If Bill didn't have blowjobs, Gore would be in is 8th year of being President.
CruzBustamove
· 1 year ago
If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
confusion
· 1 year ago
confusion say...comment here like navigating Bush cranial tubes. Very strange accusation from Smelliary consider that Edwards took votes from Obama. Stupid me eh..I first support Edwards, very dumb. Looky like Bushy give all world 'China Syndrome'.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
The plot thicKENS...
JamesR
· 1 year ago
Classless and small of any in the Clinton camp for 'going there' but Hell - why stop now?
Perhaps one reason Edwards did stay in the race or even a factor for his entrance, even while knowing he was potentially (certainly) doomed, was to dilute Hillary. If so, Kudos.
If there is some nobility in such ignobility - this would be it.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
He had broken things off. I was a big supporter of his and went to Obama afterwards. I still see no problem with him being a VP but most 'Murkans, although fucking outside of marriage like minks, according to polls, so they would hypocritically dissapprove. But I think he would be just as effective. Hey, he's a man. FDR was effective and he was diddling in office. I think it was even love...
lynchie
· 1 year ago
but it seems to be ok for Vitter, Craig and the rest of the GOP who go extra marital, intra marital, diaper marital, restroom marital and the like.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
I was reading some comments last night about preying mantis head roberts from yesterday, I couldn't help but laugh at some them. That woman has totally jumped the shark on her last bit of credibility. They will not let off her now.
Saw on HuffPost that Chelsea will introduce Hillary at the convention as per Hillary's wishes. You just have to set up a spot for Chelsea to now be President. This is like STD's the gift that keeps on giving.
houstonray
· 1 year ago
LMAO!!!! thanks!
Butch1
· 1 year ago
;-) ( no more Clinton's and no more Bush's, I think we've had enough of their care for this country. )
canuck55
· 1 year ago
Wolfson should never get work from the Dems again for this sort of crap. The lack of party discipline among Dems is breathtaking.
Coming Undone
· 1 year ago
Shame on you John Edwards, Shame on you for having an affair and costing Hillary the nomination.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
It's sorta hysterically funny that the Hillary fanatics will see this as another example of her being wronged by a cheating man.
TomJoad
· 1 year ago
What ever happened with "grace". Being gracious...being classy? Seems to be just posing nowdays.
ron071
· 1 year ago
Howard Wolfson simply does not know when to GO AWAY. He is the worst type of sore loser as is HRC. Their self-centered behavior is pathetic. They have no shame. It's all for ME< ME< ME< and ME.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
And he'll say this shit on Fox News, and they'll eat it up with a big spoon!
eliot99
· 1 year ago
And if their opponent was black with a middle name of Hussein ...........................oh wait, forget it.
dad
· 1 year ago
She might have won if Bill hadn't had an affair, too.
what a howard
dad
· 1 year ago
and bill's was a 22 year old w.h. intern john's was a 42 year old ...
Rab
· 1 year ago
Hey Howard, Ding dong the wicked witch is dead, leave her dead as Obama supporters are using her broom to sweep up the Chimps shit pile.
interlude
· 1 year ago
remember when John dropped out? he "wanted to get out of the way of history". who is to say he wasn't forced out by Hillary letting him know she knew of his indiscretion? the Clintons have done that b4
jescot
· 1 year ago
John - Dont add fuel to the fire - This Clinton crap is all a side show ! Stay focused on Mcain and Obama ...Make sure the MSM do the same ...
TheOriginalLiz
· 1 year ago
I would rather have a candidate who had an extramarital affair than one who meekly accepted her mate having multiple very public extramarital affairs.
scytherius
· 1 year ago
Jesus god. What IS it with these people? Most Edwards supporters would have voted Obama. And even if that is not true, if there weren't conservatives on SCOTUS Al Gore would be president and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.
It will be nice when this generation of older nutballs of both parties passes away.
Õ¿Õ
· 1 year ago
That's what it is. It's been constant fighting and idiocy for decades now with them.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Most of Edwards' support went to Obama.
Everybody knows that.
Houndentenor
· 1 year ago
I was planning to vote for Edwards. When he dropped out I decided to vote for Obama.
The truth is that if Clinton had run any kind of campaign in the caucus states she'd probably be the nominee. But she didn't. That was her decision.
houstonray
· 1 year ago
Ditto here, my partner and I were both voting for Edwards in the Texas primary and then he dropped out and we moved to Obama. Not sure how that means that Hillary would have still won. I just don't understand the logic that "whoever wins Iowa would win the nomination". There are lots of things that can happen between Iowa and the nomination.
As John said, just go. Away.
Oh wait, we get her all up in the convention too, great, can't wait....
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
This is just like their Michigan argument, which boils down to "If nobody was running against Hillary, she would have won."
PhilipGraham
· 1 year ago
Actually, if Obama's parents have never met, then Hilary would have DEFINITELY become the nominee . . .
Coming Undone
· 1 year ago
John, I don't think they are going away!
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been privately enumerating her doubts about Obama to supporters, according to people who have spoken with her. Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn recently unveiled a PowerPoint presentation red-flagging Obama’s lukewarm leads among white female voters and Hispanics – while predicting a five-point swing could turn a presumed Obama win into a McCain landslide. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_po...
Rab
· 1 year ago
Mark Penn, crock of shit comes to mind, McCrazy in a landslide? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
interlude
· 1 year ago
so, they are still campaigning against Obama?
RevDrBillyBob
· 1 year ago
Hillary has been a reliable ally to GWB, and she will be a reliable ally to JMc. Her views are much more compatible with McCain's than Obama's, or haven't you godless heathen libruls figgered that one out yet ? She is a potential Secretary of State in a McCain Administration. She has NO interest in an Obama victory.
interlude
· 1 year ago
and also today, people in her campaign are saying that they would have won if they had done more to paint Obama as un-American (earlier and more often than they did)
roodoc13
· 1 year ago
I was one of those Iowans who voted for Edwards in the primary. If he hadn't been in the race, I would have switched to Obama...or Richardson...or Biden before I'd have voted for Hillary.
blackwolf
· 1 year ago
Something tells me it's not over yet! We're going to give this election away to the Republicans yet.
lynchie
· 1 year ago
They, the Hillbots, just can't walk away. They keep inserting themselves, they keep leaking memos, they keep insisting if only........ The more they go on the more McCain does not have to campaign or come up with any policies. The more they go on the less people hear about Obama and in the end the Clintons may well be the reason we lose this election. A shame really, on the other hand maybe we need 8 more years of failed economy, no jobs, war, dead soldiers, no affordable healthcare, foreclosed homes, unaffordable gas, old folks freezing in the winter, vets not taken care of and rich, rich, super rich Republicans blaming us for everything they did. 16 years of destruction and maybe even then Joe Six Pack will still vote Republican cause we are the tax and spend Liberals.
Butch1
· 1 year ago
The sore losers will not ever stop.
iamevolved
· 1 year ago
You know, I might have been the Democratic nominee if I had only decided to run. We need to go back in time and change things. Honestly, why are politicians such assholes?
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
Clinton is planning a coup at the convention I just know it. Bill wont even say Obama is ready to be President, Hillary will only attack McCain not compliment Obama, its falling into place.
They still think they can win with the superdelegates. It's sick.
And Obama has fallen into their trap by giving both Clintons two nights of primetime keynote speeches to get McCain elected and bury Obama.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
I wouldn't say it's going to be a coup but you're right, two nights of primetime speeches from the Clintons is ridiculous. I have no doubt they will try to undermine the Obama campaign.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
Hi Chris! I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this. I have always suspected that Hillary was going to take this to the convention all along, so she was just biding her time until the time drew near. they are a sorry excuse for so called "leaders". If this is the best they can do, it is a very good thing that they were defeated!
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
OK, there's SO much wrong with so many comments on this thread, it's hard to know where to begin, but if the Hillary-haters are determined not to let it go...
First, this didn't come from either of the Clintons, it came from the FORMER communications director. I seem to recall MANY instances where Obama supporters or campaign workers made inappropriate comments, and everyone said quickly that "you can't assume it came straight from Obama" -- so turning these recent comments into some "conspiracy" or "signal from the Clintons" is just as bogus as assuming that everything said by an Obama surrogate came straight from Obama. It's hypocrisy, it's a double-standard, to treat comments from Clinton supporters differently than those from Obama supporters. Period.
Secondly, the history and tradition of the Democratic Primaries is that second place finishers take it all the way to the convention. At least for MEN candidates that is, and none came as close to first place as Senator Clinton did. The fact that she VOLUNTARILY suspended her campaign to support Obama when in the past LESS SUCCESSFUL 2nd-place finishers fought all the way to the convention floor should rightly be taken as unselfish support for the party. Instead, the haters will do whatever they can to twist her actions into something darker, even when there's ample evidence against such spin. The fact is, she would have had every right -- and historical precedent -- to fight all the way to the convention, but she actually chose to work for unifying the party. That deserves your respect, not your scorn.
Thirdly, she has been doing everything Obama has asked of her in terms of supporting his campaign. She's made strong, supportive declarations, she's urged her supporters to vote for Obama, she's slammed the Republicans, and she hasn't said anything that can REASONABLY be considered "coded" or "subversive". Maybe some of her supporters are overzealous and still holding a grudge, but that's not HER doing, and her actual ACTIONS show very strong support for Obama. And, had positions been reversed, I know for a fact that many Obamaniacs would have been equally -- and hurtfully -- divisive. Since many of you flat out said so. Blame the supporters, don't blame the politician.
Fourthly, given how poorly Obama has performed lately in terms of keeping his promises to progressive voters, the idea that Clinton is a "Bush-enabler" seems weak and even ironic. FISA, Iraq, DADT, health care, faith-based initiatives... he hasn't exactly been a Kucinich or a Feingold. Senator Clinton may be a moderate Democrat, but she's a solid moderate Democrat, and distorting her views and positions and votes doesn't help anyone -- except the Republicans.
Finally, "unity" works both ways. It's not "shut up and support Obama no matter what he does and silently put up with whatever lies we decide to tell about the Clintons". Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular and well-recognized Democrats around, and is the ONLY 2-term president the Democrats have had in more than a generation. NOT having him speak at the Convention would have been a huge error in judgment and would have harmed the ultimate goal of unifying the party. And Hillary Clinton found a very powerful voice that still resonates with huge swaths of the Democratic party, and her own campaign was just as historic as Obama's. Given the rough-and-tumble nature of the campaign, and how neck-and-neck the two candidates ended up -- remember that Obama couldn't have won without the superdelegates either! -- it would have put a complete lie to the idea of party unity to fail to give her a large role at the Convention.
Sounds like Barack, Bill, and Hillary are far more mature and grown up than a lot of pundits and commentators are.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
For one thing, this is a place where we citizens CAN and do voice our concerns, worries and issues of note, thus relying on our First Amendment's rights. So it appears YOU have a problem with our Constitution as well, eh? Here's a link to that valuable tome called our Constitution just in case you would like to read up: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html
Secondly, it is considered rude and/or extremely BAD manners to take over a thread or post exceedingly long posts as you just have.
Third, Howard Wolfson is a close adviser of Hill's and Bill's and since she is looking forward to putting her name into nomination at the convention and since Bill can't even bring himself to compliment Obama's nomination for President,, than I would think that we need to keep apprised of everything her campaign is anticipating.
Fourth, we are all for UNITY, it appears that it is some of Hillary's team who are NOT for unity or for the Democratic party any longer and that IS a shame, but to put all of that on those who are still voting Dem, is absurd.
Fifth, I think I just posted too lengthy of a post and for that I apologize to the balance of the readers.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Uhm, nowhere did I say you didn't have any constitutional rights. I find it amusing that criticism of weak arguments is somehow equated with stifling your constitutional freedoms. Should I in turn use the same logic about your trying to squash my reply? It's a weak argument and nonsensical. Nothing I said contravened anyone's free speech.
Secondly, it used to be quite acceptable to post longer, more reasoned posts here, especially when the topic justified. I have noticed, however, that there are fewer comments in this blog than in the past, and more comments do fall into the "quick snark" rather than substantive discussion. I suppose there's only so many ways you can all agree with each other, though, so I can see why that lends itself to shorter posts.
Third, as I said, close advisors of Obama have made boneheaded comments before, and if we weren't to assume that Obama was behind every remark, it's hypocritical to have a double-standard about a different democrat.
Fourth, I'll believe you are all for UNITY when I actually see it. Bashing a fellow Democrat, lying about her or inventing motives for her, is hardly unifying. As I said. Unity isn't robotically following along with everything that is done, it is recognizing the merit and contributions of different, strong voices for traditionally Democratic causes.
Distorting facts to malign either Clinton does not help to unify the party, does not strengthen Obama's chances, and does not help the causes that Democrats are supposed to support. Obama seems to realize this. Unfortunately, too many of HIS supporters haven't figured it out yet.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
1. Please keep your posts more concise. 2. You have consistently objected to anyone in here who has ever criticized either Clinton and continue to badmouth Obama. 3. Right here and right now you are continuing your taunt of any critiques that anyone may issue on the topic of Clinton. 4. It is unfortunate that you insist on posting here with the same old same old taunts that you lean on time and time again. 5. If what we say is disturbing to you, than you must realize that your insistence on the hallows of anything Clinton is just as obnoxious to this particular thread. 6. You have consistently trolled this blog with diligence and I find that trying to speak to you is useless. I am sorry to say that you seem to be the one who refuses to allow others to have their own opinions. Sounds kinda stifling to me...
LeesiD
· 1 year ago
I don't usually delve into conspiracies, and what I am going to say right now, is probably way out there....but I think Edwards, who I did support, is really a smooth operator, he puts his "full" support behind Barack Obama only to give a *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* to Hillary Clinton coming out with this admission two weeks before the Democratic Convention to stir things up..Notice how praising Edwards was at that Michigan Obama rally to Hillary Clinton. The Clintons better not start something at Convention, because I can promise you that we Democratic voters aren't going to forget this crap very easily!!
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
Hillary (and Bill) did NOT win the nomination, so just how much longer are these people going to try to keep this going on? Just how big of a sore loser are they?
I guess seeking the power of the Presidency is more important than anything else, citizens and country be damned...
LeesiD
· 1 year ago
I don't know what to expect from the Clinton surrogates, but nothing surprises me~Wolfson is an idiot who works for Fox news now.....his job there is to perpetuaute any sort of controversy he can to keep the focus and pressure on the Democrats. It's no a question of should the Clintons 'go there" or not.......the same argument could have been made about Bill Clinton not being truthful about his cheating on his wife with Gennifer Flowers....if he had admitted to it maybe Jerry Brown would have been the nominee.....*laugh*!
nsr
· 1 year ago
If Edwards had dropped out and Hillary had picked up three-quarters of his support, she still would have lost New Hampshire. If anything, they needed him in the race.
Polly_Tics
· 1 year ago
It seems as though Wolfson has partially recanted his contention that Clinton would have won IF Edwards wasn't in the race.
As a supporter of Sen. Clinton I really wish these former "spokespeople" would just get ovet it! If I remember the numbers correctly, Sen. Clinton would have had to get to votes of every single Edwards' supporter to win those contests and the likelihood was that, at best, Sen. Clinton might have gotten 1/3 of them. Nothing I've seen has caused me to regret my support of Sen. Clinton based on her policies, but the people she had around her as members of her campaign staff just may eventually cause me to reconsider.
All Comments
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_po...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/why-howa...
Perhaps one reason Edwards did stay in the race or even a factor for his entrance, even while knowing he was potentially (certainly) doomed, was to dilute Hillary. If so, Kudos.
If there is some nobility in such ignobility - this would be it.
Seems to be just posing nowdays.
what a howard
john's was a 42 year old ...
who is to say he wasn't forced out by Hillary letting him know she knew of his indiscretion?
the Clintons have done that b4
It will be nice when this generation of older nutballs of both parties passes away.
Everybody knows that.
The truth is that if Clinton had run any kind of campaign in the caucus states she'd probably be the nominee. But she didn't. That was her decision.
As John said, just go. Away.
Oh wait, we get her all up in the convention too, great, can't wait....
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been privately enumerating her doubts about Obama to supporters, according to people who have spoken with her. Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn recently unveiled a PowerPoint presentation red-flagging Obama’s lukewarm leads among white female voters and Hispanics – while predicting a five-point swing could turn a presumed Obama win into a McCain landslide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_po...
They still think they can win with the superdelegates. It's sick.
And Obama has fallen into their trap by giving both Clintons two nights of primetime keynote speeches to get McCain elected and bury Obama.
First, this didn't come from either of the Clintons, it came from the FORMER communications director. I seem to recall MANY instances where Obama supporters or campaign workers made inappropriate comments, and everyone said quickly that "you can't assume it came straight from Obama" -- so turning these recent comments into some "conspiracy" or "signal from the Clintons" is just as bogus as assuming that everything said by an Obama surrogate came straight from Obama. It's hypocrisy, it's a double-standard, to treat comments from Clinton supporters differently than those from Obama supporters. Period.
Secondly, the history and tradition of the Democratic Primaries is that second place finishers take it all the way to the convention. At least for MEN candidates that is, and none came as close to first place as Senator Clinton did. The fact that she VOLUNTARILY suspended her campaign to support Obama when in the past LESS SUCCESSFUL 2nd-place finishers fought all the way to the convention floor should rightly be taken as unselfish support for the party. Instead, the haters will do whatever they can to twist her actions into something darker, even when there's ample evidence against such spin. The fact is, she would have had every right -- and historical precedent -- to fight all the way to the convention, but she actually chose to work for unifying the party. That deserves your respect, not your scorn.
Thirdly, she has been doing everything Obama has asked of her in terms of supporting his campaign. She's made strong, supportive declarations, she's urged her supporters to vote for Obama, she's slammed the Republicans, and she hasn't said anything that can REASONABLY be considered "coded" or "subversive". Maybe some of her supporters are overzealous and still holding a grudge, but that's not HER doing, and her actual ACTIONS show very strong support for Obama. And, had positions been reversed, I know for a fact that many Obamaniacs would have been equally -- and hurtfully -- divisive. Since many of you flat out said so. Blame the supporters, don't blame the politician.
Fourthly, given how poorly Obama has performed lately in terms of keeping his promises to progressive voters, the idea that Clinton is a "Bush-enabler" seems weak and even ironic. FISA, Iraq, DADT, health care, faith-based initiatives... he hasn't exactly been a Kucinich or a Feingold. Senator Clinton may be a moderate Democrat, but she's a solid moderate Democrat, and distorting her views and positions and votes doesn't help anyone -- except the Republicans.
Finally, "unity" works both ways. It's not "shut up and support Obama no matter what he does and silently put up with whatever lies we decide to tell about the Clintons". Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular and well-recognized Democrats around, and is the ONLY 2-term president the Democrats have had in more than a generation. NOT having him speak at the Convention would have been a huge error in judgment and would have harmed the ultimate goal of unifying the party. And Hillary Clinton found a very powerful voice that still resonates with huge swaths of the Democratic party, and her own campaign was just as historic as Obama's. Given the rough-and-tumble nature of the campaign, and how neck-and-neck the two candidates ended up -- remember that Obama couldn't have won without the superdelegates either! -- it would have put a complete lie to the idea of party unity to fail to give her a large role at the Convention.
Sounds like Barack, Bill, and Hillary are far more mature and grown up than a lot of pundits and commentators are.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html
Secondly, it is considered rude and/or extremely BAD manners to take over a thread or post exceedingly long posts as you just have.
Third, Howard Wolfson is a close adviser of Hill's and Bill's and since she is looking forward to putting her name into nomination at the convention and since Bill can't even bring himself to compliment Obama's nomination for President,, than I would think that we need to keep apprised of everything her campaign is anticipating.
Fourth, we are all for UNITY, it appears that it is some of Hillary's team who are NOT for unity or for the Democratic party any longer and that IS a shame, but to put all of that on those who are still voting Dem, is absurd.
Fifth, I think I just posted too lengthy of a post and for that I apologize to the balance of the readers.
Secondly, it used to be quite acceptable to post longer, more reasoned posts here, especially when the topic justified. I have noticed, however, that there are fewer comments in this blog than in the past, and more comments do fall into the "quick snark" rather than substantive discussion. I suppose there's only so many ways you can all agree with each other, though, so I can see why that lends itself to shorter posts.
Third, as I said, close advisors of Obama have made boneheaded comments before, and if we weren't to assume that Obama was behind every remark, it's hypocritical to have a double-standard about a different democrat.
Fourth, I'll believe you are all for UNITY when I actually see it. Bashing a fellow Democrat, lying about her or inventing motives for her, is hardly unifying. As I said. Unity isn't robotically following along with everything that is done, it is recognizing the merit and contributions of different, strong voices for traditionally Democratic causes.
Distorting facts to malign either Clinton does not help to unify the party, does not strengthen Obama's chances, and does not help the causes that Democrats are supposed to support. Obama seems to realize this. Unfortunately, too many of HIS supporters haven't figured it out yet.
2. You have consistently objected to anyone in here who has ever criticized either Clinton and continue to badmouth Obama.
3. Right here and right now you are continuing your taunt of any critiques that anyone may issue on the topic of Clinton.
4. It is unfortunate that you insist on posting here with the same old same old taunts that you lean on time and time again.
5. If what we say is disturbing to you, than you must realize that your insistence on the hallows of anything Clinton is just as obnoxious to this particular thread.
6. You have consistently trolled this blog with diligence and I find that trying to speak to you is useless. I am sorry to say that you seem to be the one who refuses to allow others to have their own opinions. Sounds kinda stifling to me...
I guess seeking the power of the Presidency is more important than anything else, citizens and country be damned...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/wolfso...
Nothing I've seen has caused me to regret my support of Sen. Clinton based on her policies, but the people she had around her as members of her campaign staff just may eventually cause me to reconsider.