It would appear that the "pigeons are now coming home to roost" for the Clintons.

I wholeheartedly agree that, thanks to Mr. Clinton's recent "over the top" antics, the nation is now getting a real taste of what yet another (as in Bush/Cheney) co-Presidency would look like. Whether that happens with Bill as the actual Vice President (as I've suggested in my CHB blog) or by default as the "First Husband" is quite irrelevant.

Americans have already had a belly full of Bush/Cheney. But, another co-Presidency is PRECISELY what will be in store if Mrs. Clinton is elected President. And, the more they see of Mr. Clinton's antics, the more the American people are becoming turned off with that prospect as well.

Six months ago, Mr. Guliani was the "front runner", Mr. McCain's candidacy was on life support and the Presidency was Mrs. Clinton's to lose.

Now, it would appear that it's anybody's ballgame.

"For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. "

"If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. "

Obama has to fight the Clintons and the GOP both. If he succeeds and overcomes both powerful forces, he deserves to be President.

Our country cannot move forward if we are constantly rehashing old partisan hatred that the BOTH Clintons contribute towards royally. Remember there are people that have HATED Hillary as much as Bill.

Pollchecker. The GOP is doomed and McCain is simply another Empire Building neoconservative. Hillary is the one to beat! With Edwards out of the game, it will be of interest where his followers will go.

Tonight is the GOP debate at the Reagan library and tomorrow night will be the Democrats' turn. Each side is a horse short and it could tighten up the debate. CNN is the host and I would bet that McCain revises his religious agenda to more closely fit into the Bush pew. Without the Evangelicals behind McCain, he will flounder.

The other problem is “old baggage”. It’s like the trouble we got into with the Bush Administration. The same old tired faces in the Bush/Clinton Administrations do us absolutely no-good in my humble opinion.

I mean, look at the Cheney/Rumsfield connection and the trouble that they brought us. If we keep sending the same “rounders” to the Whitehouse, we have no right to expect honesty in our government.

If we keep sending the same old faces to be our leaders expect more lies and secrecy! What America needs is fresh leadership and sunshine in all matters of government. Agree?

Speaking of "old baggage"....has anyone looked at Mr. McCain lately? The guy is 71, and he will be well into his 72nd year when (if) he's inaugurated.

That puts him right up there with the oldest sitting President and the person he wants so to emulate...Ronald Reagan.

Compare the old, tired faces of Mr. McCain (not to mention Mr. and Mrs. Clinton) with Mr. Obama and I think you'll understand why Mr.Obama is gaining ground on all of them. All you have to do do is look at the faces in the rallys for the various candidates to see these striking differences at work.

Unfortunately, and whether we agree with it or not, we Americans tend to judge people by what they look like. Lines in the face and white hair equals "old" (as in: "tired" and "washed up"). By contrast, no lines and any other color hair but gray or white equals "young" (as well as "new" and "different").

My hunch is that, eventually, "new" will win out over "old".

That's because we oldsters are DYING!

I hate to admit it Keith, but I agree with you on McCain's age. I'm 4 years older and my endurance and memory is failing. I spend hours looking for my keys and forget where I was going to drive. In fact, I think I've outlived my time.

I represented the GOP in 1948 when Dewey ran against Truman and although I was not old enough to vote, I most certainly was a worker. That's a long time to be involved in politics. I used to be so certain that Americans would do better under a lesser government but maybe we were better educated in those days. We knew our Consitution and believed in it.

From the results of the primaries, it seems that between 3% and 5% still desire a limited government and more individual freedoms. What happened? What clouded our ability to think as individuals? Who sold the agenda that the government was authorized to take care of us from the crib to the grave? Who told the American people that we cannot run our lives without handouts?

Reagan was the last President who ran on a balanced budget and individual freedoms. He lost it and it was picked up by the first Bush who ran it into the ground. Bush/Clinton/Bush has destroyed our government and made it look like the Gestapo of North America. They sold our freedoms faster than we could stop them. I am too tired to fight anymore for anything.

You are correct and McCain will ask the Evangelicals to help him beat Romney and he too will sell out our individual freedoms. I have committed to Paul on our primary next Tuesday and then I doubt I will ever vote again. I'm too old to change my agenda just to keep another Clinton from continuing the Empire-building agenda that was started in 1988.

color me crazy, but I will take Hillary over Obama or McCain. Not because I especially like hillary. I just like the alternatives LESS
I am astonished people are hanging their hopes on Obama. It's not as if he doesn't have baggage as well.
Face it kids, no one is going to get far without the blessing of CFR, Bilderbergers, etc
Obama is being backed by none other than Zbnew Brezenski,
who is a member of CFR

..."Remember there are people that have HATED Hillary as much as Bill."...Pollchecker
From where I read and hear, that sentence should read in the presentence as in "STILL Hate".
This is what I see from where I sit...
Today, John Edwards (till now my favorite) will be dropping out of the race. It seems clear to me that Obama will win the primaries and go on to be elected rather easily in Nov....that is IF the unmitigated help he's been recieving from MSM continues and there are no major bombs dropped on his candidacy. I now expect Edwards will add his support to Obama along with Oprah',the Kennedy' and the myriad of others soon to jump on his bandwagon. There will be the enevitable surpises that have shown up in recent elections coming in the form of Karl Rovesque tactics...I suspect he's
out there somewhere in the great abyss lurking and ready to support the favored GOP candidate via his infamous smear tactics (you know, like the bombs I spoke of above).
Now that I have smuggly figured out the whole scenerio from primaries thru the Nov. elections, I should be able to lay back laughing at my own audacity and enjoy the circus known as election 2008. Too bad its all deadly serious business or I would truly savor it. The one thought that I keep embedded in my head is that no one could possibly do a worse job than Bush/Cheney have done and will continue to do until they are done and gone.

(1) The resentment towards Clinton over the Michigan primary debacleis way underestimated.

Within the state here it is quietly known that forcing the primary date to Jan. was a result of the scheming of the Sen. Levin, Rep. Rangel and Gov. Granholm (All Dems and all allies of Clinton.) It was obviously an attempt to give her an early boost from a major state. And here is what happened:

(a) Dems on the ground and in the community are furious with the state party; and outraged that they played brinksmanship to satisfy Clinton and ended up making MI voters meaningless.

(b) On primary day, most simply stayed home since what was the point. (And no one really trusts the State Committee with uncommitted delegates figuring they would just stack them with Clinton supporters to throw them to her.)

Of those who didn't stay home, many switched over to the Republican primary to 'mess' with the Republicans and voted for the top-tier Republican candidate they figured would be the easiest to beat in the general (aka Romney.)

(2)"With Edwards out of the game, it will be of interest where his followers will go."

To the house and stay there. Enough already with the candidates nominated by the Dems for the past few years. I sighed and voted for Mondale. I closed my eyes and voted for Dukakis. I voted for Clinton figuring he had to better than Bush. I then voted for Clinton again but with severe reservations about the economic policies (all the Free Trade stuff which flew in the face of everything I learned for my economics degree.) I voted for the passive milquetoast Gore, and then Kerry who looked the part and sounded the part on paper but was incompetent at campaigning.

I quit. No more. No more 'oh so correct and moderate' candidates who are losers. No more 'candidates who have a broad appeal according to the pollsters and are politically-correct', no more losers where it would be obvious to anyone who talks to real voters who are not political junkies and are just Joe and Jane Sixpack.

No Clinton. Not ever. Manipulative, duplicitious, self-serving, and lacking in core principals except how to get and keep power. As a woman of the same age group and professional qualifications, it has always been obvious that the whole thing revolves around matching her husband. (And spare me the false claims that she has been involved in public policy for 35 years. She was a corporate lawyer in a 5th or 6th rate boondocks law firm while hubby climbed the political ladder.)

No Obama. He openly said he isn't interested in the support of anyone over 45, so I will reciprocate in kind with 'screw him'. It is fundamentally stupid to insult people whose votes you will need from the outset. Then he is University of Chicago. There is a litmus test to get hired for the law school faculty. They have to pledge undying devotion to alter of Milton Friedman (free market kook and U of C faculty.) U of C even tried to teach legal concepts solely based upon free market economics with cost-benefit analysis! (And yes, we have personal knowledge of the Law School.) Finally, his policy proposals (what there are) are either (a) plagarized from Edwards when pressed to produce something or (b) read like the 20 page term paper the student started writing at 3 AM to hand in at 8AM. As far as policy creation or implemetation goes, what else could you expect from someone whose only experience is

(a) the Illinois state legislature (one of the weakest legislatures in the US) where he was not exactly noticeable and his former colleagues have warned that he is a lot more conservative than he is letting one, and if that is the sole criteria for experience, there are probably 10,000-15,000 other candidates out there; and

(b) being in the US Senate only long enough to have figured out where 1/2 the restrooms are?

(And save all that garbage of 'but but but he has always been against Iraq.' Easy to shoot off your mouth if not holding office at a level that requires acutal decisionmaking and you are just one of mnay faces in a state legislature. Hard to make the call or take the position if actually in an office where you would be accountable and the voters want war.)

I will stay in the house and a pox on all their houses. (And anyone who doesn't think that with Obama that race won't be a huge issue in the general and he will get slaughtered in the southern and western and border states where Billy Bob votes, is delusional. All the repetition of the chant about 'race is irrelevant' won't convince Billy Bob to vote for someone with a name he can't pronounce and from a background with which they are not comfortable.)

"From where I read and hear, that sentence should read in the presentence as in "STILL Hate"."

TOTALLY CORRECT! That is why she is not the best candidate. She will galvanize the GOP behind the hate of the Clintons. That's probably the ONLY THING that could bring the GOP together this year.

The degree of hatred for the Clintons absolutely amazes me. It surpasses the many words and claims against Ted Kennedy when he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in the waters under a bridge in Chappaquiddick. Those many vitriolic comments effectively ended any hopes Teddy might have had re running for President, but they didn't stop him from becoming a Senator, and a pretty good one.
To say that we shouldn't vote for Hillary because she might unite the GOP is silly. We shouldn't vote for her because she might not be the best candidate, but not for any other reason. Any decent Democratic candidate will bring the GOP out in full, nasty, lying, dirt-slinging force. If it isn't Senator Clinton with whatever baggage she might have, it will be Obama, the black, 1/2 muslim, ultra conservative Christian with the HEBREW first name (Yeah, Barak is Hebrew and it means lightning--remember Exodus [the book by Leon Uris, not the one by a bunch of bible writing historians] and Barak ben Cannan?)
I'm surprised to see everyone jumping onto the "Hate Hillary" Bandwagon. I thought more thinking, politically savvy readers would give her a chance to state her positions and not nit-pick her to death. I vs. Me, Lewinsky, Vince Foster, commodity trading, Wal-Mart B of Directors--come on folks. At least she has the chutzpah to take a position, and the seichel (sense) to change it if she believes she made a mistake. Who amongst you has not made a mistake, let him cast the first stone, or something like that.
Obama is against the war. So what? I'm against the war and I don't see him doing anything more than I am to end it, and dammit, he is in a lot better position than I am to do it legally and forcefully. What else has he done? What are his programs that will accomplish all these grand promises he is making? HOW will he do this or that??? He won't tell even if you ask because he has a hope, he has words, but he does not have a viable plan.
And supported by Zbignew Brezhinski? That is support? He might as well have an endorsement by Adolph Hitler. They both are the same.
And don't be against him because he is BLACK. OK, I won't. But don't be for him just because he is BLACK and you want to show how liberal and progressive you are. Liking someone because they are black is as stupid as disliking them because they are black. Who cares what his race is? The question is whether he is a good man, an honest man, and a man who will move the nation forward in the right direction. That's where the disputes should be--what direction should we be taking? So let's stop hating, baiting, and name calling. Let's regain that unity we had for those terrible days after September 11, 2001. Let's show the world that Americans are still a good people, a noble people, and a people of charity and kindness.
Let's leave the hating for Bush/Cheney, where it really belongs!

"Let's leave the hating for Bush/Cheney, where it really belongs!"

If only it could be that simple. Unfortunately it's not!

Perhaps the Clintons past behavior has earned some of this hate.

You think ???

clinton vs any other canidate in the general election, and I'll vote for any other canidate (would like to see a third party offering too)

obama vs huckelbee, I vote obama
obama vs romney, I vote obama
obama vs mccain, I watch the debates
obama vs paul, I vote paul

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&pag...

See, Hillary has a history of kissing whoever's rear end that she needs at the time. I'm beginning to wonder if Bill learned his tactics from Hillary.

"Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton Was Silent As Wal-Mart Railed Against UnionsClinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her. "

"If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial"
It doesn't suprise me. Obama's message of change is totally in contrast with the Clintons' business as usual politicking. The awareness this message is generating will outlive the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Should Obama loose, the Clinton's are in for a rough ride. That should explain all the fireworks.

Aside from whether the allegations in the Rant are true or not, the nation clearly does not need and absolutely would not profit from, another Clinton presidency. It would result in these and other charges, including the several old ones hinted at above, being layered upon all the real issues we must address. It is time for the Clintons to retire to their private foundations and do the good they claim they want to do (and indeed Bill has done some of them) outside public office. I campaigned for Bill; he was better than the alternatives presented by the Republicans in '92 and '98. But let's move on and leave all this behind us as a nation and as a body politic. I do not want to be reading about Vince Foster on January 20th!!