"Unfortunately with all due respect for you, the days where you can dictate where Senator Clinton and other Democrats go, who we talk to, are over."

Message received, and duly noted. It's early. Forgive me.

I'm a little amazed that some of Wolfson's comments made it past Bill's editing.

Everyone except America-hating Red Bushies wants to tell Bill O'Reilly to go Fvck himself.

From what I understand, Faux News only has 2-3 million viewers. In a nation of about 300 million people, that's nothing. And considering O'Leilly only gets a fraction of that 2-3 million, he's much more of a joke than most people think.

O'Leilly can sit and crow all day long about how DailyKos is a "hate" site, but he has really only done the Kos folks a favor. He's caused so much free publicity for them!! I wonder how many 'cons have gone to DailyKos to check it out and see what it is all about. Additionally, O'Leilly seems to blur the difference between what the actual POSTERS write on DailyKos and what COMMENTORS write.

Oh, and it gets better. Check out what the folks at AMERICAblog have done. (www.americablog.com) They are turning the tables on O'Leilly and finding comments on his website that are full of hate and threats of violence. One big difference between O'Leilly's site and AMERICAblog is that you have to pay and provide credit card information in order to access O'Leilly's site and comment; AMERICAblog doesn't charge to view their site or to post comments. If one needed to know the identity of the haters on O'Leilly's site, all they have to do is check their records and pull the real name from the credit card information on file!!

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly!

I just love the current vogue of criticizing anybody on the left (including, oddly, Hillary) for how "angry" they are, and how much "hate" they have for our current administration. Treating outrage as a character flaw allows the people doing it to completely avoid any discussion of what generated the outrage in the first place. So somebody who points out, quite accurately, that our President lied to get us into a war, is being hateful because calling somebody a "liar" is mean.

Anybody engaged in a confrontation who attacks his opponent for being confrontational is being disingenuous.

If she were a weak senator, or if her support consisted of only back room democrats (instead of the 45% she actually has), then I could believe it.

But she was resoundingly reelected last year. And everyone knows her- yes, 45% (there's that number again) dislike her, but guess what- those 45% are never, ever going to vote for a Democrat. Bill got 49.2% in 1996, remember.

If you don't understand logic, think that science has a liberal bias and belive that the world is thousands, rather than billions of years old then there is nothing anyone can say that will convince them otherwise. These people, these loyal viewers of Fox news are impervious to evidence, information, knowledge or reasoned debate. You just need to know a few dozen "lizard brain" button-pushing catch phrases and repeat them often enough and in the right context (or the wrong context) in order to get your message across, which is usually just reinforcing the ignorant attitudes they brought with them.

For example, Bill O'Reilly had two buzzwords: trafficking and hate-speech, and rather than responding to his guest (who kicked major red-neck ass, I might add), he merely repeated the websites name and the buzzwords in the same sentences over and over and over again.

I wish I could claim that viewers of the O'Reilly factor must have been blown away by Howard Wolfson's amazing presence of mind and coolness of head, as well as his thoughtful, intelligent responses but I'll wager that few if any were actually impressed or influenced by it at all, if they didn't already agree (in which case they would have been jumping up and down with joy at seeing Papa Bear soundly whipped).

All O'Reilly could do was sputter ineptly and utter the last words "hate speech!" before the show went to commercial. I bet he wished he could have cut the guy's mike or had "technical difficulties" to stop his rebuttal.

*spare me on the-thats a sexist comment- crap, I know- Im old school.

And Big Sven: Just the wonky political rumor mill. Pretty much what Christopher said, above -- they think she's beatable. I suspect also that if it comes down to it, the money that's calling the shots would also prefer to see a Clinton Democrat, who proved themselves pliable to the interests of big business in the nineties, in office rather than any of the alternatives.

But you busted me -- I can't actually provide a link to Karl Rove saying "let's try to win the nomination for Hillary" or anything. If there was such a message it would probably have been accidentally destroyed by now anyway. In an, uh, email fire. Or something.