Ed Schultz Calls Bill Clinton a Liar and an Embarrassment to the Democratic Party

Thursday, January 24, 2008
Ed Schultz Calls Bill Clinton a Liar and an Embarrassment to the Democratic Party

Many Democrats have simply had enough of the Clintons and their two-bit tactics that try to divide and conquer--or to bully the press from asking serious questions about their unethical pattern of deceit. This is a battle for the soul of the Party.

Ed Schultz: Bill Clinton is Lying

Well, I think he`s a minus for Hillary because he`s lying on the campaign trail, Chris. I`m going to lay it right on the Clintons` doorstep right now. Bill Clinton is lying about Barack Obama`s record when it comes to the war and when it comes to this comment about Republicans and Reagan.

And you know what Democrats are being reminded of when Clinton gets out on the stump? He lied 10 years ago about Monica Lewinsky, and he`s lying about a very viable candidate and somebody who could really bring change in this country. He is embarrassing for Democrats.

And another thing is I think that African-Americans are saying, You know what? He`s picking on a brother. That`s why Hillary is going down as far as the rating approval with African-Americans in South Carolina. Bill, get off the campaign trail if you want Hillary to get the nomination...


Here`s the bottom line. He`s hurting Democrats. Ted Kennedy`s had a heated conversation with him. I had Pat Leahy on the program yesterday, on the radio show, saying Bill Clinton`s got to back off. Today, I had Claire McCaskill on, saying that, I think that Bill Clinton is shading the truth. We`re afraid to say it, he`s lying about Barack Obama`s record, and it is turning off a lot of African-Americans, it`s turning off a lot of core Democrats. And guess what? Bill Clinton`s approval rating, whether it be 60, 70 or 80 percent, it doesn`t mean squat when it comes to getting the nomination. The fact is, he`s being viewed as an attack dog.

more at:
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/01/ed-schultz-calls-bill-clinton-liar-and.html

Here's a guy who, along with Tom Daschle, was almost ASSASSINATED by anthrax, for God's sake. And the two of them are both advising caution, telling people to tone it down. I'm not going to listen to those milquetoasts until they address the anthrax issue.

Bill Clinton needs to tone it down. Period. If he continues on this track he WILL be a liability in the General, no matter who the nominee is. He'll be of no use to anyone by getting caught in baldfaced lies now.

have any takers for an endorsement or campaign assistance.

They better muzzle him. I do NOT want the general election to be a referendum on Bill Clinton's trustworthiness. People like the Big Dawg, but he is not considered a paragon of honesty.

He's the only Dem who stands a chance in the GE.

he's said he thinks the White House knows more than they'll admit to about it. And sorry, milquetoasts don't have the guts to author and sponsor both the Habeas Restoration Act and the War Profiteering Prevention Act, or issue subpoenas and contempt citations to Rove and Bolton, let alone single handedly remove immunity from telecom. And milquetoasts certainly don't get under cheney's skin to the point where he publically tells a U.S. Senator to go fuck himself. I wish more Senators were that kind of a milquetoast.

with bill clinton's lying.

when he couldn't get her to come on his show when he wanted. Shut up Ed!

out bill clinton as a liar but that doesn't make it any less true.

Losing listeners daily because of his hate Hillary rants.

I wasn't a fan before, but I'll have to give him another listen.

His rantings are intended to get more listeners - end of story.

Ed's been pushing for impeachment for some time now. He's way ahead of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, to name a few.

He seems very sincere to me. How do you know his only interest is in improving his ratings?

He reminds me of all the stupid jocks in high school - they talk a lot and never know how stupid they are.

He is an ex-jock and ex "conservative", but he has seen the light.

I won't argue that he is well informed on all the details of issues, and I've been amazed on occasion that he was totally clueless about something that any DUer would have dissected long ago, but I love his show and I know his heart is in the right place.

Totally disagree with your superficial and nasty personal attack.:thumbsdown:

I don't listen to him as much as I used to because I've found that I kind of like listening to nice relaxing music or news being presented in a calm, quiet voice :) but I still think he's one of us, I really do. He gets very impassioned in a way that I don't think could be faked, because he makes really good points and isn't just blowing hot air in a "see, I'm mad, so I must be a liberal too" way.

Bill Clinton is losing it. He is an embarrassment to the party with the way he is acting lately. I never really cared about his sex scandals but the attacks are too much. He looks desperate.

talks like this.

Much less a true one.

Anyone who didn't have their fingers in their ears or their eyes blindfolded can tell bill clinton is lyin' his ass off.

One writer's complilation is in post # 58 but if you need closer help here it is.. this is if you really want to know..if you're being purposely obtuse then forget it.

zidzi (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-24-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
58. It's all over for anyone on the net to see..
By Karen Russell
Before Iowa, "Hillary the Inevitable" had the numbers, the machine and the name on her side in this race. Despite being the clear and unequivocal underdog, Obama built a grassroots campaign, brought in independents and got disillusioned Republicans to cross the aisle.

Obama starting gaining ground and closing the gap. That's when the "fun" started. That's when Hillary told reporters about her plans to attack Obama.

For months, we saw "the inevitable frontrunner" running a tight and disciplined campaign. Then as Obama rose in the polls, suddenly Hillary and her surrogates started dropping a series of "misunderstood" slurs. They fit a familiar pattern, "smear, play dumb, own up and apologize". Rinse, lather and repeat.

We are supposed to believe that as Obama gained ground on Clinton that it's just mere coincidence that Clinton surrogates painted Obama as a risky "shucking and jiving", "roll of the dice", "cocaine-loving", "drug-dealing", ";Reagan-loving", "closet-Muslim" , "fairytale-living", "establishment", "less black than President Clinton" "rookie"?

We are supposed to believe that these are isolated "mistakes". Remember these are the people who went after Senator Obama's kindergarten record and then tried play it off as a joke.

Now it appears that "Trasher-in-Chief" Bill is in charge of keeping the "fun" going. Apparently, the Clinton campaign figured out that having Hillary taking the cheap shots at her opponents made her less "likable".

It started with Clinton trashing Obama on the war. When a red-faced and angry Clinton twisted Obama's anti-war record calling it a "fairytale". However, according to the New York Times, "; a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.'' "

All of the Clinton's huffing and puffing won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that Obama has always been against it.

Then in Nevada, Clinton claimed that Obama was running ads "telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

This simply isn't true. Those ads don't exist. To many, the idea of getting Republicans to cross the aisle and become "Obama Republicans" is appealing. Remind me again, what is wrong with trying to woo independents and Republicans? Taylor Marsh seems to think there's something wrong with that.

Ms. Marsh, also ran with the Clinton exaggeration of voter intimidation, "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter."

President Clinton went on to claim Obama said Republicans had all the good ideas, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

The Clinton assertion that Obama said Republicans had "all the good ideas" just isn't true. Obama said the Republican challenged "conventional wisdom" and moved the country in a fundamentally different direction and that we Democrats can learn from that strategy. That people wanted optimism, clarity and to talk differently about issues and values. Obama pointed out that the unfortunately the Republican ideas promoted by this strategy were bad and wrong.

When Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help other Democrats get elected he said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton continued "the twist" of Obama's words during the debate. Why is Team Billary twisting the facts on Senator Obama? They are playing to win, truth be damned. Campaigning for his wife is one thing but continuing to trash Obama with misrepresentations is frankly disappointing. Daddy Bush didn't trash John McCain when McCain was running against Shrub. Clinton needs to rein it in. If Hillary can't control Bill or her surrogates, why do we believe she's ready to lead on day one?

Think about how the Clinton campaign responded to Bob Johnson's smear. When she was caught between a rock and a big donor, look how she responded.

First, they denied it was a smear and "took him on his word". Yeah, right. Unlike less powerful surrogates, they couldn't get Johnson to walk the plank. Finally, after Johnson was rightfully shamed into apologizing, Clinton conveniently flip-flopped claiming Johnson was "out of bounds". Hillary was for the smear before she was against it. It's familiar territory for her.

And, if it's true that Hillary is not campaigning in South Carolina, this is just the Clintons lowering expectations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/zip-it-bill ...

except HIMSELF!!!

wait to get back in our white house and cover up another bush.

like you just caught a bunch of them wigglin' at the clinton campaign quarters so have fun in your mire of shit.

I wouldn't go to the bank on very much he says.

When did that start?:eyes:

He's become a yapping chihuahua making a spectacle of himself at every opportunity. Hillary needs to get somebody to give him a BJ so he'll have something to do besides fuck up her campaign.

..who's doin' himself in. And Ed Schultz isn't the only one who's noticed..
By Karen Russell
Before Iowa, "Hillary the Inevitable" had the numbers, the machine and the name on her side in this race. Despite being the clear and unequivocal underdog, Obama built a grassroots campaign, brought in independents and got disillusioned Republicans to cross the aisle.

Obama starting gaining ground and closing the gap. That's when the "fun" started. That's when Hillary told reporters about her plans to attack Obama.

For months, we saw "the inevitable frontrunner" running a tight and disciplined campaign. Then as Obama rose in the polls, suddenly Hillary and her surrogates started dropping a series of "misunderstood" slurs. They fit a familiar pattern, "smear, play dumb, own up and apologize". Rinse, lather and repeat.

We are supposed to believe that as Obama gained ground on Clinton that it's just mere coincidence that Clinton surrogates painted Obama as a risky "shucking and jiving", "roll of the dice", "cocaine-loving", "drug-dealing", ";Reagan-loving", "closet-Muslim" , "fairytale-living", "establishment", "less black than President Clinton" "rookie"?

We are supposed to believe that these are isolated "mistakes". Remember these are the people who went after Senator Obama's kindergarten record and then tried play it off as a joke.

Now it appears that "Trasher-in-Chief" Bill is in charge of keeping the "fun" going. Apparently, the Clinton campaign figured out that having Hillary taking the cheap shots at her opponents made her less "likable".

It started with Clinton trashing Obama on the war. When a red-faced and angry Clinton twisted Obama's anti-war record calling it a "fairytale". However, according to the New York Times, "; a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.'' "

All of the Clinton's huffing and puffing won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that Obama has always been against it.

Then in Nevada, Clinton claimed that Obama was running ads "telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

This simply isn't true. Those ads don't exist. To many, the idea of getting Republicans to cross the aisle and become "Obama Republicans" is appealing. Remind me again, what is wrong with trying to woo independents and Republicans? Taylor Marsh seems to think there's something wrong with that.

Ms. Marsh, also ran with the Clinton exaggeration of voter intimidation, "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter."

President Clinton went on to claim Obama said Republicans had all the good ideas, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

The Clinton assertion that Obama said Republicans had "all the good ideas" just isn't true. Obama said the Republican challenged "conventional wisdom" and moved the country in a fundamentally different direction and that we Democrats can learn from that strategy. That people wanted optimism, clarity and to talk differently about issues and values. Obama pointed out that the unfortunately the Republican ideas promoted by this strategy were bad and wrong.

When Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help other Democrats get elected he said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton continued "the twist" of Obama's words during the debate. Why is Team Billary twisting the facts on Senator Obama? They are playing to win, truth be damned. Campaigning for his wife is one thing but continuing to trash Obama with misrepresentations is frankly disappointing. Daddy Bush didn't trash John McCain when McCain was running against Shrub. Clinton needs to rein it in. If Hillary can't control Bill or her surrogates, why do we believe she's ready to lead on day one?

Think about how the Clinton campaign responded to Bob Johnson's smear. When she was caught between a rock and a big donor, look how she responded.

First, they denied it was a smear and "took him on his word". Yeah, right. Unlike less powerful surrogates, they couldn't get Johnson to walk the plank. Finally, after Johnson was rightfully shamed into apologizing, Clinton conveniently flip-flopped claiming Johnson was "out of bounds". Hillary was for the smear before she was against it. It's familiar territory for her.

And, if it's true that Hillary is not campaigning in South Carolina, this is just the Clintons lowering expectations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/zip-it-bill_b_82590.html

Go Ed.

But I'll give Schultz a plus for "in your face points." He was CLEAR and FIRM ... thank God his view eked through despite Joan Walsh's, et.al. CONSTANT Clintonian ass-kissing syphophantic prose. :shrug:

I can't watch cable even if I had it!

Shame on the Clintons for dragging this thing into the mud.

ClintonInc. will 'say anything and do nothing.'

is feeding the fire for the Repbs. What is Bill suppose to do, just roll over and play dead when his wife is being attacked from all sides. Mostly Obama and his minions.

Oh yeah, let her and Edwards just roll over and hand Obama the nomination solely based on his race. I heard the same drivel on the Bob Grant show one night (I was at my neighbor's place, I would never listen to him otherwise). Some supposed historian called and said that Hillary should step aside and let Obama have the nomination because it would advance the racial cause in the US. I guess that we have had soooo many women presidents that Hillary's nomination would not be historical......

IMO, I couldn't care less if Obama was purple, yellow or green. I still won't vote for a guy who was a state senator a mere 3 years ago. PERIOD!!!!

The rest is pure B.S.

who in the hell does think he is speaking for, I don't give a damn what color he is, if we are suppose to look at the candidates for who they are and the issues, why do I care that he is black. I don't vote for color I vote on the issues. Shut the hell up Ed! As a sister you aren't speaking for me!

Hillary, and that was BEFORE his appearance on TV last night.

I don't know why everybody is getting so upset wiwth BC? even if you're a strong Obama supporter, you should thank Bill for exposing Barack to just a baby taste of what the Pubs are going to throw at him if he's gets the nomination! He NEEDS that exposure to be able to work out his responses to the Pub attacks!

<img src=>

No double standard for HRC, please.

at the debate the other night...and she was attacked for that. They are protecting Obama.

Own worst enemy syndrome..droning on and on.

but I like him more and more after listening to his program the last few years. He's right on the money with his statements yesterday on Hardball and Mark Green-how can Randi Rhodes stand to have a boss like that at Air America-he's a DLC democrat of the first order and just like the rest of them fast becoming obsolete. this Clinton campaign is their last desperate try to seize power and I for one (and I'm not alone on this) don't like the Rovian tactics they are employing...

Wow, I was taken aback by his shameless support of "everything Clinton." :crazy: And I mean *EVERY DAMN THING* Bill Clinton was quoted - to Mark Green, was, at worst, "not quite accurate." :thumbsdown:

suppose to be progressive and lost to Bloomberg for mayor of NYC whenever and now I'm glad he did.

I'm filing it all. It's good to know the history of the talking-heads they tend to prop-up as *experts* on the M$M Cable Television. :hi:

By Karen Russell
Before Iowa, "Hillary the Inevitable" had the numbers, the machine and the name on her side in this race. Despite being the clear and unequivocal underdog, Obama built a grassroots campaign, brought in independents and got disillusioned Republicans to cross the aisle.

Obama starting gaining ground and closing the gap. That's when the "fun" started. That's when Hillary told reporters about her plans to attack Obama.

For months, we saw "the inevitable frontrunner" running a tight and disciplined campaign. Then as Obama rose in the polls, suddenly Hillary and her surrogates started dropping a series of "misunderstood" slurs. They fit a familiar pattern, "smear, play dumb, own up and apologize". Rinse, lather and repeat.

We are supposed to believe that as Obama gained ground on Clinton that it's just mere coincidence that Clinton surrogates painted Obama as a risky "shucking and jiving", "roll of the dice", "cocaine-loving", "drug-dealing", ";Reagan-loving", "closet-Muslim" , "fairytale-living", "establishment", "less black than President Clinton" "rookie"?

We are supposed to believe that these are isolated "mistakes". Remember these are the people who went after Senator Obama's kindergarten record and then tried play it off as a joke.

Now it appears that "Trasher-in-Chief" Bill is in charge of keeping the "fun" going. Apparently, the Clinton campaign figured out that having Hillary taking the cheap shots at her opponents made her less "likable".

It started with Clinton trashing Obama on the war. When a red-faced and angry Clinton twisted Obama's anti-war record calling it a "fairytale". However, according to the New York Times, "; a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.'' "

All of the Clinton's huffing and puffing won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that Obama has always been against it.

Then in Nevada, Clinton claimed that Obama was running ads "telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me."

This simply isn't true. Those ads don't exist. To many, the idea of getting Republicans to cross the aisle and become "Obama Republicans" is appealing. Remind me again, what is wrong with trying to woo independents and Republicans? Taylor Marsh seems to think there's something wrong with that.

Ms. Marsh, also ran with the Clinton exaggeration of voter intimidation, "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter."

President Clinton went on to claim Obama said Republicans had all the good ideas, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas."

The Clinton assertion that Obama said Republicans had "all the good ideas" just isn't true. Obama said the Republican challenged "conventional wisdom" and moved the country in a fundamentally different direction and that we Democrats can learn from that strategy. That people wanted optimism, clarity and to talk differently about issues and values. Obama pointed out that the unfortunately the Republican ideas promoted by this strategy were bad and wrong.

When Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help other Democrats get elected he said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton continued "the twist" of Obama's words during the debate. Why is Team Billary twisting the facts on Senator Obama? They are playing to win, truth be damned. Campaigning for his wife is one thing but continuing to trash Obama with misrepresentations is frankly disappointing. Daddy Bush didn't trash John McCain when McCain was running against Shrub. Clinton needs to rein it in. If Hillary can't control Bill or her surrogates, why do we believe she's ready to lead on day one?

Think about how the Clinton campaign responded to Bob Johnson's smear. When she was caught between a rock and a big donor, look how she responded.

First, they denied it was a smear and "took him on his word". Yeah, right. Unlike less powerful surrogates, they couldn't get Johnson to walk the plank. Finally, after Johnson was rightfully shamed into apologizing, Clinton conveniently flip-flopped claiming Johnson was "out of bounds". Hillary was for the smear before she was against it. It's familiar territory for her.

And, if it's true that Hillary is not campaigning in South Carolina, this is just the Clintons lowering expectations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/zip-it-bill...

Among other lies, Clinton claimed that Obama was really for the Iraq war just before the New Hampshire Primary.
It's not true.

Big Eddie (whom I actually like more than not) hasn't really mentioned that.

In the meantime, nobody on the air has sat down and parsed what Senator Obama actually said. To me, it sounded like a veiled insult about the Clinton years, given the 15-year time frame he referenced.

However, I have only read snippets and seend various sound bites of this interview. I need to dig up the whole thing.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

It must be hard for The Clintons to be humble ... because they're perfect in every way. :eyes:

Hillary admitted it was a mistake a long time ago! Just because she won't fall on her knees and say, "I'm SORRY for my vote" in those exact words... you refuse to accept or believe (because you want to) that saying it was a mistake and she wouldn't have voted for it if she what she knew today ...wasn't an apology. Now who is confusing the meaning of "IS"?

I hear her criticized here for that daily and it's your own lie hearing eyes and ears. I's say whoever repeats that meme is themselves a LIAR!

This long time listener has no idea WTF you are talking about!

I have only listened to his show periodically, but I also get the impression that Ed Schultz is trying to get at the unvarnished truth. In other words, IMO, he sounds genuinely interested at conveying the facts as much as a Radio Personality can and still be entertaining. :shrug: :hi:

My biggest fear is that the party as a whole, will take yet another hit because of Bill Clinton.

If the facts don't fit, then make them up.

In many ways, I'm disgusted by this. But part of me is intrigued. It makes me think that if the Clintons get the nomination, they'll be able to use the Republicans tactics against them, something most Democrats would never do.

Not sure if that's a good thing, but I still think that any Democrat in the White House, including Clinton, is better than any Republican.

sorry, double post

he should shut the hell up. He has been attacking hillary ever since she did not come on his show,. He always spouts off when he doesn;t know what in the hell he is talking about and gets angry if someone calls his show and disagrees with him. He has been on the attack for a while now and he started a lot of the venom that we now hear..

Schultz is an idiot. Thought he was going bust blood vessels on Matthew's show yeesterday. Of course, all things being equal, I'm sure to many he is "fair and balanced". Thanks.
quickesst

Which is a possibility.

I try to be cool about my comments because it's more important to me that a Dem sit in the White House than a Repub.

I think it's self-defeating to be inflammatory about ANY of the Dem candidates.

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are all better than any of the Repubs.

How will you feel if Mitt, Rudy, Huckabee, or McCain replays these comments about Hillary in the general?

How will you feel if the Repubs replay inflammatory Dem comments about Obama or Edwards?

Keep cool, folks.

IF The Clintons snag the Democratic Nomination, FOX, et.al., break out all the videos of Bill Clinton's lovers post Monica Lewinsky. :scared:

I know, I know, it shouldn't matter ... but a spouse who is even PHYSICALLY unfaithful to the potential President of the United States will get *endless air play.*

However, if (of course, it's a big if) Hillary gets the Dem nomination, I will definitely vote for her in the general.

I decided long ago that there were no perfect candidates. I think that the 2000 theory that a very bad Repub president will turn out to be a good thing in the long run just didn't pan out.

Honestly, I don't think the arguments against Hillary herself are any differnt that the arguments I heard against Gore. Gore wasn't perfect, but he would have been SO much better than W.

Hillary isn't perfect on Iraq, but she's better than any of the Repubs, most especially McCain, who has a tenuous lead at the moment.

I just try to approach the primaries rationally rather than emotionally.

about Gore.

Did you believe that there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000?

His voice is like nails on a chalk board to me. Sounds like Rush exept, maybe one IQ point smarter, no make that 2.

He's not as smart or as well informed as Thom Hartman (for example), but he calls the fascists on their shit on a daily basis, has lots of great guests, doesn't filter his callers, and has a very entertaining and informative show.

A lot of DUers accuse Ed of being a phony progressive, but I have to wonder if they ever listen to his show.B-)

But not that strange.

Looking at this as sport, Ed's right.

Looking at it as a chess game, I'm wondering what bHil's up to? They anticipated this criticism, no way
they make a move like Bill's making with out thinking a few yards down the road.

I have it! Bill goes out, trashes Obama, gets him riled then - drama - Hil reins Bill in, she
yanks hard on his choke collar and - drama - then she looks presidential. They get the bad stuff
out and then they make up for it by the "storyline."

I like it, works. It's like betting on pro wrestling. It's not a bet on the match, it's a bet on
what the storyline will be. I rally like it, as entertainment. The politics of it is just awful.

Obama's fallen for it. If he can't let it go, oops!

...back when he was towing the DLC party line.

Lying about an opponent is cheating.

enough said.

is a Republican? Pat Leahy? Claire McCaskill? Ted Kennedy for Chrissakes? :eyes:

Blows your theory all to Hell.:eyes:

have seen the light and have become progressives. We should be congratulating them for that, not criticizing them. And we should be working to try to educate more Republicans.

are there any Dems he does like?

Hey, here's an idea! Maybe he can get Paul Hackett to run!

doncha know?