may be clear some clear differences on some issues.”

Durbin suggested that the former president has been giving somewhat revisionist accounts on the way the Iraq war debate played out.

“It was not easy to be against that war back when we cast that vote in October of 2002,” Durbin said. “I was one of 23 who voted against the war. Barack was supportive – one of the few candidates speaking out against it strongly in Illinois.

“If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.”

Durbin, the majority whip, was reacting to comments the former president has made in several recent forums suggesting that Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war has not been as steadfast as he has suggested on the stump.

“I think that his story line is not accurate,” Clinton said Friday on a liberal talk-show on Sirius satellite radio.

Clinton, seeking to tamp down discontent among black leaders about comments he made about Obama in New Hampshire, told Mark Thompson on the “Talk Left” channel:

“This is what happens any time anyone tries to question a statement or a position of Senator Obama. The response is, ‘You’re attacking me personally,’ and that relieves him of the obligation to address the substance.”

Durbin has endorsed Obama but says he is friends with both Clintons and noted that his voting record was strongly supportive of Bill Clinton when he was in office. Durbin and the former president overlapped at Georgetown University: Durbin got his undergraduate degree in 1966, and Clinton graduated in 1968.

“I really worked hard for him when he was a candidate,” Durbin said. “And I’ve had a very strong and warm relationship with Senator Clinton, as well. So none of this is personal. I respect them both very much.”

Asked his outlook on the Democratic primary campaign, Durbin said: “In this business, you step back as a candidate and you say, Would I rather be in my opponent’s shoes, or in my shoes? I’d rather be in the Obama camp today, I think. We really have momentum behind us.”



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7860.html

[OzarkDem]

1. Big Dog is right

“This is what happens any time anyone tries to question a statement or a position of Senator Obama. The response is, ‘You’re attacking me personally,’ and that relieves him of the obligation to address the substance.”

[sandnsea]

8. Obama was covering for YOUR candidate

Is that addressing the Iraq issue clearly enough for you?

[jackson_dem]

38. By adding there was no difference between Obama and Bush on Iraq?

[sandnsea]

88. At that stage

there wasn't a lot of difference between Hillary and George Bush, as she was running around saying "stay the course" and Edwards was insisting they stand by their vote so they wouldn't appear weak. But your cowardly candidate is always the one who would have done something different if he'd only known. Is he standing up for Obama now?? Oh hell no.

[DJ13]

12. Theres a simple solution

"Big Dog is right
“This is what happens any time anyone tries to question a statement or a position of Senator Obama."


Then stop playing the politics of personal destruction Bill, and it wont come back to bite you in the ass.

Problem solved.

[Maribelle]

58. You're kidding, right? If Clinton wanted to play I am sure he could steamroll Obama.

The politics of personal destruction is a Bush game.

[Adelante]

21. Obama had to cover Edwards' ass

You should be thankful.

[DURHAM D]

40. Wow - I am so glad Durbin took the opportunity to condemn

sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr. when he made that unsolicited phone call to a reporter. Durbin is right. The campaigns really need to be careful about personal attacks. :sarcasm:

[earthlover]

61. The big dog poo is wrong!

he personally attacked obama. and he deliberately and deceptively left out the last sentence (which also was the defining sentence) of a quote Bill Clinton quoted out of context to wrongly say Obama was having second thoughts about the war. Shame on you Bill Clinton! I used to think you were cool! No more.

[Maribelle]

77. He is right.

And what Politico doesn't say is that prominent black supporters of Hillary's have been supporting her statements and also accusing Mr. Obama’s campaign of being divisive.

[jasmine621]

94. Not only that, it wasn't about Obama's" sincerity. It was about Obama's acutal

voting!

[Usrename]

110. Has the Big Dog ever gone after any Republican this way?

I don't think he's ever twisted the facts like this to go after a Republican. He sure hasn't criticized Bush this harshly.

It's pathetic for a former president to do this kind of thing to his own party.

Especially when he has nothing useful to say about the disaster that is George W. Bush.

Makes me want to barf when I think about it. :puke: Can this possibly get any more pathetic?

[sandnsea]

2. Good for Sen Durbin

He is exactly right. He is stuck with funding issues for a war he really and truly never wanted to start in any way shape or form.

[Colobo]

3. Thanks, Sen. Durbin.

[zulchzulu]

4. Thank you Senator Durbin

Spot on!

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Thank you Sen. Durbin, straight talk at last.....n/t

[dkf]

6. "Durbin suggested that the former president has been giving somewhat revisionist accounts

on the way the Iraq war debate played out."

ouch.

[bluedog]

25. he should know about opening a mouth

he did.and got in royal shit for it

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

[Adelante]

43. Not from Gen. Clark who defended him strongly nt

[karynnj]

79. That is NOT what Durbin said, you have been listening to RW sources

Durbin condemned what REALLY did happen and said something like it sickened him because you expect such actions from people like the Nazis, ...., NOT Americans. Were you proud that our country had people representing us who allowed torture? This is NOT what I consider American values - to say otherwise is an insult to all the decent American soldiers who did not do these things.

Durbin's comment was in a long Senate speech that was in fact a very good exhortation to reject these types of actions. The sentence was completely taken out of context. (Just as Kerry's 1971 testimony was) Do you want an America where it is the people who object vehemently to great wrongs are the ones held to account? Durbin's comments got him in trouble because the media let the RW echo chamber get away with their faux outrage. (note that he is still vilified even after the apology that he never should have had to make.

This has NOTHING to do with the Clinton attack machine.

[BeyondGeography]

7. This is a great line

“If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.”

[bluedog]

14. didn't know Bill was a Senator then!!!

[Mojorabbit]

26. Be honest

It would have helped a lot if an ex prez had spoken up in support. I have not made my choice yet by the way,

[eleny]

31. BC has now said he was always against the war

Too bad he only talked about it where no one could hear him. That's what Durbin is talking about. And Durbin is right.

If BC had spoken out it may have helped. I don't recall him saying a peep. It would have surely been all over DU. I only recall Carter speaking out against invading Iraq.

Good for Durbin who is telling it like it was.

K&Rec.

[senseandsensibility]

74. He didn't

I was watching and waiting for such a comment and it never came.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

82. If the 'he didn't ' refer to Clinton, actually he did

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22004475/
Showing inconsistency on an issue that has dogged his wife, the former president also told Iowa Democrats that he “opposed (war in) Iraq from the beginning.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/27/post_214.html
Former president Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," apparently glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time. Clinton made the remarks while campaigning for his wife in Iowa - a largely anti-war state for Democrats -- as he expressed bitterness over getting a tax cut with money that could have been spent on the military.

Was a number of other links aswell that i found on google, bt these two shows he did

[senseandsensibility]

90. It referred to Clinton not saying anything AT THE TIME

when we were gearing up to attack Iraq. That is, when it would have meant something. I don't understand your post or your links. They seem to prove my point if anything.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

92. that should show me for posting when i was tired

For some reason i read your post as claiming he hadn't said that he was always against the war(which in hindsight was rather foolish of me)

[senseandsensibility]

93. Actually, I was probably a little cryptic

but I'm glad we're on the same page.:hi:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

97. I can do nothing but fully agree there

:pals:

[fujiyama]

103. Carter was vocal in opposition...

and so was Al Gore.

Clinton was no Al Gore in forcefully opposing the war.

[eleny]

109. Right, I forgot about Gore and should have included him since he was in the Exec Branch

:hi:

[karynnj]

80. No, but he was the biggest voice in the Democratic party

and he had enormous influence.

[Adelante]

24. Hear, hear!!

:patriot:

[forsberg]

9. Durbin needs to shut his trap

[globalvillage]

17. Why should he do that?

He doesn't have the right to speak?

[forsberg]

29. not spew idiotic bullcrap at our nations greatest president

[Colobo]

32. LOL!

[globalvillage]

35. Oh, good grief

He wasn't spewing idiotic bullcrap. He was disagreeing with President Clinton.
That's permitted, you know.

[TwilightGardener]

91. "Nation's greatest president"? Really? Better than Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson?

Really?

[kenfrequed]

108. Bill Clinton?

Are we talking about the same Bill Clinton?

I really doubt that president that presided over "welfare reform" and NAFTA qualifies as our nations greatest presidents. He is better than the republicans, marginally. That's all I can say, and there are even a few Republicans I could compare him to unfavorably. Eisenhower comes to mind for his recognition of the dangers of military-corporate power.

As far as "greatest living presidents" that would be a pretty small field to draw from. And guess what?!! Carter still eats his lunch for what he tried to do.

[chascarrillo]

111. If he's not voting for Clinton, then no, he doesn't have the right to speak.

Read the rulebook. Duh.

:sarcasm:

[City Lights]

28. And you are?

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Karl Rove perhaps?

You know he's a great defender of the Clintons now. Anyone surprised? All that's left is for Poppy Bush to endorse Hillary now.

[MadBadger]

54. Can you change your pic?

You do a disservice to our state every time you post.

[dkf]

10. oops dupe

[Skip Intro]

11. Hard not to question Obama's stance when he says there's little difference between he and bush.

sorry, not going to pretend he didn't say it.

[ProSense]

27. Durbin nailed Bill Clinton on his hypocrisy.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

more

Right smack in the middle of the 2004 election!

[FrenchieCat]

30. Can you say liar, liar, pants on fire.....in the mirror, looking at yourself?

and please also tell me that 9/11 was linked to Iraq, while you are at it. We've already experience those who twist the truth for their own personal purposes.

In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune the following day (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted "no" on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of "pulling out now." On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq , he said "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[Skip Intro]

39. Don't call me a liar when I use Obama's own words. He's a liar. I'll prove it right here -

He was questioned by Russert on MTP about the following comments: "I don't know how I would have voted" on the IWR; "there's not much difference between me and bush on Iraq"; "there's room for disagreement" on the intitial vote.

His lie?

He told Russert that we had a ticket of two that voted for the IWR. Get it?

He said things he didn't mean because of political calculation.

Now the question its - now that he's admitted he will say things he doesn't mean for political reasons - was he lying then, or is he lying now? And what about tomorrow? How can you tell when he's lying for political reasons and when he's being straight with you?

Answer those questions and get back to me, ok.

I'm not the liar, he is.

[ellacott]

52. He didn't lie

The rest of the quote that was left out is:
"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

[Skip Intro]

60. He ADMITTED he lied. What did you miss?

He said he said those things in 04 because of who our candidates were. HE said that.

In other words, and it's not a strecth, he said things he didn't mean for political reasons.

Sheesh, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[ellacott]

63. Did you read my post

Did you read the full quote?

Stop with the snark.

[Skip Intro]

71. Yes, and bullshit. Here's Obama's explanation of those 2004 remarks - he admits he LIED.

Here's the question:


MR. RUSSERT You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.



SEN. 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. And so it, 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.

Get it????

"It was probably the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our pArty's nomiees' decisions when it came to Iraq."


In OTHER WORDS, I SAID things I didn't really MEAN because of the POLTICAL situation.


Please, spin elswhere. The facts are bare.

You can't say one thing and then magically follow it up with a statement that negates what you've just said.

Unless you're a liar.



Now that he admits he'll say things for political reasons, how do you know when he's actually being straight with you? How do you know when he's meaning what he says, and when he's not?

edited for grammatical correction

[ellacott]

75. The rest of the quote

"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

Do you get it???

[Skip Intro]

78. You have not addressed his stated excuse for saying such things. I don't think you will.

And I'm not surprised.

[ellacott]

81. I gave you the link with his interview

Yet you refuse to acknowledge his full statement.

And I'M not surprised either.

[kelligesq]

44. Sorry to say this, but parts of that speech very familiar, like from history - I have

a feeling that I know that speech or parts of it from some one else's mouth

And we know that Obama is not above "poaching" others ideas and words - as the
Boston Globe has pointed out.

[tishaLA]

53. Anything to back up that accusation?

Like a phrase in that speech you think is "from history"?

[Adelante]

42. Not about 2002 - about 2004

Clinton then expressed surprise that Obama has been allowed to get away with a statement in 2004, “at the Democratic Convention,” saying that there was “not much difference” between him and George W. Bush on Iraq. He also quoted Obama as saying that he “did not know” how he would have voted on the now-contentious 2002 Senate resolution authorizing military action in Iraq, had he been in the Senate at the time.

The way Clinton said all this, it sounded as if these statements were part of Obama’s big speech to the convention, which marked his introduction to big-time politics. In fact, they are somewhat misleading snippets from newspaper interviews that Obama gave before the convention.

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton. In a July 26 interview with the New York Times, a few days before the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was “not privy to Senate intelligence reports.”

He then continued: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”

(The Clinton campaign left out that important last sentence when it e-mailed reporters with backup material for the inconsistency claim, which was also made by Hillary Clinton in the televised debate Saturday night.)

In an interview the following day with the Chicago Tribune (July 27,2004), Obama said that he would have voted “no” on the Senate resolution. But he said he was not in favor of “pulling out now.” On the issue of whether to stay in Iraq (in 2004), he said “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” The context of his remarks makes clear that he was not referring to the original decision to go into Iraq, but the question of whether to remain.

His views on whether to stay in Iraq have changed, of course, as he now advocates a phased withdrawal.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

[ellacott]

46. This is the second time he adrressed this with Tim Russert

I'm sure that the Clintons know this:

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. 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. And so it, 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, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/2/

[IndianaGreen]

13. But Bill Clinton was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and against torture.

Ooops, I forgot that it was Bill Clinton who began CIA renditions way back in 1994.

[dkf]

15. Yes from the beginning! lol.

[David Zephyr]

100. It's hard to keep up with all of his "fairy tales" isn't it?

:thumbsup:

[ursi]

16. Boy, why do the Clintons want back in the seat of power again?

[DJ13]

22. Boy, why do the Clintons want back in the seat of power again?

Interns!

(Just kidding Clinton supporters!)

[City Lights]

18. I love my senators!

:loveya:

Thanks, Senator Durbin. :patriot:

[Adelante]

19. Dick Durbin

Thank you, Senator. :)

Kerry also backs up Obama on the war:

Kerry did not refer by name to Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, his 2004 running mate, saying only that the other candidates in the race were “terrific public servants.” But he took several implicit jabs at the case Clinton and her husband have been making against Obama. He declared that Obama was “right about the war in Iraq,” seeming to counter Bill Clinton’s recent charge that Obama’s opposition to the war was shaky because he had said at the 2004 convention that he wasn’t sure how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate at the time. (Obama has said he was only trying to be gracious toward Kerry, who had voted for the war.)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/10/with_kerry_under_the_spanish_o_1.html#more

[ellacott]

49. I believe this was a factor in Kerry endorsing Obama at this time n/t

[Adelante]

59. Yes, I do, too nt

[jefferson_dem]

20. Thanks Senator Durbin.

:patriot:

Pic of the big dog, taken earlier today - -

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. JD, that pic is priceless...LOL

[kelligesq]

23. This is the tipoff. Pelosi is trying to wrest leadership of the dem DLC party from the Clintons

she's backing Obama and all the boyz are falling in behind her.
An internal power struggle in the democratic party.
Once again the democratic party shoots itself in the foot.

It's crazy that they would back a guy with 2 years experience and push a black
man in the same race as Hillary Clinton a woman, when the world has known that
Hillary was going to run for President in 08.

A pox on both sides.
Obama and Hillary will destroy each other before the public.

Edwards has got to switch to independent. Why be saddled with a party imploding
on itself. He owes them nothing.

[IndianaGreen]

34. If true, this is an internal struggle in which we don't have a dog to back

Have you forgotten that Pelosi is the one that put impeachment off the table, perhaps in order to cover up Democratic complicity in Bush's crimes?

No matter who wins, the people will lose!

[Colobo]

36. The DLC needs to be defeated.

[jackson_dem]

41. Ben Nelson endorsed Obama just today...

[DURHAM D]

45. LOL. n/t

[kelligesq]

56. But Katz, I thought u luv Obama, and the DLC is backing him, not Hill -

so what are you saying? you dont like the DLC? Obama is DLC but in the closet.
LOL

[kelligesq]

51. No, Indiana, I havent forgotten for a minute that Pelosi took impeachment off

the table as her very first edict.

And did not end the war, but continued to fund it.

And then wonders why approval of HER Congress is 11%

Now we know why Pelosi and Jane Harmon were at each others throats too.
Harmon didnt like the torture...Pelosi, yes you are right is just as guilty as
junior for not speaking up aginst it.

Move on is going to run candidates against bad dems and it is my fervent hope\
that she will be number one on their list.

[denem]

37. Doom, Gloom, Disaster

... again.

[Hardrada]

50. If it weren't for bad luck, we'd have no luck at all.

Gloom, despair and misery..oh me!

Hee Haw (great show)

[hedgehog]

66. "the world has known that Hillary was going to run for President in 08"?

So if Hillary wants it, she should automatically have it?

[cali]

72. that's an awful lot of tinfoil you're sporting.

Pelosi? LOL! Why should this matter to Pelosi? What are her connections with Obama?

Now to correct you: Obama has served 3 years in the U.S. Senate and 7 years in the Illinois State Senate. He is also a Constitutional scholar.

And if Edwards switches to indie, he will be justifiably reviled. Fortunately, he's a dem, not a crackpot. Glad you're not advising him.

[kelligesq]

76. there there now Cali. I think I've been around quite a bit longer than you have - the

writing is on the wall for anyone to see.

If you want to insult me with tin foil crap, then
you deserve to be told to back down and take your meds

[boston bean]

33. This is going to bite him and Obama in the butt! There is video

of him prevaricating on the issue and saying basically he lied when he said it.

Bill might just win this one.

[Maribelle]

55. Could you please back off using right wing hate monger nicknames on our Democrats?

President Clinton, especially, does not deserve this. I find it deplorable.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Are you speaking of the same President Clinton that fucked us over with DOMA and DADT?

We are still paying for his shit!!!!!!

[Maribelle]

62. Are you speaking or spitting filth? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

64. I am telling you what the man did to the LGBT community, civilian and military

and it is a personal issue to me!

[kelligesq]

65. Maribelle-are you referring to " Big Dog". ? means big honcho affectionatley

we have called him that for years..and I;m quite sure he knows it
.its a term like "he's the boss" and certainly not right wing.

As a matter of fact I suspect it prolly has southern origins

A shame this dog fight is ruining what has been a glowing reputation for dems of Bill - but he does have to stand up for his wife...as any woman would expect him
to.

[Maribelle]

68. No. I refer to the stretched BillO in the op

And it was truly meant to be derogatory.

[peoli]

83. This is my caring face O.o

[Barack_America]

67. You may discredit Durbin...

But this is the second warning the Clintons have gotten from a high-ranking senator.

Hopefully these campaign tactics will swiftly come to an end and the Democratic party will be able to civilly nominate a candidate.

[kelligesq]

70. Kristi, the other warning came from Pelosi's right hand man who

always stands behind her at press conferences,,,he happens to be an older
black man.....

Second warning my eye.

Pelosi and company are declaring war on Clintons to take power of the party from them...Kerry has not been the leader, Gore wouldnt have anything to do with the party, it is Hillary who became the dem leader in Congress after the 2000 debacle election and 2004.

Pelosi was a nobody until she became speaker, but apparently Hill was the one still giving orders in the party

Warnings my eye...this is a gang up against Hill by her own party.


Now understand, I'm not voting for Hill and I'm not voting for Obama....but this is the stupidest stunt I've ever seen the democratic party pull other than naming LIeberman vice president.

guaranteed after the primaries I'm switching registration to independent....and
I'll start a separate party if I have to.

I'm through with Pelosi and companyu...they;re not democrats anymore anyway.
and they sure dont give a damn about the people of America optherwise they'd be impeaching Bush and Cheney to save the countyry and the Constitution

FUCK PELOSI , Durbin who I used to respect, and the entire DLC and demcoratic jerks

[Maribelle]

73. President Clinton has every right to defend Hillary against Obama's distortions.

Even if Obama and his folks don't like it, he still has every right to do it.

[peoli]

84. haha.

[ellisonz]

99. That he was really for the war and that Bill was really against it?

Yeah right. Don't get me wrong, I'm not laughing in your face like the other poster. But I don't buy it. Just say no to Clintons.

[Big Blue Marble]

104. I like that "just say not to the Clintons." n/t

[ellisonz]

113. They really are like a drug...

35 YEARS OF EXPIERENCE ! ! !

[Cameron27]

85. If this is true,

I'll leave the party, and go Independent. Fuck them is right.

[Barack_America]

86. If everyone in the Democratic party is the enemy...

Then who will your candidate work with? Be careful of associating your candidate with such negativity.

[Cameron27]

87. If you're an Obama supporter

take your own advice.

[ellisonz]

69. Just keep digging that hole Bill...

[Breeze54]

89. But, but A vote FOR the IWR wasn't REALLY a vote for the war!!

:sarcasm:

“It was not easy to be against that war back when we cast that vote in October of 2002,” Durbin said.
“I was one of 23 who voted against the war. Barack was supportive – one of the few candidates speaking
out against it strongly in Illinois.

“If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped
a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.”

[AX10]

95. I see. Question Obama and you will be condemned.

:eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

96. And who the fuck is Durbin supposed to be?

Oh, the second ranking party leader in the Senate. What breaking news. :eyes:

[2hip]

98. Politico.com has a pro-Republican bias

They'd like nothing better than to stir up controversy and divide the Dem base with in-fighting. Seems like it's working.




              Edwards '08 tees!

[fightindonkey]

101. Too Personal? It's A Fucking Race! What is Wrong With These Idiots?!

[BringBigDogBack]

102. K&R

[FrenchieCat]

105. Bill Clinton talking about someone stance being "shaky"?

Bill needs to look into the mirror, cause he's really contradicting himself with a bunch of lies.....and should concentrate on figuring out what his own stance is and was, before trying to make a case for someone else.


"That's why I supported the Iraq thing." Bill Clinton, June 23, 2004 (CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

"I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning." Bill Clinton, 11/27/2007, (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?ex=1353906000&en=cf3f18a5f01db61b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Make up your fucking mind. Don't go senile on us now! Hillary's got some work of hers for you to do....she "promised" us!

So, anyways.....Bill was for it before he was against it before he had never been for it before and after he didn't say shit when he could of had, if...
Shit...I'm even confused! :crazy:

[Eurobabe]

106. Big Dawg needs to shut his BIG YAP

he's not helping Hillary at all on the campaign trail with his crazy comments. One would almost think he WANTS her to lose, so he is not outshined? If she wins, she will ALWAYS be more famous than him as the first female president in history.

Perhaps Bill cares more about his legacy than he does the future of the country? :shrug:

[Thrill]

107. I thought his comments in NH were personal

I'm not over his this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale comment. Seriously that has really stuck with me. Still pissed about it. Not so much the statement. But the context in which he said it. With the bitter angry tone.

[David Zephyr]

112. Bill certainly has lost his luster. Possibly for good now.

.