Unlike the bloggers who went to his office for the photo-op and a fried chicken lunch.

Well, the old saying says “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.”

Give Bill a pass here; I think he’s knows what he’s doing.

Simply put, the Wallace interview is not about Bill fighting for us. It is about Bill fighting for Bill.

Mind you; I’m not saying Clinton shouldn’t vigorously defend himself and his record at every opportunity, and any collateral benefit that rubs off on the rest of the Dems is always welcome.

But anyone who thinks Clinton’s emotional outburst signals a change from his consistent record of enabling right wing messaging that doesn’t involve him (or Hillary) personally is likely in for a disappointment.

Yeah. I got torn to pieces over the last two days making the same point various places. Got called a concern troll. That’s fine, but it didn’t get us anywhere. Clinton should not have trusted Fox. No one should trust Fox.

afterthought @ 14

Yeah. I got torn to pieces over the last two days making the same point various places. Got called a concern troll. That’s fine, but it didn’t get us anywhere. Clinton should not have trusted Fox. No one should trust Fox.

Sad, but true. That a “news service” is so controlled politically. I was amazed that he even took the bait from Fox. The only thing that Fox does right is football, and thats it!!

[Mod Note; Hey Jimmie, ya new around these parts? That’s an interesting salutation for a blog run by two women]

It’s about 40 days to the election. And Clinton did something that was exactly right.

What do democrats do? Rather than hyping it, they see it as an opportunity to take a shot. If Rove were to read the comments here, he would be doing the tarrantella in front of the Whitehouse.

How about this: wait until the election is over, get Arianna, and the whole gang together. Rent a bus and go to Westchester and throw rocks at Clinton’s house.

That’ll make you feel better.

If Clinton takes on Bush on trying to co-opt national security, I’ll will cheer him on. If he dissembles on Iraq, as he did in Connecticut, I have to oppose him. This is not all one or the other.

Bill Clinton did us a huge disservice in Connecticut. He did not have to interene in the primary, but he did, and in a big way. He campaigned all over the state and allowed himself to be used in ads and phone recordings that went to every Democrat in that final week. His intervention stopped Lamont’s momentum that final week and significantly closed the gap between Lamont and Lieberman. The result was a race much closer than we wanted, and it allowed Lieberman to make the argument to supporters and contributors that he could pull off an independent candidacy. A wider margin would have knocked Lieberman out.

In the process of supporting Lieberman, Clinton told Connecticut voters that they should put aside their differences on Iraq, because there were other issues. True, but he told them not to base their vote on Iraq. In saying that, he didn’t just hurt Lamont, he hurt Democrats all over the country who are trying to run against Bush and their opponent’s support for Bush and the war.

The Bid Dawg owes us big time for that one, and I haven’t heard nearly enough to make up for it. Indeed, in claiming that we shouldn’t worry about Lieberman vs Lamont, because either way we get a Dem ignores that on the two issues most important to me — (1) how will you vote on the next war (with Iran)? and (2) how would you vote on the next judicial appointments? Lieberman is the same as a Republican vote. For Clinton to pretend this is not true is disingenuous.

The Fox News smackdown was great. I cheered for Bill every minute, because in those few minutes, he was not just protecting his own record, he was fighting our fight too. I want him fighting the rest of our fight, not just the part about his record that just so happens to be consistent with Senator Clinton’s own positions. You want my support, you hang in there for the whole war, not just the battles you want.

Yes!