even to CRITICISE him, 'cause then the Lie Machine (Clinton or Republican) will trash the heck out of you! (snark)

Unless you're Bill or Hillary, then you can praise Reagan in books or on TV because you're being 'non-partisan'.

Hillary's attacks on Obama lately seem to be "Don't vote for Barrack, he's too much like me!"

Pardon my bitterness, but, as I supported Paul Tsongas when he was running for President, I still feel the bitter sting of Clinton truth-twisting.  And I'm starting to get flashbacks lately.

is goddamn ridiculous.  Obama opposed it publicly from the beginning.  Hillary did not, and voted to authorize it.  Snarking about "what would Obama have done if he were in the Senate", etc is the purest BS.  This is classic Rove - attack the opponent's strength.  Since Hillary voted to authorize the invasion, and Obama opposed the invasion, Hillary's supporters must try and fudge the situation.

Sickening.

Or an unthinking ideologue would interpret what Obama said about Reagan as being supportive of his policies.

Reagan won 49 states in 84. He lead a political realignment that has shaped politics for the last 30 years. Bill Clinton's entire presidency was deeply immersed in the day-to-day reality of that political realignment. GW Bush is the crowning achievement of the alignment.

This is reality. This reality could not have been built without appeal across party lines. Reagan could not have won 49 states unless he appealed to both Democrats and Republicans.

Were the policies vile? From our perspective, yes. But that does not diminish his achievement.

That goes to the heart of the HUGE problem I have with the Clintons and their supporters. You KNOW what he meant. You KNOW he's right. But you'll still defend the establishment's lying, conniving and twisting their words, because "it's politics"?

That's the sort of mindset that allowed Bush to get away with 935 lies about Iraq and get us into this bloody mess. People with your mindset. You KNOW what's right, but you'll still support your 'guy' because it's politics.

This mindset must change, before good happens in this country again.

I just don't trust them very much.  Are you suggesting Bill is telling the truth?

spending years praising and building up hillary and then trying to nock her down during the las weeks, just to make it a horse race.

but that doens't have anything to do with bill clinton swooshing around the country telling lies and smearing Obama in a quite disgusting way.

me to despise Hillary.  Her going negative after Iowa only sealed my opinion.  For you Hillary supporters who are proud of your candidate winning at any cost, with any means, all I have to say is, he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.  There will be a backlash, it has already begun.  The Clintons will not be remembered well.

We don't need the MSM to tell us that.  We see it with our own eyes.

Especially those of us who have been on the ground in this campaign and seen it in person.

It was ABC Entertainment, and regardless, I don't see any factual rebuttal here.  You just don't like the message.

.

and move on, to be out-triangulated by the master triangulators?  Dream on!

Obama's opposition to the war was real and courageous.  His later attempts to deal with the reality of the war that Hillary helped Bush  to unleash are in no  way triagulation or wavering.

And nothing the Clinton's assert will change that plain truth.

You probably thought that Dowd's attacks on Bush and Cheney were BS too.  Dowd is ugly, but she has an uncanny nose for falsehood.

I did not have sex with that woman.

Pathetic. He smoked dope and cheated on his wife. I don't care about that. I do care about the insult to my intelligence that these statements represent. If the Clinton's can't tell the truth about that then what can they ever tell the truth on?

below the belt*, I think that the lines I cited above are below the belt.  I was being a little snarky in my opening to make a point.

If you think that Eliz Edwards spent her time talking about cookie recipes, I guess you and I saw her at very different times.  I saw her in several joint interviews w/ JRE, and she displayed a keen understanding of policy issues in those interviews.  

The point that you apparently missed is that spouses (male or female), as a rule, have never been attack dogs in American politics.  As my 3d para noted in detail, Dole, whom Ford specifically chose to be his attack dog in '76, stayed above the fray in his wife's various campaigns.  What we're seeing from WJC here is unprecedented on many levels.

*At least HRC uttered the smear herself instead of letting WJC do the dirty work there.

I don't care that he cheated on Hillary. I do care that he insults my intelligence by trying to wiggle out of admitting it.

Admitting you screwed up and owning up to your own moral failings takes courage. He didn't show it.

"Outright lying" is the problem.

because being an independent, intelligent woman went over really well for Teresa Heinz.  And Mrs. Carter as well.  

Although props do go Barbara Bush for saying whatever the heck she felt like and getting away with it.  (Not that I agree with her.)

They tried their best to kill them, but he is slowly stitching them back together with the 50 state strategy....

Or do you mean the bodies, literally, since she voted for the war and has done nothing to end it but mouth empty promises she will only fulfill if we elect her to the highest office in the land?

A book on executive leadership? Are you serious? Why don't you just cite Redbook or Weekly Reader? Wasn't Bush the 'MBA' president?