I just don't understand how people want to put Clinton in the White House. She is so cold and calculated and will do anything to win the White House, including destroying the Democratic Party. She is ???politics as usual.??? It is very disappointing, and I fear if she somehow hoodwinks the general public and wins the nomination, it is going to disenfranchise enough people in the Democratic Party to give McCain the White House, myself included.

Sent by Tim | 4:48 PM ET | 03-26-2008

No one should be surprised at the Clintons. They did a hit job on Obama and now this.Until the Democratic leadership can stand up to them, they would run the party into the ground.

Sent by Lisa | 5:07 PM ET | 03-26-2008

comments are always interesting, but I wonder if people take the time to really read these newsblogs before inserting foot in mouth. Follow the source...

Sent by george | 5:35 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I do want to put Clinton in the White House. What McPeak said about Bill Clinton was way out of line, yet Obama stood there and agreed. Why do Obama supporters not see that Obama's campaign are mudslinging, too.

Sent by Jen | 5:57 PM ET | 03-26-2008

To compare Clinton's mudslinging with Obama's is like comparing a nuclear explosion to a firecracker. She's gone completely negative. It's sickening.

Sent by Gerry Bayne | 7:35 PM ET | 03-26-2008

No Guys we are looking at this the wrong way--spin spin spin. her pulling from right wing news article and reaching to all things republican to bash obama with is indicative of her willingness to reach across the isle and work with the other party (when it bennefits her) and her willingness to stoop to what ever level of dirty rotten politics to win the white house only shows her tenacity and her toughness besides doesn't America want somebody in office who will do anything neccesary to win (when ther is something at stake for her).

I dont know America. You be the judge.

Sent by J.A.WILSON | 11:34 PM ET | 03-26-2008

I, too, am physically sickened by the Clinton campaign's tactics. I am also seriously starting to wonder if this Mark Penn character is really Karl Rove.

HRC was on Fox News tonight trying to ignite the Wright controversy again.

My mother voted for her (I voted for Obama) and says she now wants her vote back. If she knew then what she knows now...

Sent by Is HRC a Republican? | 2:31 AM ET | 03-27-2008

Really? Because what sickens me is the double standard practiced by the Obama campaign & Obama supporters, slurped up by the media (including, alas, my once beloved but ultimately disappointing NPR) as if it were the nectar of the gods.

If you want to talk about cold and calculated, let's talk about the media firm that controls every word emanating from Obama's mouth, AKP&D Media & Message (also Deval Patrick's stategists, thus the similarity in slogans and speeches). It's "The Selling of the President 1972" redux.

On the one hand, they smear the Clintons + Geraldine Ferraro (check "Media Matters" or other media criticism blogs for details), then they send Obama before the cameras to "rise above it." It's classic "good cop, bad cop" campaign technique.

Hillary Clinton wanted to run this campaign on issues and experience, but as the initial debates showed--even before any primaries or caucuses were held--Obama and her other opponents cannot beat Hillary on issues and experience, so they initiated the negative campaign, complete with misquotation, distortion, and deliberate misinterpretation of everything she says.

When she answers in kind, she is accused of "stooping to anything to win." The original "stooping" did not come from Hillary's camp, but rather from her opponents, including Obama.

Tony McPeak has said a number of inappropriate things, including direct insults of the Clinton family, so there is not much reason that Hillary's campaign should not call him out on statements he has made.

The Obama campaign has spared no expense in advertising anything Hillary or anyone close to her has said that could possibly be construed as inappropriate, so why are the rules different from for Hillary? Evidently the Obama campaign can dish it out, but they can???t take it.

Although Obama makes a show of taking the moral high ground, his local campaign workers have bullied and disrupted caucuses in a number of states, and his supporters author the nastiest, most hate-filled, most sexist comments on the blogs (NPR's seem somewhat more genteel than most).

Now the Obama supporters want to bully us Hillary supporters into submission rather than letting our candidate make her case, then counting the votes.

And why do we want to put Hillary Clinton in the White House? Because she has solid, detailed plans to put right what the Bush administration has done wrong for the last seven years, and she has the knowledge and resume to show that she can accomplish her goals. In the reality I live in, that's what counts.

Sent by Elizabeth | 5:47 PM ET | 03-30-2008

I just went to Media Matters and did not see anything under Hillary's name or Obama's name that illustrated the accusation you made that Obama has smeared Hillary. One of the benefits of the World Wide Web is that we can post links. It seems to me that the burden of proof falls on the accuser rather than the acused, so would you be so kind as to lead me to what you are talking about? I hear the same thing time and time again from Clinton supporters, but I have yet to see evidence of what they are saying.

I am aware of the monster remark and we all know the outcome of that. The McPeak remarks were made in anger in reaction to another Clinton innuendo that McCain is a better candidate than Obama. He shouldn't have said it, but BC shouldn't have said what he said.

I would be willing to listen to Clinton supporter arguments is they would back them up. And btw, you apparently haven't been reading the Clinton supporter posts on the blogs.

Sent by Carol | 4:11 PM ET | 04-01-2008