This is the kind of crap that adds legitimacy to concerns that Hillary in the White House just means more of the same political garbage that's become common political practice over the past Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations. Spinning reality to such tortured heights to support a political point they want to make is right out of the Bush II play book. Casting the wife of a former president who likes to include her husband's eight years in the white house on her experience resume as the anti-establishment candidate is something akin to what Karl Rove would try to hoist upon us. I'm tired of politicians treating me like I'm an idiot. I don't particularly want eight more years of it.

Assuming president Clinton was quoted accurately and actually used the term factually accurate to describe his comments about Obama, then his word choice is pretty telling. You don't have to be a linguist to know that there is a huge gulf between facts and the truth in terms of getting your point across. One of the most famous of Bush's many, many untruths over the past few years, his SOTU address where he cites British sources as reporting or suspecting that Iraq sought uranium, is absolutely factually accurate. You can never really know someone's intentions though the simple examination of what they had to say. It's the intention that counts. And you can only guess about intentions. Of course, when someone actually uses the term "factually accurate" to describe their comments, there's a pretty good likelihood that the person's intentions were to convey something different than what they know to be true -- and I mean truth in an absolute, moral sense.

I'm amused by the call for civility between Obama and Clinton supporters on this forum. Do you actually think that the squabbling between a few chuckleheads on an online forum is going to influence the next presidential election? Get over yourselves. There's nothing unhealthy about the free exchange of differing viewpoints. It would make for a pretty boring read if every post was to congratulate the good sense of the previous poster.

I don't understand what Salon was trying to accomplish with this post, other than recapping a column that I had read earlier in the day, as I assume most other Salon readers had. Where is the analysis regarding the accuracy of Klugman's claims? Does he have a point? Is he over the top? I had to read the comments section to find that sort of information -- thank you, Michelangelo. Plus, I'm tired of hearing that democrats should rally behind either candidate -- depending on which one wins the nomination. That sentiment is usually justified by the argument that there are so few differences between the two candidates that it would be ridiculous to not support the one or the other. I'm afraid I reject that argument. I see a world of difference between the two democratic candidates and the impact their presidencies would have on repairing the damage that's been done over the past 7 years. Accordingly, I'm not so sure that I will support my second choice for the democratic nomination in a general election. I'm still trying to figure out if four years of McCain, with the prospect of my choice running again in 2012, is a better alternative than helping to elect someone I'm not particularly excited about and who will keep my candidate out of office for potentially 8 years. In other words, I think the country needs one of the two democratic candidate more than the other and I'm not sure it is in the best interest of the country to help delay the appointment of the best person for the job. I'm assuming voters who feel the same way about the other candidate have similar concerns about a four-year delay vs. and eight-year one. I just don't think it's a given that democrats are going to automatically get behind whichever candidate wins the election.

Like other posters, I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of comment from War Room. I follow this blog semi-religiously to get some attitude or the benefit of a different viewpoint. If War Room is being reduced to serving as a clearinghouse for other opinions or political rhetorical, sadly it has no attraction for me. And, if ever a piece of political rhetoric deserved some comment or attitude, it was that piece from Mr. Penn. The biggest fantasy this guy is peddling is that the Republican attack machine is out of ammunition when it comes to Hillary. Not only will these guys come up with a boat load of new items, like her Iraq War votes and failure to disclose documents that speak to her experience during her husband's term in office, do you think they will hesitate for a second to play their greatest hits -- Vince Foster, etc? It's true that we don't know how much or what exactly the swift boat will fire at Obama. But with Hillary, running for president for the first time, we know it's going to go after her with all guns blazing.