The Clinton's have no important agenda beyond their own needs. I am glad the Democratic Party is now beginning to realize this. Some folks refuse to recognize how bad their trophy pit bull is until it turns on them.

"That's beneath the dignity of a former president"

What is it about former-(D)-Presidents?

At least when Rep presidents leave office, they LEEEAVE office. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I (until Katrina) all drifted off into the ether.

Carter, now Clinton ... geesh.

Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
Only in this case it's ticks as these two psychopathic liars make a run for power unprecedented in American history. They hopped on the Democrat party, took it over and used it as a vehicle for their rise to power. Now that some are unhappy with their actions because they are being used against another Democrat they are unhappy? Just wait till they take the gloves off.

Ahhhhh schadenfreude, sometimes with a cup of joe in the morning its delicious.

There is still a chance Obama could change the manner of politics associated with previous occupants of the White House.

He needs to use lines like this "From day one of my administration I will be accountable and open to scrutiny. The position will never be abused again"..... what a breath of fresh air that would be after the last 16 years.

Why are the Clintons attacking the only viable African-American presidential candidate in the history of the U.S.? His policies are right in line with the Democratic platform, so why are they attacking him? What is the difference between Hillary and Barack?

Bill and Hillary, keeping the Black man down.

It's very satisfying to watch as more and more liberals come out of their Clintons-are-gods stupor and see what the Republicans saw so clearly in the 90's.

Now you know how everyone else felt watching conservatives come out of their Bush-is-a-god stupor and see what the Democrats saw so clearly in the 2000's.

it's nice to see Clinton catching grief, but there's a part of me that feels that all of these people who were happy to excuse and overlook Clinton in the 90s have forfeited their right to complain about him now.

All the Clintons do is win elections. Obama will adjust, or he'll lose. It's heartening that people here are so concerned about whether Obama is being treated fairly, though.

"He needs to use lines like this "From day one of my administration I will be accountable and open to scrutiny. The position will never be abused again"..... what a breath of fresh air that would be after the last 16 years."
First someone has to come clean on his connection with the Il/Chicago Mafia or your line is just like his, BS. Funny that there has been no hint of crime/slime in the white house the past 8 years but the democrats were slimed by the Clintons and always try to project their crime and slime to others. It's not working. Anyone question the stupidity of democrats that are running over $8M+ in (targeted) ad's against President Bush, who can't run again? 47% of Americans are or should be under mental health care, quite evident they are all democrats.
Less than 12 months from now President Bush can return to Tx, live the good life, and tell the truth about democrats. What a story that will be. Ready, Aim, Fire.

Write a book, Scrapiron. Or at least hand out pamphlets while wearing a sandwich board. People need to hear this sort of thing. If you had a TV show, the Democrats would all be in shackles. Or something.

I can't think of any administration that we could safely describe as squeaky clean, including the present one. No bid contracts during a war? Are you kidding me? In your opinion, doesn't that run afoul of the spirit of competition that's supposed to be a defining feature of the United States?

My god Matthew you certainly are the blather boy...all noise no substance. The Clinton's "winning" streak will end in November.

"Dont tase Me Bro"

An idiom in racism.

Speaking of blather, Michael, can you provide an iota of statistically significant evidence that suggests Americans will elect a Republican?

Romney beats Kucinich heads up. Cross your fingers and vote for Dennis, or prepare for more status quo bullshit from Hillary for four (likely eight) years.

The Clintons are a vicious lot. We conservatives have always known that. The FBI files, and other assorted nefarious activities. Obama does have to grow up. If he can't stand up to the Clintons, I don't think he could handle any foreign crisis. ww

Matthew, I hear der schlichtmeister is looking for employees as he roams the country "telling the truth". I'm guessing you could be his pissboy, unless you're a girl in which case he'd have other "jobs" for you.

Matthew, no bid contracts during war, gee what could anyone be thinking?

Oh, I don't know ... maybe that they can't wait for a full competitive bidding process to complete?

Sheesh.

maybe that they can't wait for a full competitive bidding process to complete?

Now that's the funniest thing I'll read all day.

there's a part of me that feels that all of these people who were happy to excuse and overlook Clinton in the 90s have forfeited their right to complain about him now.

But those of you now complaining about Bush get a free pass. Got it.

"No bid contracts during a war?"

I wonder Mattew, did you think it was a problem when Clinton used "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton when he sent American troops to war?

Did it bother you at all that even when Hallibuton was outbid, Clinton overruled the bidding process and awarded the "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton anyway?

Did you have a problem with it then or is it only a problem when a non-socilist President does it?

As a 16 year old Canadian, I was blissfully unaware of the slimy goings-on in the White House during Clinton's two terms. However, I would expect you not to justify something awful that Bush does by citing examples of when Clinton did it. Isn't that setting the bar pretty low?

As for whether Clinton was a socialist, you're just making a poor attempt at name-calling. I don't recall welfare reform going over very well with the "socialists".

"However, I would expect you not to justify something awful that Bush does by citing examples of when Clinton did it."

I was not doing that at all. I never said it was an awful thing. It was the right thing to do when Clinton did it and it's the right thing to do when Bush does it.

It's just very hypocritical of most leftists who bitch now, but were silent during Clinton's wars.

Thanks Shleekmaster, I think I may vot for Barack now just to stop You!

It's just very hypocritical of most leftists who bitch now, but were silent during Clinton's wars.

You mean like how Republicans thought it was OK for Congress to undermine Clinton's deployment of the troops and funding in Bosnia, but think it's traitorous behavior now?

Clinton is most certainly NOT lying about Obama's position on the war. During 2004, he dialed back his position and said precisely what Clinton says he did. They are just waiting for Obama to come out and say flatly, "It's a lie!" so they can bring out the tapes and flush him down the tubes.

All the surrogates and Harpootlians (the biggest buffoon in South Carolina, and we have plenty) in the world mean nothing. Let Obama stick his scrawny neck out and say it himself.

~~~~~~~~

matthew ~ Quick, name all the companies in the world who could perform the work given to Halliburton on "no-bid" contracts in Iraq.

Okay, you can't help being stupid, but you could just shut the hell up.

It wasn't even worth inquiring, Jim? What about giving specialized tasks to specialized companies that would more efficiently utilize American and Iraqi resources? Halliburton hasn't exactly demonstrated itself capable of executing all of the tasks it's responsible for in perfect fashion; you don't think it was worth even asking around to see if anyone could perform certain tasks better than them?

Why do conservatives (or whatever Republicans consider themselves to be these days) rush to defend Halliburton? It's pathetic. Their performance has been less than optimal, and yet there's some sort of ideological impetus to stick up for them. Why?

Define optimal in a war setting Matthew? Of course you can't. To many variables. Now let the grown ups have some time here and you go play. ww

Brian, your memory of Clinton's Balkan's adventures is as usual false. Republicans did not, as a party, "undermine" Clinton's Balkans intervention - even though Clinton did it without authorization, and on the premise of a Kosovo "genocide" that was subsequently found to be a lie. There were no attempts to impeach Clinton for the false premises of the Kosovo operation. There were many Republicans who strongly supported Clinton's actions in the Balkans but Brian is too ignorant to recall.

As for you finding it amusing that the government might have to find contractors quicker during a war than otherwise, well I guess reality is a surprise to you on a daily basis.

Further, Halliburton originally had "no bid" contracts for military support operations in Iraq because the original contract had been awarded during the Clinton administration.

Your comments really are silly, Matthew. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, you've certainly no idea which contracts you are even whining about. When it comes to quick large scale overseas construction projects there are at most 2 or 3 US companies able to assemble the resources.

Matthew, you are making broad assumptions about Halliburton and using them to fit the narrative that you already have in your head. First, off there are not many companies in the world that do all of the things that Halliburton does.

Sure, you could farm out individual tasks to smaller companies. The federal procurement process is a huge bureaucratic nightmare, it takes months to bid through every contract. In a war you don't have time to bid out all of the essential services. If you will recall, there were a lot of complaints as it was that basic services like water and electricity took too long to get up and running. Everything would have been delayed for months and years if all of the services were put up for contract bids.

The second mistake you seem to be making is assuming that everything Halliburton has done has been a disaster. That is just not the case. I won't say Halliburton has done a perfect job. But considering they have thousands of employees doing thousands of projects there are going to be screw-ups.

Why do Liberals or Progressives or whatever they call themselves these days have some sort of idealogical impetus to go after an American company? Would you prefer that those jobs go to a French company?

The sad thing is that Obama is running against Clinton, a plural entity; and voters are not getting that this treatment of Obama is what a next edition of a Clinton white house will be, the Clinton hydra. No contender for the presidency this time out, whether Democrat or Republican, has an ex-president mouth piece to do the dirty work that Clinton 1 is doing for the hopeful Clinton 2. If any did it would be a far different contest. Without an ex-president weighing in on the appropriateness or fairness etc. -- or other person of similar stature, though I can think of none comparable to an ex-president for a presidential election -- expect more of the focus to be on the weaknesses of the Obama response rather than to the Clinton power play.

We do live in interesting times.

While the Clinton Attack machine is getting SOME news, is it really getting that much press compared to what a Republican would get for saying the same things?

I can't help but think that if Obama gets the nomination then anytime the Republican candidate so much as says the name Obama he'll be called a racist.

Matthew they will elect a Republican(unless the nominee is Huckabee) because of the "Hillary Factor". If there was no Hillary and the Dims were smart enough to nominate a moderate like Evan Bayh or Mark warner, the odds would be in the Dims favor. But with Hillary they are again repating the same mistakes they have made in the last 40 years. Hey Matthew the Dims have only won three Presidential elections in the last 40 years...do you think that is a good track record? Couple that with her gigantic negatives, her brittle pesonality, her extreme liberalism and the fact that most Americans believe that somebody with a last name other than Clinton and Bush can be President basically puts the ball in the Republicans court. Also this racial nonsense she is doing to Obama really is not a big plus for her. Don't forget little boy, her hubby despite his charisma never got a majority
so what makes you think this unpleasant woman is going to be elected?

Brian, your memory of Clinton's Balkan's adventures is as usual false. Republicans did not, as a party, "undermine" Clinton's Balkans intervention

This is the Internet. You can't get away with spouting that kind of bullshit anymore.

As thousands of U.S. soldiers packed for a winter in Bosnia, the Senate Wednesday debated President Clinton's plan to send those troops to enforce peace between ancient enemies. House Republicans vented their opposition.

In a 108-64 vote Wednesday, House Republicans backed a measure that would cut off funding for the mission.
...
The Senate debated three options: Cut off funding, a proposal given little chance of passing; oppose Clinton's decision to send troops but support the soldiers themselves, expected to gain Republican support; or permit Clinton to send troops but impose restrictions on the mission, also considered likely to pass.
...
"I think the American people are solidly behind our effort to stop the deployment, even though it's almost too late now," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Gramm and Forbes also strongly oppose the deployment. On the day the peace accord was signed in Dayton, Ohio, the Texas senator accused Clinton of mishandling Bosnia for three years and predicted that the peace agreement will fail. "I have no confidence in the Clinton-brokered peace deal and I will oppose sending American troops into Bosnia," Gramm said.

Forbes, interviewed on CNN's "Inside Politics Weekend," said the peace agreement has "the makings of a fiasco" and said Clinton's "casually made" commitment to send troops to help enforce it did not represent a long-term solution to the problem.
...
Former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander has expressed skepticism about Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops, saying if he had been president, he would never have made such a commitment.
...
"The president is our commander-in-chief and he has the right to make his case to the Congress and to the American people," Alexander said in the statement. "But he has not yet done that -- and he must before our troops are sent into an open-ended peacekeeping mission."

Unable to convince a group of fellow Republicans that Bosnia is worth the loss of one American life, Senator Bob Dole, the Republican leader, today postponed until next week Senate debate on a resolution supporting President Clinton's deployment of American troops. ... "I don't think he has the votes," said Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and leader of the splinter group of two dozen conservatives who oppose deployment of American ground troops in the Balkans. ... President Clinton does not need a resolution from Congress to deploy the troops, who have already started landing in Bosnia. But the Administration is working to secure Congressional blessing ... Just because President Clinton has made a decision and the troops are already landing, Mr. Lott said, "I'm not going to endorse a wrong decision after the fact."

But I suspect you knew it was bullshit when you said it.

Also Matty...I know three libby Dims who hate that witch so much that if McCain is the Rep nominee they will vote for him. So much for a united Dimo party.

True to form, Brian cannot stop being dishonest. From his own source below. Brian cannot bring himself to tell the truth that Clinton didn't seek approval from Congress at all and unilaterally sent troops there. So obviously people had to support the troops once they are there. Bush gave Dems two chances to vote on Iraq war resolutions. Also I don't see see any Rep leaders proclaiming the mission is lost and comparing our troops to Nazis and Pol Pots. Also we didn't have ad to call our general on the field "General Betray Us". What can you expect from Brian? He is beyond shame.

Opponents of the deployment were anxious to avoid sending U.S. forces a discouraging note even as the troops prepared to move out this weekend by plane and train to the frozen hills of northeastern Bosnia. On the other hand, lawmakers were faced with the unpopularity of the mission as measured by the calls flooding their offices.

"I think the American people are solidly behind our effort to stop the deployment, even though it's almost too late now," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Well, she polls very well heads up against Romney and McCain, so I guess people today would prefer a change in the White House. Quite a few months between now and the general election, though, so hopefully policy positions (especially Obama's) are clarified between now and then.

There are other construction companies that could have taken some of what Halliburton was given, though perhaps not American ones. Does it matter what country they're from? There is a very good one in Alberta, which has performed exceptionally well in the oil sands development. Don't the Saudis/Emirates also have contractors in this line of work? Of course any company wouldn't be operating under optimal conditions, but does the fact that a war takes place in a region excuse every mistake made there, and occlude any sort of Congressional investigation?

If a Democratic administration gave a blank cheque to a company with tangental ties to someone in their party, under any circumstances, would you shrug your shoulders?

Grow up Matthew..."polls" give me a break. Like they are not skewed.Ten months out a presidential poll is useless...less than useless. Hell Dukakis polled well in 1988...look what happened to him. Dims always poll well before