I think you are stupid. I think his statement shows that he understood the dynamics there. He's a terrifically effective advocate for Hillary. Always has been. Those who want him out of the campaign entirely simply want to remove him because he's so effective. But he seems to now get the distinction that even troubled his friends. He's an ex-president. He doesn't have to shut up any more than Jimmy Carter has to shut up about Bush being the worst president ever. He has to be pro-Hillary, pro-policy, but quiet about criticizing other candidates because it hurts Hillary, makes it look like he's still the president and will overshadow her.

I have never understood the "racist" slant to whatever Bill said. I read the statement, I watch the video, and I say, "Yeah. So what?" Did Jesse Jackson not win South Carolina? It was wishful thinking that Obama's support might disappear outside of the south, though he has been running a cautious, very political campaign for delegates: get endorsed by Democrats in red states and win caucuses by 75-25, then get skunked in the big primary states, even though you have pollsters predicting that he'll win California in a landslide -- and he's trying to win more delegates due to Democrat's bend-over-backwards approach to insurgencies. If Democrats ran their primaries like the Republicans, winner-take-all in delegates, and delegates are based on electoral votes, Hillary's already won and planning her fall campaign.

The media had their story line, and they've always hated Bill Clinton.

Here is the text of the two questions that the so-called reporter asked Clinton in SC:

"REPORTER: You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?"

In a belligerent tone of voice. Clinton says, "I won't take the bait."

"REPORTER: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?"

A question straight out of the Obama campaign, probably could have been dictated by Axelrod himself. That made Bill ballistic, and he took the bait. He got red in the face. Whoopee, says the reporter, this is the national news tonight. But the response is actually historically accurate, and a bit of wishful thinking on a bad day for Hillary -- as the votes are coming in, and you can bet Bill knows how it was going -- that Obama's appeal might fade away, like Jesse Jackson's. Well, I knew Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson was a friend of mine. And Obama, he's no-- Nah, I won't say it.

The guy has devoted his life to destroying the Hillary candidacy, and thrown every sexist insult in the book at her. If similar insults were given against Obama for his race, I'd personally want to get the man fired. "How can you be a feminist and vote against Hillary?" Well, if you really think that Obama's the better candidate, go ahead and vote for him. It's called being free. If Margaret Thatcher was reborn, and running for president, would you vote for her because she's a woman? I presume not. It's an insulting question.

For all that, though, you're wrong about Obama. Anybody endorsed by Ted Kennedy and Ben Nelson is fudging his message and avoiding taking a stand with the Democrats.

Somebody she knew 40 years ago, at the beginning of her professional and political life, came and gave a very emotional speech, and she welled up slightly. Enough that she had to cough a little bit to clear up her throat. Can we please move on?

If she hadn't teared up, I guess there would be the OTHER expected criticism, that's she's an emotionless robot who will do anything to get power. Even cry.

This bipartisan crap hasn't gotten Democrats anything but our effective government right now: Bush still rules, a little hemmed in, but he mostly gets anything he wants because the Republicans stand as a bloc and the Blue Dogs stand with them.

The one element where Hillary is plainly ahead, and the prevarication of the Obama camp is evident -- and crucially important -- is in the health care mandates. Krugman has the whole topic kind of teed up this morning, quoting a study by M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber.

"Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

It couldn't be plainer to me. Remember Krugman? He's the guy who was hired to write columns about economics, but he kept on warning us that the Bush numbers just didn't work? Well, turns out the "JFK-like" Obama has put out a real stinker here. And why?