And I can refute it with two simple words:

1) Bull.

2) Shit.

Complete and total bullshit, coming from someone who can't accept that his candidate is getting her brains beat in. The Jackson comparison as not race baiting is total dingo's kidneys. And as far as Shaheen in NH, he suggested Obama might have dealt drugs while a kid, and that is what got him in trouble. It seems interesting that Wilentz continuously seemed to imply throughtout the article that these attacks against Clinton were all intentional by Obama's campaign, but anytime someone working for Clinton like Shaheen said something either stupid or worse it was somehow inadvertent and had no connection to Clinton's campaign. It is just all total bullshit.

When are all the Clinton supporters gonna come back to planet Earth? Clinton is losing, and more than likely is going to lose. And its not the media's fault, or the voter's fault, or whoever else they are gonna blame next. IT IS HER FAULT. She is losing because not only is she the most divisive and unliked national politician since Richard Nixon, she has run possibly the very worst presidential campaign I have ever seen.

So please, for God's sake, stop plying outlandish nonsense like this and just learn to accept reality.

I read Wilentz's original article. And I read X's very long rebuttal. And I find X is right; Wilentz has pretty much no leg to stand on. He really should reconsider going into that level of minutae in a letters section, fine, but he does in fact illustrate pretty thoroughly how bold faced a smear job WIlentz is engaging in.

The one point that is clearest that X made repeatedly and I saw myself clearly is the Wilentz seems to suggest that everything said against Hillary is some kind of concerted attack planned by Obama's campaign, whereas Shaheen in NH and others like him were some kind of loose cannons. He even grabbed things said by people not affiliated with Obama's campaign and tried to imply they were plants of some kind. The only one that stuck at all was Jackson Jr., but he's always been a bit of a nut and everyone knows it. That on top of the selective quoting and memory of the last few months and his really weak sophistry on Bill Clinton's SC race baiting comment (sorry, it was race baiting, no other way to see it) and there really is nothing left to take seriously.

It's a hit job, and not a very good one. I truly do not understand how anyone who has actually been paying any attention at all can take it seriously. If you don't like Obama, that's one thing, stick to issues, but don't go down this delusional road of trying to rewrite recent history to try to pretend that Hillary has not in fact ran the worst campaign of the last thirty five years.

...answering that phone at three in the monring, while children are sleeping?

Obama. Definitely Obama.

I think Clinton should really stay away from the rhetorical questions.

That's a pretty classy move on McCaskill's part. Something that should have been fixed a long time ago.

I believe that a amendment to the constitution is in order to do away with this natural born citizen bit in the first place. We are a nation of immigrants. Instead make it, say, anyone who has been a full citizen for twenty five years with permanent residence in this nation for the same amount of time is eligible for the Presidency.

Regardless of whatever you may or may not think or who you support, you all gotta admit that Obama is running one hell of a campaign. To be able to respond that quickly and that effectively. Seriously, does he have a mole in Clinton's camp or something?

I'm not sure that the Clintons in all truth have all that much of a legacy to begin with. Bill Clinton was a two term President, the first Democrat to get re-elected since Harry Truman, but that alone doesn't mean anything. Calvin Coolidge was a two termer (if you are willing to include finishing Harding's term), and he also presided over an economic boom, but does he really spring to mind as a great President?

Bill Clinton did not really have very many major pieces of legislation during his two terms, faced no major crisis, and seemed to be a bit of a scandal magnet, to put it nicely. I truly believe the only reason he is revered so much is simply because we are not far enough removed from his terms to have any real perspective, and Democrats don't have much else to look at presidentially otherwise. Not to mention that compared to GW most Presidents look pretty good, which is another reason I think Clinton comes off so well at the moment. George Sr. looks like an absolutely fantastic President compared to his son too.

Fifty years from now, I would imagine that Bill Clinton would be seen as a popular, but for the most part a lackluster President who failed more often than he succeeded. Maybe not as bad as Warren Harding or Franklin Pierce, but definitely not thought of as highly as even U.S. Grant is today.