Oh, and Hillary would do well to have Bill Clinton shut the fuck up. He is starting to piss off Obama supporters, the very supporters Hillary would need (if she gets the nomination) to win in November.

God, I need a drink.

New poll shows that after his big media splash Obama is 5 points down from Clinton among likely D's:

this is spun as she's somehow behind.

As for Bill the attack dog, I'm glad someone challenged Obama on something because you can be goddamn sure the right wing will and the press isn't doing it's job. Obama did drugs. Said pot helped him. Gee, is that going to be a problem in the general election? Let's close our eyes to it.

Obama said he would not know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. Is that a problem n a general election? Nope, let's close our eyes to it.

Obama praised Regan for making the GOP the party of ideas for the last 15 years. Any problem there in a general election? Duh, I dunno, let's close our eyes to it.

Obama's top contributor list includes Exelion (or some super nuclear company). Any problem in the general election when he says he is above all this lobbying and insider and money and donations crap? Let's close our eyes to it.

Obama recently said Bill's comments were "troubling" and "at odds with the facts." Sounded like a law professor. Totally noncommunicative. Failed to deliver any message at all.

Anyway, here's a different take on Bill the Alpha dog from dickpolman's blog:
"A candidate never looks good when he complains about being attacked and about the general unfairness of it all. .... And the Clintons are no doubt delighted with Obama's response, because every second that he expends on them, complaining about them and trying to refute them, is one less second expended on his own message.
.... With the Feb. 5 mega-primaries looming, it would be prohibitively expensive to run TV ads in all the big states; the wiser Clintonian option is to dispatch Bill hither and yon, particularly to the large cities on both coasts (New York, California, and New Jersey all vote on Feb. 5), because he's a free-media magnet."
)))))))))
If Obama can't win an argument with Clinton, how's he going to win an argument with the right wing smear machine?

But we are to believe she is an agent of .... "CHANGE".

Hillary gets the nomination I am voting for a third party. (yeah still pissed about Cornball comparing me to a Nazi symphathizer for changing my mind yesterday on Eli's post)

Yeah, it's a good thing Hillary acts just like a Republican, as long as she doesn't, uh, win and get an opportunity to keep acting like a Republican.

she will probably get the nomination, but at what cost? they seem to think they can alienate a significant percentage of the party base and still count on their vote in november. W R O N G. if i even bother to vote, it will be for anyone but hillary - sorry, the clintons.

Now I'm seeing regurgitated Left Wing Talking Points and not particularly liking them any better.

Did you think Hilary would just fade away and give up? Not respond? Not argue? Not attack? Not point out flaws in Obama? (The way the intellectual college-student loving McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry basically gave up on so many levels?)

The only thing the Clintons have done in the last few weeks is....campaign against Obama. The same way they would campaign against the GOP.

If he can't take that heat, he ain't gonna win in November. Whatever the Clintons have thrown at him is about 1/1000th of what the right wing will throw at him.

Why not answer the charges, make his case, and tell us why he's great, instead of complaining that he got campaigned against?

i personally don't like when the clintons are slinging mud across the aisle; politics as usual, perhaps, but i still don't like it. when they're doing it within their own party, i'm completely turned off, to the point that even after 8 years of bush, i will still vote republican in november if she's the nominee.

And I strongly disagree with Annie Wagner, who suggests that Hillary "brought...that on herself." ("That" being biased media.) In her original post, what Erica Barnett faults the media for is casting a female candidate in a negative light by using rhetorical terms suggestive of weakness, e.g. the passive voice ("Vote of Women Propels Clinton").
Barnett then contrasts this with the positive, strong rhetoric used in reporting Obama's campaign.

Clinton has not 'brought this on herself'--she is not editing/writing for these newspapers. The editors/writers are bringing it on, as usual.

There are other candidates in the race? Is Gephardt running again?

Let me restate my point, since you seem intent on ignoring it. Calling Clinton a "bitch" is sexist.

The good news for you is that the english language has many perjoratives that aren't predicated on the subject's having or not having a vagina: dingleberry, fucktard, asshat, fartknocker, Edwards-like... The list is essentially infinite.