Bill's in when he's useful, and it's unfair to mention him when he's not.

It's fair comment to use the term. Bill is actively campaigning, doing the hatchet work, clearly stating that he will have an active role in the government if Hillary wins (promoting that as a benefit for voting for her), even commenting on election results before she does. Given his actions, how can anybody object when the press refers to Billary.

the media will do whatever it takes to keep a repub. in the white house. that way they can keep their enormous tax cuts and and u.s. involvement in wars overseas will continue. those are the 2 things the msm lives for are wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Really? So Hillary is getting high in the hotel room while Bill does everything? Or is this just how the media chooses to cover it? Hmm... I wonder. I'd like to see how much ink Hillary's campaign stops have gotten in comparison.

Maybe they did underestimate the media obsession with Bill Clinton, just as they underestimated the media's hatred of Hillary going into NH. I'm sure they will correct but they certainly have to do a lot of compensating for the media.

Meanwhile Obama just has to smile for his latest puff piece. He doesnt need to attack with the media doing it all for free.

I think the former President could be an asset to his wife's campaign, but only by 1) remaining positive, and 2) attacking Republican policy positions and performance. In other words, by remaining above the fray and very very professional. For the former President to attack any Democrats over any issue, to say nothing of straight-up ad hominem attacks, doesn't make any sense at all. It just makes the former President, and by extension his spouse's campaign, look desperate and angry, at least in my view.

And when you're desperate and angry the LAST thing you want to do is look it.

The media wants Obama and then they will tear him down when the Republican machine starts up. Obama has noe xperience and nof oreign policy credentials. We are dead.

Look forward to another 4 years of Republican rule

pissed off patricia @ 10:

What if Hillary were not married to Bill, but instead married to a man we didn't know much about? What if this man played the same role Bill is playing in her campaign? What would we think of him?

A good question. Have we heard much about Michelle Obama, or Elizabeth Edwards making slams against other Democratic candidates? If they did, were their comments granted as much coverage as those of the former President? How about Cindy McCain, how much press has she been getting? Or any of Rudy Giuliani's several wives and ex-wives...

Forgive me in advance....

Please start a thread on the FISA/PAA cloture vote, maybe basing it on the incredible mis-information in the M$M on whether FISA expires on Feb 1 (which it doesn't). Rockefeller just came out strong against cloture, which is huge.

- Jtoby

republicans dominate the tone of politics because they have the talk radio monopoly and it's nationwide coordinated uncontested repetition to attack progressive candidates and causes without having to worry about response.

the roves get the limbaughs to lay out a smorgasbord of prechewed and tested one liners, talking points and myths for the lazy celebrity talking heads to repeat in print and tv. you can't create the words, phrases, and myths that like guys do if you're just using print and tv. it's easy to establish with the 24/7 repetition of talk radio.

I am (was?) a huge fan of Bill Clinton but he has really gotten on my nerves these last couple of weeks. Whether or not you agree that his statements were race-baiting or where meant to marginalize Obama, I can't get over how much attention he's getting and it's making me wonder who the candidate for President really is in the Clinton household. Obviously he's going to be a strong surrogate for his wife, but that's what he's making her look like....HIS WIFE....and not the potential next POTUS. He is so overshadowing her (why did he give the concession speech in SC?) that it makes her look like the weak woman to his side, which is not how I did or do view Hillary. I personally believe the Jesse Jackson comments and others were not accidental, and it's given me a very negative view of the Clintons. Even my mother, who has every book ever written by or about (in a positive way) Hillary Clinton said she has had enough and is no longer supporting her in the primaries. While I was leaning towards Obama early on, I am now fully in his camp......and I'm not sure if it's Obama or the Clintons that put me there....

I'll betcha Bill/Hillary would be a more likely winning ticket than Hillary/Bill.

Filthy Harry @ 2:

On Friday, before the Saturday, SC primary, my wife, who is apolitical, doesn't follow this stuff at all, who didn't even know there was a primary in SC on Saturday and who will just vote for whoever is the Dem candidate in November, caught a clip of Bill, campaigning against Obama and her unfiltered reaction was, "Oh, I like Bill so much, I wish he wouldn't do that." her voice sincerely sounding disappointed.

Based on that small sample, I think using Bill to prop up Hill's campaign is a mistake.

Also this could be a way off but maybe for a lot of people who don't follow the process closely, (that excludes everyone here) there may be a false ring to Bill standing up for Hillary, considering how he's treated her in the past. As in, if she's so great, and he supports her so much, then why did he...(you know what I mean).

Same reaction my wife had. She hates politics, sees it all as a bunch a swirl, hype and unnecessary conflict, but she's extremely liberal (because she believes the Supreme Court matters and she works in a social justice field). She voted for Clinton (Bill) twice. She will vote for whoever takes the Democratic nomination (and we've had some heated arguments about whether this is the best way to cast one's vote--she's not into protest votes).

It was telling for me to listen to her seethe when Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comments were replayed on TV yesterday. Her comment surprised me: "I've had it with the Clintons."

And will these "Billary" comments lessen at all should Mrs. Clinton get the nod? They'll be even worse because Republicans are galvanized against her, if nothing else. She may be the only thing that gets Republicans to the polls in the general election.

me, i'm looking for competence this time. hillary seems to be the most ready for the clean up which will be required. all this stuff is just noise by the MSM and i don't pay much attention. but, if you don't think the rupubs will use this stuff and more on obama in the fall you ain't been paying attention during the past few elections. i just wish edwards had a chance. he is the candidate the fascist running our gov fear most.

Personally, i know that if Sen Clinton gets the nomination i will go to the polls and vote in her favor. I say in her favor because i won't be voting for her, i'll be voting against whoever the Republican candidate is. And truth be told, i'm so sick and tired of voting against the Republicans. At least once in my life i want to vote FOR a candidate.

I'm not sure if Obama would make me vote FOR him, but i do feel like i'd be voting for something. And the more i turn over the deeper meaning of his candidacy, the more i feel like i'm coming to understand it. The explanation is long, but briefly, i see the idea that a political leader is the facilitator of decision making rather than the pronouncer of policy. I'm not sure that it will work, given how deeply entrenched our politics are, but i like the idea. And i get the feeling that his "lack of substance" may stem more from the fact that he sees himself less as a font of policy than as a leader who can get people together to work towards consensus.

I'm so tired of partisan bickering and parliamentary obstructionism. Our country is dying and there's nothing but fighting that often lacks any vision whatsoever. It is not fighting for what's right, its fighting for the sake of victory. All us little people are caught in the crossfire of a larger than life gang war. I don't think that Republicans defeat SCHIP because they hate children (though some of them probably do), but because they were intent on defeating Democrats. The only real loser in that battle are the kids without health care.

pissed off patricia @ 10:

What if Hillary were not married to Bill, but instead married to a man we didn't know much about? What if this man played the same role Bill is playing in her campaign? What would we think of him?

Then it wouldn't matter, if he weren't a former US president. Bill is, so it does. There is a universe of difference between Bill and other spouses campaigning. When they speak, it might get a mention. A paragraph, maybe. When Bill speaks, there are cameras there, regardless of the importance of what he says. He is a former US president! The press is there.

They have tried before to pass themselves off as a twofer. If this is how they want to be seen, then the media will use some sort of shorthand to refer to them. If The Clinton campaign has a problem with it, then perhaps it's time for Hillary to kick him to the curb and run on her record and achievements in the Senate. She should also stop using his record to bolster her own, so as to not to continue this twofer notion.

What we need is a woman to run on her own merits, her own achievements and her own accomplishments. When this happens her spouse wil be viewed just like anyother spouse. When he says something, it may get a paragraph, just like everyone else's does.

The simple fact is that if the Constitution allowed Bill Clinton to run for a third term he would win handily. That is especially true with this current crop of candidates Republicans, Democrats and Hillary.

As to what is Bill doing? Bill is just doing what any candidate’s spouse does and that is being a partisan for their mate. Bill Clinton has been no racist and pointing out that Obama has the shorter resume than George Bush had when he became president is fair. Bill Clinton is going to work hard for Hillary. He owes her and he does not want to sleep on the couch if he can help it even though he is more used to it than some.

Bill Clinton of course is smart enough to know that if he smokes out the opposition that they will overreact just like Frank Rich did in his column. Obviously Frank is a partisan supporting Obama who is an attractive candidate to be sure. If he makes it through the nomination I will vote for him in November.

What disturbs me is I see an alliance of right wing Republican interest like the Chicago Tribune endorsing Obama while the left wing of the Democratic party are following all over themselves to hurry to endorse Obama like John Kerry. In the Kennedy’s case they have never liked the Clinton’s and they would surely like Hillary to fail as a candidate. Also some want to escape the possible taint of being called a racist by some operative in the Obama campaign. This is a latter day form of McCarthyism for liberals. However for the electorate at large Obama getting Kennedy family endorsements is like seeing him kissing a frog and then turning form Prince Charming into another frog.

Speaking of race, it was Obama’s campaign machine that brought up the race issue as a tactical wedge to win the primary in South Carolina. It is a nasty smear calling the Clinton’s racist. I resent that. Anyone with an ounce of decency or sense enough to pour piss from a boot knows that Bill Clinton is no racist, nor is Hillary. It was the Obama campaign’s calculated use of this ploy that will ultimately manage to marginalize him as the “Black” candidate. It may have been a useful device to win in South Carolina an old cotton south state but not a strategically smart move to ultimately win the nomination in the rest of the country. Up to now it looks like Obama has not dented Hillary’s support numbers in the slightest and she will roll over him like a juggernaut in Florida tomorrow and on supper Tuesday.

The best that can be said for Obama is he may have managed to extort a VP slot. That is unless Hillary picks some other appealing running mate or if there is a racial rift in the party she may need to chose from many, many thousands of black Americans with much more experience, accomplishments and longer resumes than Obama’s.

Two triangulators for the price of one?

No thanks.

myiq2xu @ 32:

I would say that the Lapdog Media are showing their true colors but someone would claim I was making a racist remark about Obama.

bad puns are not necessarily trolling.

Bill brought the "Billary" with him the second he started opening his big mouth. If HE had kept it civil and known his place, maybe the media would have kept it civil and known not to use right wing buzz words. It was his big mouth in NH that let all the genies out of all the bottles. Serious writers have been mentioning the name "Lewinsky" again too. Don't come in the kitchen if...

My effort to keep the Rethuglicans out of the White House is to emphasize what most Dems already know; Hillary is an albatross to the party presidential election hopes. Almost as many Dems dislike her (on rational grounds) as GOP smear merchants. They (and the MSM) are dying to make the Hillary candidacy a reality (to win again by hook or by crook). Not every Dem and independent will hold their noses to vote for her. I'm debating whether or not I will. I'm hoping it doesn't get to that point.

Lemme tell you something: I am sick to death of the constant Hillary bashing. I am voting for her in the primary. Period. I will, of course, vote for whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be - but Hillary has my vote now. And it's not just the MSM taking pot shots - so-called progressive blogs are doing it too. There was even a recommended diary at Kos yesterday declaring that Bill and Hillary welcome death threats against Obama.

This has to stop, people. Do you really, honestly think that McCain, or Romney, or St. Rudy of 9/11 will be better for America than Hillary Clinton? If so - then you'd be better off frequenting different blogs. I think another Republican presidency will sink America - so I'm voting to change direction. I'm voting Democrat. How about you?

This is simply unchecked sexism raising it's head.

Woman is still Adam's rib to most in the media.

What was accomplished politically the last time a Clinton was in the WhiteHouse? Fighting, investigations, etc, etc........what would be accomplished this time with a Clinton in the WhiteHouse?.............hmmmmm......wonder if Bill ever thought about the meaning of the WhiteHouse when he was philandering with interns? Naw!!!!!

Billary? How about Hill-Billy? Has a nice right to it. Vote for the masters of triangulation?
No thanks.

What part of their statements aren't true? If Hillary was an individual, she would've divorced Bill, and run on her own a long time ago. This is just an excuse to give him a third term.

Albatross @ 9:

I think the former President could be an asset to his wife's campaign, but only by 1) remaining positive, and 2) attacking Republican policy positions and performance. In other words, by remaining above the fray and very very professional. For the former President to attack any Democrats over any issue, to say nothing of straight-up ad hominem attacks, doesn't make any sense at all. It just makes the former President, and by extension his spouse's campaign, look desperate and angry, at least in my view.

And when you're desperate and angry the LAST thing you want to do is look it.

An astute and if I may be so bold, correct observation. This may get uglier before getting anything else.

Tequila @ 49:

What part of their statements aren't true? If Hillary was an individual, she would've divorced Bill, and run on her own a long time ago. This is just an excuse to give him a third term.

I think if Hillary had divorced Bill while the stain on Monica's dress was still moist, and then went on to run for the senate of NY on her own, starting fresh, she'd have the nomination locked up by now. Fair or not, she comes with a lot of baggage that is going to put a lot of people off for no good reason (as well as a few good reasons.)

Sany @ 54:

The Media wants Obama for now, so he will get the nomination. Once he gets it, he will be torn down by the MSM for his lack of experience and foreign policy. This has been a major set up by the Republican Party from the get go. I'm surprised more people writing these blogs aren't getting it! This is going to be a Disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party, and I can't wait to say: I told you so!!!!!!!

I think they want Obama over Hillary because her existence, running with Bill, is a constant reminder of how low they sunk and how shabbily they treated him during his administration, and they'll have to face that if she and him are back in the WH, whereas Obama offers them a relatively blank slate on which to pretend they are journalists.

my worst prediction has come true. Basically, if "Billary" is the choice for the Democratic ticket, a 3rd party upset is likely. I say this because, this weekend, my father said he wouldn't be voting for her as a direct result of her negative campaigning and refusal to answer certain questions directly. Bare in mind, this is a man who called me a traitor and being responsible for how things are in this country now as a result of my vote for Nader in 2000. The man has never voted anything but Democratic since the 60s. If he's done if she's the pick, that's a very bad sign. I don't buy for a second that Republicans fear her. They want her there since they have the Gore election as precedent, and are likely clueing into the fact that even less Democrats are going to like her. I'm still on the fense at this point, considering how much I don't want to see a continuation of Republican nonsense. But, the fact that the person who once threw the nasty "traitor" crap my way 7 years ago is now pledging to do the same before I'm even there, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

Don't let this coroporate controlled press fool you. They are in essence dominated by Rep control. If the Clintons were so divisive would they have has taken the Reps on and trounced them in the past? Don't believe the hype.
They are just raising Obama for the fall if we stupid enough to elect him.
People let me tell you something. Bill Clinton is definitely an asset to the Hillary campaign. They know that it is why they want to get him out of the equation. They wish!

more hillary bashing. more bill bashing.

they've got thick skins. they've got slicker friends.

and should he have titled that book "GETTING" instead? (yes, we once liked him...)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105650/output/print

Abby @ 59:

Don't let this coroporate controlled press fool you. They are in essence dominated by Rep control. If the Clintons were so divisive would they have has taken the Reps on and trounced them in the past? Don't believe the hype.
They are just raising Obama for the fall if we stupid enough to elect him.
People let me tell you something. Bill Clinton is definitely an asset to the Hillary campaign. They know that it is why they want to get him out of the equation. They wish!

I'm not so sure that "trounce" can be applied to the Clintons' relationship with the Republican Party. If memory serves me right, the Democratic Party lost the House for the first time in 40 years under Clinton and he was unpopular with the liberal members of Congress. If by trounced you mean that the Republicans in Congress were able to tie up or destroy every piece of legislation except the most neo-liberal economic policies (NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, welfare reform, etc), then ok. Trounce they did.

I'm not saying that Obama is our savior, but has Bill Clinton used his star power to campaign heavily for any Democrat since he left the WH? No, Gore didn't want him, but for good reason. And from what i've read, Gore felt alienated for most of the 90's: i.e. Ms. Clinton was the real VP and he was the third wheel. Will Bill campaign for Obama if Ms. Clinton does not win the nomination? Or will he exhibit the now classic Clinton grudge against Obama for ever and ever?

And still, i wonder where this idea that the Clintons beat down the Republicans comes from. Survived? Yes, but barely...

SM @ 26:

pissed off patricia @ 10:

What if Hillary were not married to Bill, but instead married to a man we didn't know much about? What if this man played the same role Bill is playing in her campaign? What would we think of him?

Exactly my point! Let's say Hillary was married to that unknown spouse. He'd be doing and saying and campaign just like any other spouse does.

The real issue is the MEDIA putting Bill's words under a microscope and creating controversy where there is none.

That is ridiculous. If her spouse was a nobody then they wouldn't get as much attention from either voters OR the MSM. If Bill didn't command the attention of so many voters no would would give a rat's ass what he had to say.

Sany @ 54:

The Media wants Obama for now, so he will get the nomination. Once he gets it, he will be torn down by the MSM for his lack of experience and foreign policy. This has been a major set up by the Republican Party from the get go. I'm surprised more people writing these blogs aren't getting it! This is going to be a Disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party, and I can't wait to say: I told you so!!!!!!!

Obama's not going to get the nomination.

this is for all those folks who watch tv http://youtube.com/watch?v=QKIfMOvKC8s

Donna Brazile sounds like she has marbles in her mouth, which is probably good, because the more you can understand what she's saying, the more you realize she's a vapid, regurgitating robot who's never had an original thought in her life.

:)