31. I am for "Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfreinds current Wife"

larry schroeder at 2:48PM on Jan 20th 2008

32. First, let me thank you and mediamatters for the great influence writing. Most of you anti-hillary really don't know her history. She is an attorney, or did you all think that she was only a first lady, dah!!!When is it that when people go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale, it doesn't matter anymore..dah!!! She had alot to do with putting Bill in the whitehouse...dah!!!Yes, he did misbehaved but it would be grant if she could slap him across the face in getting elected. And, I think that most scorn women are putting her in office for that SAME FACT!!!When she walks into the room, she is breathtaking in her karma, can't say much for Obama or Edwards.

Jaki Baez at 9:21PM on Jan 20th 2008

33. Yes, I think we knew she was an attorney. Most folks who pay attention to politics know about Hillary's famous lost?/stolen?/misplaced? Rose Law Firm Billing Records for Whitewater which miraculously materialized on a White House Coffee table one day.

And I know that White Water was supposedly "not a scandal". (Tell that to Susan McDougal, who went to prison to protect the Clinton's. She'll be relieved to hear that.)

Yes, Hillary (I don't recall) Clinton was, and is an attorney, but that does not qualify her to be President. John Edwards is also an attorney (who specializes in redistributing income - from other people's wallets into his own) that would surely be an unmitigated disaster as President as well. And of course, Obama is also notably under qualified.

And karma? Please. Hillary is as phony as a $3 bill. Anybody who accuses their opponent of wanting to be President since kindergarten is guilty of some really fast footwork to try and hide her own deficiencies and blind ambition. And don't get me started on that laugh. Yikes.

Dave at 9:58PM on Jan 20th 2008

34. Mathews apologized because Hillary/Bill threatened his personal destruction. Vladimir Lenin behaved the same kind of way. We all know how Stalin operated. Next up: Hillary Clinton.

The Fabulous Timbo at 10:25PM on Jan 20th 2008

35. The Clintons are playing Jedhi Mind Tricks on the Media. First they made America think a "Bad Experience" is a change. From Clinton to Bush back to Clinton isn't a change. The Republicans can argue they are change agents now. Republicans can argue they are the safe choice because Democrats are a domestic threat. Hillary's power is drawn from playing the victim role. Attacking her changes the focus of the debate into a circus. It polarizes the Party making it almost impossible to heal. The woman just said, "No Woman is Illegal." That statement disqualifies her from national consideration. It's sexist and it's an act of treason. She has just stated she will not protect or defend the laws or the US Constitution. Without the law, we have chaos along the lines of gender and race. Who needs Al Qaeda when we will have turmoil like this inside America? The front runner on the other side seems to be John McCain? He offered amnesty and it almost killed his career. Are Democrats so "Stuck on Stupid" that we would throw away the law? La ley is la ley! Will we hear a mighty roar from "We the People" that throws all these bumbs out? Colin Powell and Donald Trump are great Americans, but will they answer the call? What better security and economic team could we offer?

Cecil Jones at 10:58PM on Jan 20th 2008

36. Matthews can't continue to try to present himself as a chief strategist for Obama and call this apology real.

MSNBC is a losing network now that they're known for being vicious and vile attack dogs piling unprofessionally onto Senator Clinton over and again. But they have a lot of problems with many racist, sexist and bigoted hosts. It's becoming their specialty.

No one wants unwanted opinions masking itself as news anymore. It's a fickle field, ask Fox News what happens when you've been backing the wrong person and the country turns. It's too late.

MSNBC is now known to be the Pro Obama Network. Why they are narrowing their slim viewership on an early bet is beyond me. Becoming all about overweight men like Matthews and Russert bullying a substantial candidate like Senator Clinton in favor of someone who looks fluffy every time you examine his short record closely is also beyond me.

Senator Clinton looks triumphant every time she confronts these overbearing bullies. And it seems like they're propping up someone based on race. At the same time they are slamming other people based on race. Who wants to watch anything they do anymore? That's a network full of bad shows that have all lost their way.

Bending the news to your own worldview makes you look insane.

wintergreen at 11:31PM on Jan 20th 2008

37. It's good to see so many intelligent people tuned into the fact that most of the media has abdicated its responsibility to inform the electorate about issues of substance, and chosen instead to waste most of its air time (and the electorates’ time) in pursuit of gossip-mongering and divisive identity politics.

As for my thread about pumpkin-head Russert and the pundits (great band name, I just realized! copyright!), I'd like to clarify that I do not agree with all of Hillary's political positions. In fact I don't agree with all of ANY of the democratic candidate's positions, but, as usual, they scare me less than those of the republicans, and, over all, of those candidates still in the running, I do think Hillary is the most competent and the most vetted. So, for me, it's coming to another: lesser of many mostly similar inadequacies. The good thing is that there actually seems to be a DIALOGUE now, a device necessary for any healthy relationship, but particularly for one between an elected official and a constituency.
(Note to Cecil: ALL the democratic candidates have taken the position that there's no such thing as illegal immigration).

The problem with the press's MONOLOGUE up until now, is that the coverage of, that is the ATTACKS against, Senator Clinton have largely been ugly, subjective, ad hominem attacks that have little to nothing to do with her political viability or positions and almost everything to do with the personal subjectivity and biases of the pundits and reporters. (There are exceptions, i.e. exceptional reporters out there.)
Many of the attacks have been, in a word: sexist. And at times an uglier but still accurate word: misogynist. So, as a thinking person, one naturally wishes to combat bias and to advocate for a press that actually does its best to keep this incredible democracy vibrant and thriving, instead of turning it into ratings and corporate profits via titillating sound-bites that sell to advertisers.
(The idea, proffered in an earlier post, that women may vote for Hillary out of having been "scorned" is both ridiculous and condescending, if well-intentioned.)

Finally, on this important day, does anyone else notice the irony of ironies that the FBI was able to use Dr. Martin Luther King's extramarital affairs against him in the most treacherous and ugly sorts of political power games, and that many supposed champions of egalitarianism have persisted in using the same tactics against the Clintons? Talk about shameless.
Thank goodness we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore! Now, let's get down to the real issues and to how they affect real people's real lives. PLEASE!

j at 3:27AM on Jan 21st 2008

38. Love your posts, Steven and Nancy!

To just a few others here; I don't know how you've stood all these women officials running things all these years. Here and, like, over in Iraq and Iran. The female-dominated world's so stacked against you poor dears; it must be just exhausting!

:)

J. S. Gary at 7:15AM on Jan 21st 2008

39. week a go i told the fat ass his jealousey over bill would destroy him

carl lasiter at 9:07AM on Jan 21st 2008

40. #31 "When she walks into the room, she is breathtaking in her karma,"

Hey Jaki, I think it is more like that song from Carly Simon.

Oh, what have you been soaking your zig-zag in, prior to rolling ?

M2D5 at 9:50AM on Jan 21st 2008

41. Without Bill Clinton's philandering in the oval office, his perjury and disbarment, without his notoriety, Hillary would NEVER have become a Senator from NY. She would have retired as the little wife with the failed health plan for Americans.

basbleu at 10:07AM on Jan 21st 2008

42. #40
"Hillary would NEVER have become a Senator from NY. She would have retired as the little wife with the failed health plan for Americans."

Are you kidding me.
That was the plan all along to run for a seat somewhere , anywhere, as soon it opened up. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's announced retirement provided the vehicle for this. There are those who are naive enough that organizations helped founded by these two, like Emily's List, Media Matters had some "noble" goals. They were carfefully and cynically started with one goal in mind. This "planning" goes all the way back to those "FBI files" on the opposition, going up to and including those documents that were "removed" from the National Archives.
It is funny, how anyone who "speaks" an opposing view is touted as a "hater", "sexist pig", "fascist", etc. However those individuals whose careers and/or financial wealth has benefited due to their association with Arkansas' answer to Ozzie and harriet and their repeated defence in various forums are never called to task for the "slant" in reporting, writing, blogging.

Just ask yourself the next time you listen to one of these individuals defend or praise this pair, "What is in it for that individual?"

M2D5 at 11:07AM on Jan 21st 2008

43. You can get money, or a career advancement for defending Hillary?
Where do I write? Who do I call?

I think the reason Hill and Bill's defenders aren't "called to task" is cuz they're mostly unpaid citizenry like those on this blog. The press has been beating the Clintons up most every chance they get.
The press likes to tell 'stories' with "narratives.' Facts, Shmacts.

Get real M2D5. And if you're interested Ken Starr's
official reports are all available to the public online. I think he investigated everything visible to the naked eye.

jen at 11:24AM on Jan 21st 2008

44. #42
" think the reason Hill and Bill's defenders aren't "called to task" is cuz they're mostly unpaid citizenry like those on this blog. The press has been beating the Clintons up most every chance they get.
The press likes to tell 'stories' with "narratives.' Facts, Shmacts."

Sure the like the Boston Globe columnist who spent sevral months on the talk show circuit during the Lewinski business, defending them. When things died down, low and behold that columnist was tapped for CNN's White House beat. Now she works at PBS, you may remember her as the moderator for one of the campaign debates. Amazing how from one or two columns a week to hosting a presidential primary debate. Or howse about the Arkansas editor who nobody heard of prior to the Clinton's arrival. Now he has a regualr column in the local papers. Usually touting, explaining them and smearing any who oppose them. Funny how his columns have taken on a more rabid support position since Hillary first announced. Take the suttle hatchet job down on Carl Bernstein's book on Hillary. Not a fawning over piece of work but I believe and honest one. This columnist suttley started to tear the book and its author down. Now he has reached the stage where his bias is not even hidden. How about a previous campaign work and White House staffer who now host a regular Sunday morning news(?) show.

The ones who do it for free are in all likelyhood blind to the reality. That is until they cross them and face the retribution.

M2D5 at 11:41AM on Jan 21st 2008

45. #42
"I think the reason Hill and Bill's defenders aren't "called to task" is cuz they're mostly unpaid citizenry like those on this blog."

Don't you mean paid and volunteers on the Clinton campaign staff whose job it is to monitor the web and respond to any instance of truth or negativity about the Clinton crew. They have learned well, especially the crew that works at Media Matters.
Sometimes counter-attacks are quite organized using numerous well spoken individuals while other times ones who come off as "common folk" are used.

M2D5 at 11:54AM on Jan 21st 2008