Recently in Wild Bill Category

"Everything I learned in my eight years as president and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job. He has a remarkable ability to inspire people, to raise our hopes and rally us to high purpose. He has the intelligence and curiosity every successful president needs. His policies on the economy, taxes, health care and energy are far superior to the Republican alternatives. He has shown a clear grasp of our foreign policy and national security challenges, and a firm commitment to repair our badly strained military. His family heritage and life experiences have given him a unique capacity to lead our increasingly diverse nation and to restore our leadership in an ever more interdependent world. The long, hard primary tested and strengthened him. And in his first presidential decision, the selection of a running mate, he hit it out of the park."

And with that, President Bill Clinton, in his impressive throwback performance tonight, helped to rectify the most egregious lacunae in his wife's speech the night before. [Transcript.] In some ways, the former President's speech exhibited a classic Clinton dynamic: His remarks had many of the same issues as those of Sen. Clinton -- they were often relentlessly self-aggrandizing, for example -- and yet, as with so many other things, he's often just better at getting away with it. "Vote for Obama, because he's the Second Coming of Me in 1992" is an argument that's almost breathtaking in the audacity of its self-absorption, and yet Bill Clinton -- when he's on his game, as he was tonight -- is remarkably good at making such egotism seem more like a magnanimous benediction, kindly bestowed on his Democratic successor. It's a neat trick, no doubt...and when he goes after the GOP, few in our party do it better.

That being said, I thought even President Clinton's unparallelled powers of salesmanship and seduction couldn't sell me a line like "If, like me, you still believe America must always be a place called Hope, then join Hillary, Chelsea and me in making Sen. Barack Obama the next president of the United States." Not when you spend even a moment remembering anything Clinton had to say about "false hopes" or "fairy tales" over the first six months of this year. But that's watching the magician's hands move, isn't it?

Looking over the coverage from afar, it seems much is being made at Salon -- naturally -- of the PUMA crowd (particularly given that tonight is Clinton night.) Well, don't believe a word of it. I happened to catch this exact same "protest" yesterday afternoon, and there couldn't have been more than fifty people involved. Frankly, I've seen bigger protests by the third party and no party types than I have the stark raving Clintonites, and they don't seem to be getting any coverage. As far as overt protests by the ex-Clintoners go, Salon, and related media outlets, are trying to make a mountain out of a very feeble-looking and tenuous molehill.

That being said, over in his corner Bill Clinton still seems to be keeping up with his protest of one. "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" Honestly, Mr. President, get a grip.

Update: Rendell's off the reservation too. "Barack Obama is handsome. He's incredibly bright. He's incredibly well spoken, and he's incredibly successful -- not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with...He is a little like Adlai Stevenson."

“'The most important thing we learned is this: Hillary Clinton won 8 of the last 13 primaries,' said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s top strategist. 'He is beatable.'" Facing an uphill battle against Sen. Obama, John McCain takes several pages from the Clinton playbook. Well, thanks much for pre-plowing that road, Senator. I don't think it'll make much difference in the end, whatever the polls say at the moment, but we might as well make the GOP work for a strategy next time.

In related news, Bill Clinton still seems stuck in a moment he can't get out of. "'I am not a racist,' he continued. 'I've never made a racist comment and I never attacked him [Obama] personally.'" Uh, riiight. Tell you what, Mr. President: We'll forgive you if you just stop insulting our intelligence about it.

Update: He's still picking at the scab. "'You can argue that nobody is ready to be President,' the former President told ABC News."

"There is reason to believe that Clinton, who never made more than $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas and left the White House about $12 million in debt, has had his head turned by his ability to enjoy his post-presidential status; that the world of rich friends, adoring fans, and borrowed jets in which he travels has skewed his judgment or, at a minimum, created uncomfortable appearances of impropriety. There is ample evidence that his eight-year absence from a political workplace that has changed radically in the interim has left him conspicuously rusty at the craft of which he was once a master. There are those friends who worry that Clinton has never been the same since his quadruple-bypass surgery, in 2004, and the unexpected follow-up operation six months later to remove accumulated scar tissue on his lung...It is also possible that all these influences have combined to make the cavernous narcissism that has always driven Clinton, for better and worse, at last consume the man almost completely."

As the primary season draws to a close, former White House correspondent and longtime Clinton watcher Todd Purdum tries to ascertain what's happened to Bill Clinton since 2001 (and takes another look at some of his recent questionable dealings.) "Perhaps more than anything, Clinton, whose audiences in recent years have tended to be adoring crowds who hang on every word of what those who have heard his standard speech say is a rambling tour d’horizon of world problems, has simply lost a step."

Update: "Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn't find time to talk to even one of them for comment." Suffice to say, Pres. Clinton didn't like the piece.

"Many answers fell into a handful of broad themes we've been hearing for months now. (She shouldn't have run as an incumbent. She should have paid more attention to caucus states. She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies.) Others had a distinct score-settling flavor...But whether personal or clinical, new or familiar, the critiques are all the more striking for having come directly from those neck-deep in the action. So, here it is, an elegy for Hillary '08, written by some of those who have worked tirelessly to keep it alive." Now that reality has finally set in, TNR's Michelle Cottle gets residents of Hillaryland to ruminate on what went wrong. Among the more telling:

"To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction. I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction." Along with Roger Waters and the Pink Floyd pig, Sen. Obama picks up another Senate super in New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman, thus putting him in the lead among his and Sen. Clinton's colleagues. Update: Clinton counters with NC Governor Mike Easley.

Meanwhile, over the weekend Matt Drudge ventured into the Wayback Machine to examine superdelegates' issues...with Bill Clinton in 1992. "'The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him,' Mr. Eckart said. 'Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats.'" Cut to 2008, where, thanks to his recent transgressions, undeclared supers -- particularly African-American supers like my old rep, Jim Clyburn -- still don't think much of the man. "How do you play the race card on the ex-president of the United States? How do you do it? I would like to know how that's done and who they [are]. And I'd like to see these memos he's talking about. That's what's so bizarre about this,' Clyburn said". (Nor, it seems, is Pres. Clinton a fan of Obama, but that's not really surprising at this point, is it?)

“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along." It's not a lie if you believe it, right, Mr. President? I've grown bored with trying to keep track of all the myriad ways Bill Clinton has continually embarrassed himself in recent months. But, since I'm blogging today and as per his "mugging", former President Clinton whines further about the reaction to his unfortunate Jesse Jackson comparison, citing once again a vast Obama conspiracy and now memos that do not exist. (In his own mind, he probably meant the Amaya Smith memo during the MLK/LBJ uproar, which, of course, had nothing to do with Clinton's idiotic remarks.) The former president also said he couldn't have said anything racist because he has an office in Harlem. Uh, I live in Harlem...I didn't realize that constituted a free pass for us white folk to spout ignorant and dismissive bromides whenever it's politically expedient.

Not realizing the mic was still on, Clinton later scoffed to an aide during the interview, “I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?" Actually, Bill, you really, really should.

Update: Now, in full defiance of the audio, he's denying he said it. "Outside a Pittsburgh campaign event, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant 'when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?' Clinton responded: 'When did I say that and to whom did I say that?'" (Can you find the Clintonian distortion? I'm guessing it's "played" versus "was playing," but who knows how the man's mind works?)

"'We've come a long way from Harry Truman,' said Leon E. Panetta." At long last, the Clintons release their tax returns (to Drudge first), and the total post-White House tally amounts to $109 million, "with the former president collecting nearly half of that money as a speaker hired at times by companies that have been among his wife's most generous political supporters." The numbers are still being parsed, and the connections to key members of Clintons' post-presidential rogues gallery -- Ron Burkle, Vinod Gupta, the Quellos Fund, etc. -- itemized and assessed. Still, the news that leaps off the page here is [a] the Clintons have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, and [b] speechifyin' pays top dollar in certain circles. "Sen. Clinton's financial disclosure forms have offered a glimpse into her husband's speaking career and the nexus between his clients and her campaign donors. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years...On one day in Canada, he made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president."

Now, how 'bout those Foundation records?

"'It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended,' one superdelegate said." From denial to anger? Bill Clinton goes off the rails at a superdelegate gathering in California, after a question about the Bill Richardson endorsement. "It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade. 'Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,' a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted." Meanwhile, it comes out that, while trying to woo Gov. Richardson, Sen. Clinton repeatedly emphasized her view her view that Obama is a general-election loser: "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win." She didn't say why she thought this, although one can presume.

Fortunately, more and more supers don't share the Clintons' dim view of the American electorate. Recent announcements of note: Montana super John Melcher, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, and, if you read between the lines, former president Jimmy Carter: ""My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess." Also, New Jersey Gov. John Corzine, like Cantwell before him, began laying the groundwork for a Clinton-to-Obama switch on CNBC this morning, although he retained some degree of plausible deniability [video.]

Update: The Clinton campaign attempts to elide her unelectable remark, now arguing that [a] Obama is in fact electable and [b] Richardson said it first.

"'I think it would be nice to have this all done by July 1,' Dean said on ABC's "Good Morning America" program. 'If we can do it sooner than that, that's all the better.'" Howard Dean sets a date of July 1 at the latest for the primary election to end, meaning there'll thankfully be no convention floor fight. I'm still thinking May 6 would be more preferable.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton drops the electoral vote standard (for now) and picks an even more unwieldy statistic by which to judge the candidates: ""Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary's only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates,' said the former president, 'and she's gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She's gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states].'" (The 18 caucus states, you may remember, don't matter.) Clinton also went on to do more stumping for John McCain, calling him a "moderate" who "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."

Meanwhile, over in his corner of the campaign trail, Bill Clinton does what he can to poison the well further, saying -- now that chances of a re-do have come and gone, of course -- that the Obama campaign was "desperate to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan." Sigh...at this point, you have to wonder about the man's mental health. Well, since the former president insists on continually behaving like an asshat, with no regard whatsoever for the Democratic party or his historical legacy, it bears repeating once more:

Hey all. Well, I'm sure many of you are as sick of reading about this lingering primary season as I'm getting to be about writing on it. At this point, my feelings about the Clinton campaign and the dwindling band of dead-enders lingering around her failed candidacy have gone from disbelief to disgust to a sort of exhausted aversion: It's unsightly and hard to watch, and not only because so many Clinton supporters online have been leaving the reality-based community in droves. Like a fatally wounded snake, the campaign is still writhing, hissing, and lashing out by reflex, seemingly unaware that its time came and went weeks ago.

But, the news is the news, and I did promise to keep following it. So, if you, like me, took a break over the Easter weekend, here is the most recent litany of outrages. (Of course, at this late date, you'll probably only find these outrageous if you haven't been following along for the past few months...)

"The campaign did not play 'a race card,' Mr. Clinton told CNN. 'We had some played against us,' he said, “but we didn’t play any." As it turns out, Sen. Obama wasn't the only politician to discuss race in the past twenty-four hours. As noted by Emily Bazelon at XX Factor, President Bill Clinton went on TV on Monday to act (surprise, surprise) the aggrieved party with regard to race in South Carolina. "Mr. Clinton said the widespread interpretation of his remarks — comparing Senator Barack Obama to the Rev. Jesse Jackson — was 'a total myth and a mugging.' Mr. Clinton added, 'I think that’s been pretty well established.'" Uh, no, Mr. President, that hasn't been established in the slightest.

"'If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you,' the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech." Well, some of it at least is on Mark Penn. Echoing remarks by James Carville after Super Tuesday, Bill Clinton underscores the importance of Ohio and Texas (and conveniently ignores the fact that Sen. Clinton must not only win but win by 20.)

A Valentine's afternoon campaign roundup:

"I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability." Former Republican (now Independent and Dubya critic) Senator Lincoln Chafee officially endorses Obama. The Senator from Illinois also picked up a Clinton superdelegate in Christine "Roz" Samuels (meaning, as MSNBC points out, a 2-point swing in the superdelegate column.) And Al Gore, meanwhile, has confirmed to TNR that he will not be endorsing anyone. "Basically, Gore appears to be preserving for himself the option of stepping in and declaring a winner in the event of a war over superdelegates, and thus being seen as a kind of mediating figure, rather than as someone trying to influence the outcome" Given yesterday's threat of a party meltdown by the Clinton campaign, that'll probably be more useful for Sen. Obama anyway.

Meanwhile, in an interview with WMAL, Bill Clinton just makes up random stuff as he goes along. (I was going to say he was commiting seppuku to his legacy, but, as Wikipedia just reminded me, seppuku involves dying with honor.) "Of his wife's recent travails, he said, 'the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change.'" (If you're keeping score at home, be sure to add "upper-income voters" to the 20 states in the "not-significant" column.) "'I think she has been the underdog ever since Iowa,' Clinton said. "She’s had, you know, a lot of the politicians, like Senator Kennedy, opposed to her...He said they'd done well considering their slim budget. 'We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,' he said. He did not mention that his wife's campaign has raised more than $140 million."

The best news for the Clinton team today: As of this past weekend, Sen. Clinton still held a big lead in Ohio (between 14 and 21 points, depending on the poll.) Of course, these were taken before the Potomac results and before Sen. Obama has started campaigning on the ground, and they still don't show the kind of massive spread Sen. Clinton needs to take back the pledged delegate lead. But I'm sure they'll take solace where they can find it. Update: I've tried to swear off taking much out of polls of late, but there's an interesting further discussion of the Wisconsin and Ohio poll numbers here.)

Update 2: "That's the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions." With really no other recourse at this point, Sen. Clinton (and her husband) try the blunderbuss of negativity approach. I'd point out the many flaws in Sen. Clinton's screed today, but, as it turns out, the Obama team has already done it for me. I'll just leave it at this: Can anyone point to a single "solution" Sen. Clinton has ever offered and carried through for the American people? And, no, running health care reform into the ground in 1994 doesn't count. Well, to be fair, I guess she did once go out on a limb to put an end to the horrible scourge of flag-burning. Now, that takes leadership.

How will the Clinton campaign rationalize the losses over the weekend? It's not pretty. Said Senator Clinton: "'These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.' Noting that 'my husband never did well in caucus states either,' Clinton argued that caucuses are 'primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that.'" So, "activists" and African-Americans, not "real" Dems. Got it. As for Bill Clinton's take: "'Her campaign's broad appeal is largely to people who need a president,' Clinton told an audience in Silver Spring's Leisure World retirement community tonight. 'Very often they are working and busy and dont go to these caucuses.'" Sure. I guess holding them on a weekend probably didn't help either. As a commenter at TNR wryly characterized the spin last night: "Clearly there's been a massive flood of Latte sipping African American knowledge workers into rural Maine."

Mind you, I've said before that caucuses may not be the best way to organize a statewide election. But, given both the breadth and depth of Obama's leads in caucus states all across the country, Sen. Clinton's continued losses speak less to the inherent problems of caucusing than to the inherent problems of the Clinton campaign. As I said yesterday, if her campaign is any indication of the managerial talent we can expect from a Clinton presidency, the prognosis is not good. To wit, it's poorly managed, woefully disorganized, suffers from a lack of "activist" enthusiasm, and -- like a certain Republican administration I could mention -- clearly had no Plan B. (Also, apparently, Sen. Clinton wasn't apprised of her dismal funding situation until after Iowa. Another managerial coup.)

"The President made a deal with Senator Kennedy and neither one of them meant to mess it up. The deal was supposed to be, we will give the schools more money and get rid of two programs that Bill Clinton actually started...Now think about that -- you get the worst of all worlds." On the campaign trail in Arkansas (he's campaigning in Arkansas?), Bill Clinton goes after Teddy Kennedy on the issue of No Child Left Behind. This follows on remarks he said yesterday: "I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn't talk to enough teachers before they did that." Left unmentioned in both cases: "Everybody in between" includes Senator Clinton, who also voted for NCLB in 2001.

"I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises." Ah. But, Senator Clinton, what about your husband? A front-page story in this morning's NYT -- a paper so resolutely anti-Clinton it recently endorsed her for president -- unearths what look to be some murky political dealings in Kazakhstan involving Bill Clinton and a top donor, former uranium-mining entrepreneur and Lions Gate Entertainment founder Frank Giustra. (He's the fellow at right.)

It's a long, convoluted article, but this seem to be the essence of it: Clinton said nice things publicly about the freedom-suppressing dictator of Kazakhstan -- in contradiction of US policy, the views of human rights groups, and even Senator Clinton's professed stance on his government -- so his buddy Giustra could land a lucrative exclusive mining contract. A much wealthier man as a result, Giustra later repaid Clinton in absurdly large donations to his Foundation, to the tune of $131 million. Both denied any quid pro quo, and both seem to have lied about at least some of the meetings that took place. This is all explained in more detail below:

"'Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family,' Mr. Carter said...'He has an extraordinary oratory...I think that Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government.'"

Former president Jimmy Carter compliments Barack Obama, although he also says he will not be endorsing anyone before the nomination is decided. "Mr. Carter also said he talked by telephone at length on Monday with former President Bill Clinton, who was 'trying to explain that he was not raising the race issue' on the campaign trail...Mr. Clinton 'has said a few things that I think he wishes he hadn't said,' Mr. Carter said. 'He doesn't call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it's troublesome to them, the adverse reaction.'"

"This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it."

Author and Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison endorses Barack Obama for president. "In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom."

Also, since Toni Morrison's invoking of Clinton as "the first black president" has been getting a lot of run lately, it helps to remember it in context. "Morrison was not saying that Bill Clinton is America's first black president in a cute or celebratory way, nor was she calling Clinton an 'honorary Negro.' Rather, she was comparing Clinton's treatment at the hands of Starr and others with that of black men, so often seen as 'the always and already guilty "perp."'"

"It’s not so much that women aren’t ready for a woman president. We are. But there’s something about last week’s spectacle of Bill Clinton crashing through South Carolina like the guy poised to drag her back to his cave by the hair that reminds us that Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us." Slate's Dahlia Lithwick ponders what feminists should make of President Clinton's newly increased role in his wife's campaign. "It hasn’t helped that this Clinton campaign has also reinvented itself almost weekly since January: We’ve had Falling to Pieces Week; Finding Our Voice Week; Unloading a Carton of Whupass Week; and then Heh, Heh, That Bill Is a Maniac Week. Is it just me, or is it true that when it comes to issues of character, you don’t necessarily want a candidate who seems to be testing out new ones for each new crisis?"

And, also in light of Bill Clinton's hogging of the spotlight -- and Dick Cheney -- historian Garry Wills surveys the serious problems involved in a co-presidency. "We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House."

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88..." Uh, but Bill, nobody mentioned Jesse Jackson. President Clinton tries to race-card it up until the last dog dies. But, hey, shame on the media for injecting race into the campaign, right? It is time...for them...to go.

Update: The Atlantic's Matt Yglesias had a pretty great line about this: "After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too."

Update 2: Jesse Jackson says, Let's move on, while Chris Hitchens argues, What did you expect?

Update 3: If you were perusing politlcal sites on Sunday, you may have heard many angry Clinton supporters claim that they'd watched the full exchange, that the President was asked directly about the "first black president" prior to the clip -- hence, "that's just bait too" -- and that the media was distorting his remarks because they hate Clinton. Not surprisingly at this point, this all turned out to be a pack of bald-faced lies.

Another column update, as per yesterday:

TNR's Jonathan Chait examines the "vast left-wing conspiracy" emerging against the Clintons. "Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons...Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational."

The American Prospect's Paul Waldman agrees with the assessment that the Clintons are running a thoroughly Rovian primary campaign: "Three weeks ago, I wrote that Clinton was working to make voters uneasy, utilizing just enough fear to encourage them to stick with the known quantity in the race. But in the time since, her campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it's being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor -- take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps -- however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they're doing so in awfully familiar ways. So many of the ingredients of a typical GOP campaign are there, in addition to fear. We have the efforts to make it harder for the opponent’s voters to get to the polls (the Nevada lawsuit seeking to shut down at-large caucus sites in Las Vegas, to which the Clinton campaign gave its tacit support). We have, depending on how you interpret the events of the last couple of weeks, the exploitation of racial divisions and suspicions (including multiple Clinton surrogates criticizing Obama for his admitted teenage drug use). And most of all, we have an utterly shameless dishonesty.""

Vanity Fair's Bruce Feirstein has had just about enough of Bill Clinton: "Clinton’s response offered an unusual lens into the powder-keg that is our former commander-in-chief: Starting with an almost jocular dismissal of the accusation, he then proceeded to wind himself up into a finger-pointing fury, attacking Barack Obama, painting himself as the victim, and generally blaming the press for everything, before walking away with the taunt, 'Shame on you.' It was not, well, presidential."

It's getting hard to keep up with the Clinton outrages these days. (I'll leave Bill Clinton deciding to praise Obama as 'articulate' alone for now, as -- perhaps -- that was just a poor choice of words.) As telegraphed by their moves after Michigan, the Clinton campaign is now explicitly trying to change the rules and get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated (a move which has brought Bill Nelson into the Clinton camp.) Says TPM's Josh Marshall: "[Y]ou don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama." Adds the Prospect's Ezra Klein: "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart."

"If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes -- it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- Bill Clinton, 10/26/04

"[B]eing an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top. Things have been said about Barack Obama's positions that are just plain untrue. It was said in Nevada, it's been said about Social Security, it's been said about Yucca Mountain, and it's been said in South Carolina. I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that."

John Kerry calls out Bill Clinton to the National Journal, and lays into the experience canard. "We made some tough decisions [in the '90's] and we ought to be proud of them, about the budget and the deficit. But the fact is, that was not Hillary Clinton making those decisions. It was a different team, at a different time. In fact, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either of his two opponents."

While the NYT, in venerable (and dismaying) establishment form, swung behind Senator Clinton (and John McCain) -- despite contradicting their 2006 endorsement -- this morning, others in the commentariat are not so sanguine about the prospect of a Clinton restoration:

"Obama's best hope is that Democratic voters aren't as dumb as Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decries the Clintons' cynical strategy of misinformation. "Obama is stronger among well-educated Democrats, according to polls. So the Clintons figure that maybe their base among less educated white Democrats might be receptive to an argument that assumes they're dumb. Less well-educated equals gullible in the face of bogus attack ads. That's the logic, and the Clintons are testing it in South Carolina before trying it in Super Tuesday states. They are also road-testing major distortions of Obama's positions on abortion, Social Security and the minimum wage."

USA Today experiences Clinton fatigue. "[H]is famous lack of discipline, angry outbursts on the campaign trail and habit of drawing attention to himself all suggest that voters have every right to wonder how this would actually work."

But the NYT's Matthew Continetti senses a pattern, and calls shenanigans on red-faced Bill's recent (and conveniently timed) public screeds. "It’s been said that Mr. Clinton’s recent feistiness has revealed a side of him previously unknown to most Americans. But this is incorrect: he is rather a master of what one might call 'strategic emotion,' the use of tears or anger to comfort voters or intimidate the press."

Claiming "'if Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander,' E.J. Dionne remembers when Clinton loved Reagan. "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.'"

And, despite having written Primary Colors, TIME's Joe Klein just can't wrap his mind around it all: "Let me get this straight: Obama wins Iowa. In a desperate move -- unprecedented for an ex-President in American politics -- Bill Clinton decides to impede Obama's momentum by inserting himself into the campaign. He attacks Obama on an almost daily basis, sometimes falsely. He makes a spectacle of himself. And then he blames the press for not covering the substance of the campaign?"

Update: Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has had enough: "I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a 'fairy tale') or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it...we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics."

"Employing innuendo and half-truths against Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former President, have introduced the politics of personal destruction to the Democratic presidential campaign. They bear responsibility for cheapening the tone of the contest." Another NYC newspaper gets into the mix: The NY Daily News