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.

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.

What Obama will likely have to consider is this: why did Hillary win the non-latte-drinking, Volvo-driving left, and the, uh, working classes? "Better-educated" women are not high on Hillary. Why not? Are they lefties, liberals, or just snobs?

Unless you want to call it the HQ of the Elect Obama committee.

I don't know. The Clintons have released their tax forms for years, when Bill was president. Senators are required to make their finances public to a degree, aren't they? And the truth is, the Clintons left the White House as the poorest president... ever. They've both written best-sellers, and they got large advances that paid off for their publishers. Bill has gotten rather large speaker's fees. And Hillary's loan to the campaign was just that, now paid off in 72 hours by the financial response that she got. So all in all, it seems to me that Obama is grandstanding, playing on his usual portrayal of the Clintons as corrupt. What, after the Starr report, he has something else on them?

Poor Old Obama. He promises to unite the Blue Dogs with the Independents, and call that the Democratic Party. But first he has to divide Democrats and portray his opponent in just the way that the right, and Matthews et al, have prepared for him. It's so... dreamy. So... inspiring.

Not "who will be stronger." Either of our guys can wipe the floor with "4 more years" McCain. And if one more person cites a poll as "Proof" of anything, I'll scream. "Mild indication, with caveats" is the furthest you should go. Of course, in this cycle all the polls have been SO accurate, especially 6 months out. Six months ago, Hillary was up 30 points.

I do wonder how many of Obama's fair-weather friends will stay once Hillary is out of the picture, and they can hop back to the GOP and vote for McCain. Tell you what, the last thing that's keeping me, a lifelong Democrat, from jumping ship is Obama's cowardly approach to health care. Would saying to the young, yes, you'll have to pay something, even though you don't get sick that often mean that those fainting crowds fall silent?

Oh, and another way he won Wisconsin? He outspent Hillary 4 to 1. What political city does he come from? The city with the broad shoulders and the sharp elbows, that's where.