It seems to me that we need a Constitutional amendment for Hillary/Bill Clinton to return to the White House. What we know about this man from YEARS of experience with him is that he will not sit quietly by meeting dignataries and working on projects dear to his heart. He will try to be President, again. Will she let him? Can she stop him? Can anyone? This is a genuine concern for me. I have always been a "yellow dog Democrat," but if Hillary/Bill Clinton is (are???) the nominee, I will cross over...or not vote...or write in. And I think that others feel the same way. The Democratic leadership should make note of Mr. Clinton's recent actions. Again, he is showing his "true colors."

Sent by Ruth Askew Brelsford | 1:54 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I always enjoyed news of Bill Clinton. Since he left the White House,He has promoted so many good things but now am completely disillusioned.
I'll vote for Obama because I think, he's the best person to FIX this USA

Sent by Patricia Steppling | 2:02 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Bill does need to tone it down, and he actually has in the last few days, as compared to last week.

But it is no wonder that he is so angry and frustrated when the media coverage has been too often so extremely unfair and inaccurate.

I was so relieved by the New York Times endorsement! Finally the truth is strongly spoken in the media!

Before that Barack was getting away with double-talking hypocritical, double-standards. He has not been practicing a campaign of hope, or change, but a campaign of hypocrisy. He has been twisting Hillary's record, criticizing her and her husband as being of the "old order."
Yes! And it was the most competent, best damn order we've ever had! That truly delivered hope and change to the majority of Americans!

Obama has been being quite a hypocrite all along. In regard to the ad controversy and who is telling the truth:

The Clinton ad about what Obama said was not lying. Obama is trying to have it both ways - his own version of lawyer double-speak. He tried to both give Republicans a compliment by saying that they were "the party of ideas" for the last "10-15 years or so."

Before that he said that their ideas had "played themselves out."

He is pandering to both sides.

What disturbs me is that he is giving a false compliment to the Republicans, saying "they were the party of ideas",
when those were horrible, disatrous ideas.

And the implication is that during those years, the Republican party had better ideas, than the Democratic party and that is not true.

They might have had more streamlined ideas, but they were bad ideas.

Later he at the debate he said he wasn't saying he liked their ideas. So the questions is then, just what did he mean when he said they "were the party of ideas."

That they had ideas? If you listen to what he says, he states it in a very complimentary tone.

Why did he bother to say it?

If he didn't mean it?

That is not unification, that is deception and pandering.

It's manipulative politics, and it's duplicitous, and he's not owning up to it, but it's all right there, for anyone willing to hear it.

He's being the one who'll "Say Anything." And it's all very hypocritical, and he needs to be called on it, because it's wrong.

And why is it that the media has been so ineffective at clearing up the real facts?

Sent by Lauren | 2:47 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Bill Clinton has completely lost any little credibility he had left. He has completely squandered the good will that African-American had toward him. I for one, is completely repulsed by his behavior. and, I will be voting for Obama.

Sent by Yves Charles | 2:51 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Who would have thought that the "swiftboating" of Senator Obama would have come from inside the Democratic Party. The Clintons (Hill and Bill) should be ashamed of the havoc that their own petty selfishness has brought about.

Sent by Jeff Schrader | 2:58 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I have also been disgusted by Bill Clinton's hysterical and staged outburts against Senator Obama the past few weeks. It's ironic, of course, since the very ideas that the former President is bashing (e.g., hope, unity, difference) are the same ones he used as justification for his own presidential run in 1992.

I will be voting for Senator Obama on Super Tuesday and continue to hope that his brand of anti-establishment politics (or at least the attempt) will finally win over a cynical public.

I'm exhausted by the Bush and Clinton families and do not want to see the nation continually regress for fear of progress.

Sent by Nicole | 3:11 PM ET | 01-25-2008

He has not been "swift-boated!"

He said the Republicans were the "party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so"!

And he hasn't explained it, owned up to it, or taken responsibility for it!

Instead, he tries to blame Hillary!

It's soooooooo wrong!

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Please see the truth!

He's being a huge, evasive, hypocrite!

He's the one who's been attacking and criticizing Hillary from the beginning!

He has not been walking his talk at all, from the beginning!

Sent by Lauren | 3:20 PM ET | 01-25-2008

The more mud democrats sling at each other now, the less Republicans will have to throw once the primaries are over and the real election campaign begins.

Hillary may be more popular umong Democrats, but Obama reaches out to more independents and has a much better chance of winning the general election. Not to mention that I think it would be a great travesty to have the list of United States Presidents to proceed Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Way too aristocratic for America, or the way America should be.

Sent by Ben | 3:21 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Democrats should vote Ron Paul

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:48 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Lauren,

Please see the Washington Post article on Bill's campaign in the early 90s and reconsider your hypocrisy accusations:

WASHINGTON -- It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Washington Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.

Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure," but the signal had been sent: Clinton was willing to move beyond "the brain-dead politics in both parties," as he so often put it.

His apostasy was widely noticed. The Memphis Commercial Appeal praised Clinton two days later for daring to "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan." Clinton's "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia and admit it," the paper wrote, "is one reason he's a candidate to watch."

Sent by William | 7:05 PM ET | 01-25-2008

It seems as though the right wing talk show hosts may be right about the Clintons after all:
- saying and doing anything to win
- the politics of personal destruction
- not willing to be honest about wrong doings
- not willing to take the blame

The way I see it, Hillary must take FULL responsibility for whatever Bill says and does in this race. If she really wants to be elected and if she really does not condone what Bill is doing, it is about time she divorces him.

Of course, that will not happen because they are both co-captains of their political war machine. These Obama attacks are a sneak preview of what we will really get if THEY occupy the White House again.

Obama is the true candidate of these times and certainly is considerably more honest than the Clintons. He, of all the candidates D or R, is the most exciting choice for a true and refreshing change inside "the beltway". I am convinced that he will be a uniter, will get things done in an honest way and, of course, will change history. The last time we had a tall, slender and honest man from Illinois was Abe Lincoln. Even though Obama is from a different party, he very well may have a legacy of Lincoln proportion.

With the Clintons we know what we will get - more of the same in DC and more of the same from them - more division, more controversy, and more scandals.

Vote for change in the person who has integrity, character, values and who is the most honest. This is what we need!

Sent by Mike | 7:25 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Calm down, Lauren, and read Obama's comments in context. You're falling for the Clinton's slick soundbite that is both reductive and misleading. What Obama said was correct: the Republicans had ideas -- bad ideas.

Sent by Terry Boyer | 7:31 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I've called all three campaigns to tell them that, if Hillary Clinton receives the Democratic nomination, I'll be voting Republican for the first time in my life.

Sent by Dave | 8:00 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Black women who are hurting from lost, hurt, and pain over relationships that did not go well in their lives should NOT risk all that we and our forefathers and mothers fought for and died for, this is our time and opportunity to put forth the best we have to offer. Obama! Every black mothers shining star and hope for this nation and unrelenting faith that we too have something.to contribute to this Country's well being. PLEASE GIVE US A CHANCE!!!

Sent by demaris | 8:41 PM ET | 01-25-2008

It's no mistake that Hillary Rodham Clinton has now become Hillary Clinton. What an opportunist.

Sent by Zita | 9:11 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Well if there were actually media reporting and asking tough questions of Obama instead of acting like he's Joseph just descending from the mountain with God's stone testaments, then perhaps we would see less of Bill. Yes, I do mean the same tough media that realized several year's after the war in Iraq, that maybe just maybe they could have done their job and asked tough questions.

Sent by Tim | 9:44 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Don't accuse anybody of being a hypocrite. It reminds everyone of the Clinton hypocracy.

Sent by CC | 9:56 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I believe both Clinton and Obama need to take a step back and well, check themselves. They, of all people, need to rise above the slinging and focus on the issues. We are at an unprecedented time-- the first African American and the first woman running for President of the US. They don't have to sling mud because the media and plenty of the citizens of our country are going to do that for them! Neither of them are being well-advised. Politics as usual doesn't play here, because this is anything but usual and that's what this country is starving for. And as they do play the game so many want them to, look what it's doing? The more they spat their ridiculousness the more Democrats are becoming divided. In a few months, we're all going to vote for one of the two of them. Are we really going to be able to do that if the one we're angry with gets the nomination?

Sent by Kerry | 9:58 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. My 71 year old mother, who has never ever missed an opportunity to vote, since she was able to vote, has pledged to 'sit this one out' if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee -- and all of this came about through the disgusting behavior of the Clinton campaign.

Keep in mind, that up until recently we(my family) weren't Hillary haters, we all agreed that even if she wasn't our first choice, we would support her in a general election - but yesterday when asked ' do I really want another Republican president' words that even surprised me came from my lips -- 'So be it' that's what I said, 'so be it,' because winning in the way that the Clinton's want to win this race against Obama, will not earn my vote in November and there are many many more of like me.

We are tired of this rubbish, too many years of George W. Bush will do that to you ... as a democrat, I have not forgotten what happens when you elect a man or in this case woman, that is willing to lie and cheat his/her way to and through the Presidency --Look what has happened to this country as a result, look at the mess we are in -- I will not be a part of repeating history, even if the shoe is on the other foot.

Sent by Melodie | 10:29 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Bill Clinton had so much potential when elected as president. His personal immoral antics in the White House took his and Hillary's focus away from what they were elected to accomplish. Instead of putting the energy into the good works they promised us, they were forced to defend Bill Clinton's behavior and clearly got off track. Bill Clinton squandered the opportunity to be a great leader because of his own, immoral behavior. I am convinced that if Hillary is elected the exact same thing will happen--Bill will have the same immoral behaviorisms and the Clintons will spend their presidency defending him again. Our country does not have another four or eight years to waste on the Clintons..we have major problems to fix and I believe the Barak Obama is the man to go to work and fix them. He is who I will vote for.
Obama is definitely my candidate.

Sent by Myrna Sparks | 10:39 PM ET | 01-25-2008

My disappointment is huge! I have been a staunch supporter of Bill Clinton; even after his escapade with ML and the land scandal. Bill Clinton has succeeded in destroying my respect for him. His wife does not share Bill's liberal views and is seeking the presidency for the wrong reasons. She is lashing out at Obama relentlessly because she is a spoiled little Park Ridge, IL princess. She has no interest or concept of the struggles of minority and poor females. She feels she deserves to be president because she is married to Bill and endured his affair. She did not expect to really have to work for the presidency. Hence, she is livid that Obama is making her work. Bill is a great disappointment and has lost my respect and warm regard.

Sent by Joey | 10:40 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Hi,
I think the issue in this US Presidential election is how the elected president can address the worsening economy. Someone has to address a strategy similar to the "new Deal of President F.D. Roosevelt." History tells us that it was only President W.J. Clinton, after Roosevelt, who had addressed the budget surplus in America. I believe this can make the difference in this debate. The issue of another Clinton in the Oval Office? Why? The issue was not addressed when anoth President Bush occupy the Oval Office. I may not be able to vote in the US election but with this comments, it can move and touch the hearts of those who are yet to cast a vote... after all, a single vote can make the difference. Good Luck Democrats... Let another Clinton serve the universe of man especially those who badly needs education, health care, employment and shelter.

A concern professional from the Philippines.

Sent by Moca Dilabakun | 10:41 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I didn't vote for Bill in the election, but what I've seen in Bill's actions with the reporters make me wish I had voted for him earlier. I believe I'll vote for Hillary. I like to see Bill Clinton stand up to the predatory reporters and news agencies that spew out accusations, half-truths and out and out lies. They should be called to account when they broadcast their lies. Bill has the courage to put these news agencies in their place replace their lies with the truth. Mr. Campaigner-in-chief! Keep up the good work and you'll help make Hillary the first lady president. It'll be a historical day...

Sent by Doug | 11:18 PM ET | 01-25-2008

It's so damn sad that this nation seemed to be getting an opportunity to heal itself both nationally , having a female candidate and a mix race candidate (race so permeates our psyche, that there is no way we can see Barak as a "White candidate." After all one of his parents is 100 percent white ) and , globally, because of America's prominence, and the tarnished image we now experience on the world stage .So if either candidate would be President, America's image would get a "big time" boost. We certainly, would regain some respect, in a non threatening way. The world's stage is no longer hopelessly dominated by Eurocentric values. Could you imagine, President Obama visiting sub Saharan and other non-European countries with messages of Democracy !!!! . Now, that's what I'm talking about!!

Sent by Eion Mckend | 11:32 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Bill Clinton has evolved into a grumpy old man. He is hurting the Democratic Party. I have now decided that if Hillary is the nominee of our Party, I will vote for Bloomberg(if he enters the race)or not vote at all.

Sent by John | 11:37 PM ET | 01-25-2008

right now, the dems are doing what they do best: turn on each other and implode. here's hoping that edwards rises above and wins in south carolina. it would be great to see two conventions this year instead of the usual crowning ceremonies.

sorry to see you go, dennis kucinich and bill richardson. now that all the dems with the best ideas are gone, i like, and will be heeding, jody sol's advice.

Sent by adam schaeffer | 11:55 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Hillary's campaign has been despicable up to now, no one with such little integrity will ever have my vote. If you can't trust her to run a truthful campaign, how can you trust her to run a truthful government. Don't get me wrong, she's a very capable person. Problem is, I don't know what she's capable of. What this country DOESN'T need right now is a democrat version of Bush.

Sent by Minh | 12:24 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Lauren, get a grip. Seriously.

Sent by Minh | 12:26 AM ET | 01-26-2008

"The more Mrs. Clinton relies on her husband, the more she undermines the most compelling arguments for her candidacy. Take the notion that she is a feminist pioneer. Mr Clinton's omnipresence not only reminds us that his wife made her political career by attaching herself to his coat-tails. Only a spouse could have survived the debacle of "Hillarycare." It also reminds voters that her first instinct when the going gets tough is to turn to her husband."

Say what you want (bad coverage, slighted media remarks, etc.) ...you can't have your husband going around talking for you. Hillary is a big girl with her own words, motivation and skill. If she were to win the nomination "the boys" all over north america are going to broad side her with accusations of not being able to withstand pressure, criticism, and the like... What's she gonna do, go get her husband to beat them up? The discourse has to come from her she is the candidate, not her husband!!!!!

Sent by Fran | 12:35 AM ET | 01-26-2008

I've never liked Bill Clinton. Even so, I voted for him twice. Still, I was glad to see him go from the national scene in 2000. Now, I am wary of voting for Hillary. And, now that Bill has popped his head into the campaign, I am reminded once again the joy of being without his dysfunctionality and the Clinton family in general. Attacking Obama will hurt his wife and it may lead to the election of one of the Republican candidates.

Sent by Omar | 1:26 AM ET | 01-26-2008

The behavior of the Clintons is definitely turning me off. The republicans are looking better and better. They just seem to make more sense to me.

Sent by erin | 2:33 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Hey Lauren,

Read the following then look up the word "context":

Barack Obama:
"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."

Notice that Obama does not say the Republicans had "good ideas," he just says they had ideas that were "challenging conventional wisdom." Bill Clinton just made up the word "good" because it made what Obama actually said sound worse, and at the same time he left out the comment that the "Republican approach, I think, has played itself out."

Sent by Robert | 2:41 AM ET | 01-26-2008

When Bill Clinton points to reporters and says he heard Obama campaign workers making false threats/promises during the Nevada caucuses, it brings back memories of his pointing at cameras and saying "I did not have sex with that woman." He lied then, and I don't think we can believe anything that he or Hillary has to say. They are both too focused on what they want--not what is good for the country. They have a weird sense of entitlement--that we should just pass the crown to Hillary since Bill can no longer wear it. There has to be better presidential material than just those who are named Clinton and Bush. It's definitely time for a change, and I will vote for Obama.

Sent by Kathy | 2:58 AM ET | 01-26-2008

No white person on earth can understand the black lived experience. Some brainwashed African-Americans quite foolishly hailed Bill Clinton as the first `black president` They are now seeing him in his true colours.

Sent by kamisese | 4:05 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Please take the time to research the whole quote before responding to Clinton's spin on the Reagan comment. I understand you want her to be president, but Democrats are NOT the party of blind loyalty. We are the party of intelligent debate and honest skepticism. You might want to start at http://factcheck.org/

Sent by JD | 4:17 AM ET | 01-26-2008

I can tell you that myself, some friends and family have gotten turned off by the Clinton's behaviour to do anything to win. Their behavior and distortions, like on Meet the Press, in which Hilalry said: "Sen. Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.'' When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto's death will ''call into issue the judgment'' of ''taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.'' and their recent attempt at voter suppresion in Nevada, entering racially devisive remarks into the campaign to dvide black and white voters. A compelling story can be heard from the former President of Now, Lorna Brett Howard, who Switched from Clinton to Obama, You Tube Video in which she explains that Hillary lied on Obama in regards to womens' issues so she is now supporting Obama. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CG5nh

These kinds of demeaning and unethical tactics from both of the Clintons, have shown a number of people another side to them which they did not know existed and it does not look pretty. In their attempt to achieve power, they have divided the paty and it is a deep division. They seem more like Karl-Rove Republicans than Democrats and it is a shame to see their moral demise! There is a negative way to fight (lies and distortions) and a positive way to fight. The leaders we elect into the highest office of the land should be men and women of principal and high moral character and should not engage in behavior unbefitting the highest office in the land.

In the future, there will have to be some kind of Campaign Reform: Rules and Regulations from the Perspective Parties in the way politicians run their campaigns to keep them truthful and from distorting one another's records.

I, too, will not vote for Hillary!

Sent by bacalove | 6:58 AM ET | 01-26-2008

On a few of the news outlets in recent days, there have been references to the "Sistah Souljah" incident back in 1992 in which then Presidential hopeful Bill Clinton threw this so-called militant rap artist under the bus, thus pandering for the white vote in upcoming Western states after having pandered for the black vote in the recently held Southern primaries. Google Sistah Souljah and read about the incident; You'll hear it again and again. The same thing is happening with Clinton's treatment of Obama.

Sent by John | 7:27 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Obamas has been crying since he lost every primary since Iowa, where 17yr olds (who can't vote in general election) and Bill Richardson supporters put him over the top, otherwise he would have lost there too. The media has told the country that SC is a racist black only vote. So why would anyone other than the only 1/2 black candidate stay there. John Edwards is wasting his time in SC per the media. I don't think that ALL SC voters are as racist and naive as the media wants to portray them. It's an attempt to help Obama because his camp has made fools of the media. It took voters and an ex-president to bring his terrible senate record, bush/Chaney backing, republican loving, lack of good judgment and inexperience out in the open when the media tried to hide it. Frankly we are tired of obama crying! If he crashes so quickly because he's getting caught with corrupt campaigning funds with Rezko etc. ...what would he do when foreign leaders come at him? Run crying too, or call Oprah for help? Just what we cannot afford to take a chance on. Giving pre-written church speeches does not make a President. And having his wife, Michelle Obama stumping throwing out racial comments is disgusting! No one sees her as first lady material; we don't even see her as a lady! No one was crying when obama camp was attacking Hillary? And ALL the media treating her unfairly. She has proven that she is a strong leader after all the attacks she has endured and over come. Thank God the voters are smarter than the media and Obama give them credit for. DONT WASTE VOTES ON OBAMA, WE DON'T NEED A RACIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Sent by James | 8:11 AM ET | 01-26-2008

I am voting for Obama. The Clintons have lost my respect.

Sent by Jeremy | 9:42 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Leave President Bill alone.

He's a henpecked husband of President Hillary.

Vote for Monica.

This is really, really, really going to be the most slapstick GOP landslide victory.

President Bill needs to tell the old stoogies of the DNC to take their walkers out for a long walk.

A boycott is just another way of not saying you're sorry.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:16 AM ET | 01-26-2008

James, you're despicable. You're what's wrong with America.

Sent by dpt01 | 10:34 AM ET | 01-26-2008

I am in agreement with Lauren. I think Bill Clinton was the best President we have had in my lifetime and I am a Senior Citizen. No matter his indiscretions, he is a smart man and knows how to help our country. I believe Hillary has the same sense of what needs to be done. If Bill influences any of her decisions all the better.

Sent by Pat | 11:06 AM ET | 01-26-2008

Obama and commentators have labeled Clinton's warning on terrorist threat and economic recession as "fear-mongering". Well, Bhutto has been assassinated and the US economy is falling. They have happened. It was not fear-mongering. What can be called fear-mongering is floating the mis characterization that Clinton's negativity would spell defeat for the Democrats. It's baseless and her bipartisan performance in the Senate proves the contrary. It would be a mistake to succumb to Obama's fear-mongering. If America does not put an experienced agent of change in the Whitehouse, the same people who adore him now for his hyped rhetorics would be the same people devouring him with criticisms when he fails to deliver. All sentiments of hope can quickly turn into animosity just like what we've seen happen with Bush. And this animosity can prove more polarizing because when that happens, the blacks will save their own skin's face out of racial loyalty much to the dismay of the whites. And democrats will have a greater political mess. This is not a racial statement. It is the inconvenient truth. Watch the outcome of the South Carolina primary -- the blacks will overwhelmingly push for Obama in an effort to recolor the face of America in the world as black. I wonder how it looks to recolor the face of Kenya in the world as white?

Sent by ReadingBetweenLines | 12:17 PM ET | 01-26-2008

As an independent voter who usually votes Republican but voted for Jimmy Carter and Ralph Nader, I really want to vote Democratic in this election. I cannot vote for either Clinton. Only Obama seems to have the values and ideals that could potentially help our country heal both internally and internationally. The intense overt and probable anger and need for power apparent in both Clintons is very, very scary. They make the cowboy righteousness of Bush seem almost benign. I think if they cared about anything other than control and power, the Clintons would graciously bow out. When is our press going to open their eyes?

Sent by Ann | 12:33 PM ET | 01-26-2008

My 15 year old son and I returned from 2 days of volunteering for Obama in Nevada. Our job was simple, to be on hand and guide folks to their correct precinct voting area on a huge campus with 14 precincts and 8 different rooms that voters needed to navigate.
We were both appalled at the cheating and misleading behavior of the Clinton people. He heard one say "win at all costs", we saw people being turned away simply because they were for Obama or Edwards. When we returned to the headquarters we saw dozens of other out-of-state volunteers relaying similar stories of cheating.
I am a life-long Democrat (my mom was the Secretary of the DNC in the 70's - so it is hard to be a stronger party person) But I will have no choice but to register Independent if Clinton becomes the nominee. I have told the DNC as much.
Since last Saturday I am increasingly disturbed by the red neck twisted game that Bill is encouraging in South Carolina. But ironically I do believe the United States is going to be doing some growing up with this campaign. The only way to erase racism is to face it head on. Guess what America? Now is our chance to elect a leader based on the content of his character - and that will be Senator Barack Obama.

Sent by Melisa | 12:40 PM ET | 01-26-2008

I do not want to see ex-president among the next. Wonder if Bill or Hillary is going to be the next president. Its disgusting to see how low Bill would go... Definitely not presidential. Bill should not back off.
If Clinton's are the Democratic candidate I will vote with the GOP.

Sent by Jeff | 3:01 PM ET | 01-26-2008

This country needs to come back to the living GOD.

Sent by Daqn Harb | 4:25 PM ET | 01-26-2008

Bill Clinton of " I have never had sex with that woman" fame, is a fraud. He panders to Afro America at the same time he subtlely resorts to race and racism! Disgraceful! Then Hilary tried to condemn Obama by her slur regarding a slum lord in Chicago. Then it turns out NBC showed a picture of her posing with the same "slum lord".

Sent by Tony | 5:19 PM ET | 01-26-2008

I am embarrassed by the behavior of Mr. Clinton. Further, such behavior (and his wife's not-so-implied encouragement or acceptance of his behavior, shows that (1) she cannot fight this fight without her husband's dirty dealings; (2) they are willing to do anything to get back into the White House; and (3) they really do not care about the people of NC or the US - they will stoop to any level to win. Their behavior has shown me that, even if she is the democratic nominee, she does not deserve my vote -- and she won't get it! From a person who has previously always voted for the democratic nominee - I also want to say that, until McCain started supporting the War, I was strongly inclined toward him.

Sent by Rev. S. D. Cooper | 5:21 PM ET | 01-26-2008

As visitor from Ireland spending the year in Idaho - all I can say is it is far different experience seeing the US political process from inside the country.
Bill Clinton has a very favorable image in my country due to his involvement with our peace process.
My view is that any political system which has an inherited power structure(even when there are elections) is bad for democracy. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.
I love so much about the US - but has the role of the president got too much power ?- I mean - its almost like an elected royalty.
In Ireland Our presidents role is largely ceremonial - a figurehead - the prime minister is the real leader - the majority in parliament elect him/her.

From an international perspective I like Barack Obama - he seems the most open minded.

Sent by Maeve | 11:09 PM ET | 01-26-2008

Would someone explain to me what was so good about Bill Clinton's presidency? His philandering was a mixed blessing for,if on the one hand he was so preocupied with how to fabricate the next lie to cover up his misbehavior, on the other, and with it, he was leaving the country alone, and this was the best thing that could've happened; otherwise he probabvly would've mess things up there too.He reduced the deficit. Big deal! He had too! There were no other alternatives. He was lucky that he took over after a Republican that had mismanaged the country. And remember what they say about Republicans: they govern to make democrats appear good. Not a very high standard to meet! And about his charisma, he has the one of a narcissistic, arrogant manipulator. What he has done to many women he has philandered with (even black women that, according to Andrew Young he has gone with) he does with all those seduced people who see him as a great president and a caring man. Take your blinds off, people! This man is pretentious, arrogant, self-serving, narcissistic and shallow beyond belief. And the lady above who thinks he has done great things since he left, needs to know that all his has done is to take every opportunity to be in front of the screen and to make millions for speeches with great deal of seducing oratory but with little substance. And as far as I am concerned, he and his wife are cut out of the same cloth and deserve each other. What an arrogance! Getting nasty and showing your mean spirits because a 1/2 black man, of far greater reach, honesty, charisma and JUDGEMENT, dares to challange what they believe was her nomination to take. This is America! We don't have kings or queens overhere. We are allowing dynasties and we are paying dearly for it!

Sent by Leonel A. Urdaneta, MD | 6:53 AM ET | 01-27-2008

I am a registered Repuplican, but in actuality a lifelong conservative small businessman. Need I remind ANY voter either Republican or Democrat that when Mr. Clinton left office he did so with a balanced budget and generated a surplus during his second administration I believe. With that said he needs to take a long vacation and let his wife sink or swim. As well Mrs. Clinton can't let him be the attack-dog that she can't control. Longterm that just won't play

Sent by kent r. corral,m.d. | 2:57 PM ET | 01-27-2008

I am a life-long Democrat and supported Bill Clinton regardless of the Republican attack machine while he was in office. I find myself being very disappointed in his behavior since he has designated himself as Senator Clinton's de facto running mate and Dick Cheney clone. If she is the nominee neither my wife nor I will support her in the general election. We will write in another candidate, which is very frustrating for both of us. The Republicans would like nothing better than to run against Bill & Hillary Clinton as a package and they've played right into that. Another four years of divisive, partisan bickering?? The country can't afford it.

Sent by Carl Ladd | 6:36 PM ET | 01-27-2008

The balanced budget in Clinton's second term was the result of huge taxes on the windfall profits of the dot-com bubble. Bill had nothing to do with it and it was phony anyway. Even if he wanted to spend the income, the Gridlock with the Republican Controlled congress after his first two years prevented much of any new spending. Bill accomplished almost nothing in 8 years in office. Leave out NAFTA (which his party abhors) and the welfare reform (where he totally caved in to the Republican plan) and what do you have? His "leadership" during the Rwandan Genocide? His unilateral decision to invade Kosovo? How about his bombing a baby food factory in Sudan to try and take his personal scandal off the front pages? How about not fighting for the Kyoto treaty or offering an alternative? How about his cowboy raid on Ben Laden's camp? 9/11 was financed by the dud cruse missiles from that attack which Ben Laden sold to China (See "Road to 9/11")

Bush II is the worst President in modern American history (perhaps ever), but much of his arrogance and unilateralism are built upon the Clinton precedents.

I think all honest people should agree that Hilary voted to give Bush authorization for invading Iraq not because she thought it was right, but because she thought it was the safe vote to make. She sent our troops to die to protect her political viability, just as Bill joined the National Guard all those years ago to protect his (as he wrote). Now it is evident for all to see that the Clintons would rather damage Obama (even if that means a Republican win in November) rather than have Obama win and take control of the Democratic party.

Sent by Kevin L. | 12:20 AM ET | 01-28-2008

Why can't you all see that the journalist just harp and harp on the campaign folks to keep the fire burning on the bad stuff... like the race issue. It makes for "ratings" and we should quickly turn the channel so the ratings will go down and maybe they (journalist) will start treating this campaign with the dignity it deserves? Doesn't it bother you all that these jounalist just keep asking stupid questions...questions designed to ignite the fuel of racism and such? I've heard the rumors making the rounds that the "Rove Republican Strategy" is to bring up the "race" card and blame it on the Clinton's. They need Obama to win so they have a chance to win the Presidency for their canidate in the National Convention. By the way, do you wonder if the journalist are really working for the Republicans? Heavens knows so called journalist like Chris Matthews and Lou Dodd certainly inject their personal preferences in every chance they get by putting down the opposition.

Sent by Sylvia | 10:44 AM ET | 01-28-2008

I am and always have been a devoted Democrat, I took my time to evaluate and choose between Barack and Hillary. And I chose Hillary, she is the only who is truly more qualified and competent at this time.

Deep in my gut, I know she is the right choice. At this point for me, Obama is largely hype.

I would be interested in voting for Barack in the future, after he has more experience, to take a chance and see how easily he would be able to deliver on all his idealism.

I am very idealistic, but when it comes to something of such importance as the Presidency, I need to see more proof of competency.

At this point, all it seems Barack has to offer is a lot of eloquent words, with hardly any real substance to prove himself. It's a pretty easy sell. Who wouldn't want hope and change? All candidates always say they are the ones who will bring hope and change.

It sounds good, but when it comes to actually governing the country, I choose proven competence over words. Now is not the time to take chances with someone who doesn't really know what they're doing, and has never governed before.

I really think an Obama administration would be very disorganized and messy, and it would take them a long time to get it together and get anything accomplished. Unifying is easy to say, much, much messier and harder to actualize. I don't get sold easily. I need to see lots of proof. I don't just fall for what sounds good. And in the debates, Hillary is the one who knows what she's talking about. She excels. She is dedicated. She has delivered and won over skeptics and Republicans in New York who used to be Clinton bashers.

I need to go deeper than just inspiration and rhetoric. Everybody can talk the good talk. Real work in governing is quite different.

(And guess what - I would say that if he was white too! Who's going to accuse me of being racist, just because I have real concerns about his experience and competency? I had even more real concerns about Bush too. Not that I'm comparing them - because I'm not.)

When it comes to the Clintons, Barack employs a vast quantity of divisive rhetoric, lawyer double-speak, and double-standards. Because of his eloquence and claims to be "different" many people and the press miss it, virtually completely.

Barack has been attacking and criticizing the Clintons from the beginning of his campaign, saying they are the problem with Washington, when Bill's administration was one of the most accomplished we've ever had.

Obama gets away with all his criticism and attacks because he says he's different, but if they criticize him - all of a sudden they're horrible and being "racist" and attacking "hope." Both of which could not be more UNTRUE. He doesn't have exclusive rights to being a candiate of hope, and he never has. And the press are the ones mostly playing the "race" card. They amped-up the hype that the Clintons were being racist. The Clintons are and have always been, tremendous race advocates! Are they never going to be able to make just criticisms of Obama without being labeled racist?
The media is even more engaged in spin than the candidates and their campaigns.

You do the Clintons no justice. They deserve much more respect. I started out with an open mind, but I am tired of many people's inability to think truly critically and independently. Everyone loves to jump on the Clinton bashing wagon, when they are two of the most intelligent and truly competent leaders this country has ever had.

The Clintons are everyone's scapegoat when they don't at all deserve to be. People love to just see everything they do as negative, and blame them for everything. One objective reporter (I can find his name - they talked about it on the today show), says that he thinks Clinton bashing is so out of line, that it is almost like a mental illness.

They truly delivered hope and change, all while being ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked by Republicans.

The Clintons' "baggage" was created by the Republican attack machine, who had no right to invade their personal problems and marriage, for political gain and exploit.

How is it that JFK is so revered, and even almost complimented on his affairs and womanizing ways, and Bill is so demonized about it?

They were personal, marital issues. What other world leader has ever been put on trial for a marital affair? None. Because the rest of the world knows it's wrong and ridiculous. (And an incredibly waste of tax dollars and time.) How would all Americans like to have their marital issues exposed for all to see, judge, and attack?

How were they supposed to unify with people who were hell bent on attacking and destroying them, all as part of their plan for creating a permanent Republican majority? It was a real plan that many key Republicans were following, also trying to smear all Democrats as "Liberals" in general.

People hyper-criticize the Clintons, but it all started with the Republican attack machine, and their plans for creating a permanent Republican majority. The Clintons did not create this divisiveness. They were attacked because they were the Democrats in power.

Blaming them is one of the most unjust travesties I have seen in my lifetime, and I have never felt less respect for the press' ability to view and present issues objectively.

Barack has come in able to present himself as a unifier, but if he had been in Bill Clinton's place in 1992,
the Republicans would have relentlessly attacked him, and tried to make his life hell, and make it very
hard to unify, no matter what he said. They were head strong, hell bent, and full of themselves.

Now because of the disasters of the last 7 years - because of the failures of largely Republican ideas and tactics of the last 10-15 years or so, Republican ideas have played out, and they are finally in a place where they are more willing to look to new ideas and unify in general.

I would respect Barack more if he would stop being such a hypocrite by being too easy on Republicans, while trying to blame everything on the Clintons. That is why Bill has been so frustrated and mad. He should have controlled himself more, but it's been incredibly unjust and unfair.

As of right now, I have lost most of my respect for Barack. He's already proven that he'll portray things unfairly for his own political gain, and not take responsibility.

I truly want this country to be at it's best for all of us. But I think it will take proven competence and experience to do that most efficiently and effectively at this time. Hillary is the most qualified out of all the candidates.

Sent by Lauren | 9:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008