"In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry

Translation: I was just hucking and jiving, and didn't mean anything by what I said. Good luck on the cocaine, um, campaign trail, Senator Obama, and by the way, what's your Muslim grandmother think of all of this?

I didn't inhale. What's the definition "is." Is it a vast right wing conspiracy out to get you or actually the truth?

Jesus! I do not want to return to this kind of sleazy smearing of adversaries followed when caught by disingenuous half truths that insult out intelligence.

Can we please just make the Clintons go away? What if a bunch of Republicans promise to vote for the democrat candidate provided it isn't that woman?

Please?

Hillary Clinton said simultaneously Tuesday that she thought Johnson's comments were out of bounds and that she took him at his word when he offered his innocent explanation.

This is the sort of thing that is why I cannot support Hillary. She tries to have it both ways, seemingly on everything. She says that she is "for the people" and then lets her campaign try to disenfranchise voters to help her win.

Not only do I refuse to support her during the Democratic Primary, I am now considering if I can support her in the General.

If she is going to only stand up and fight for the rights of those people who are supporting her, then how is she any different than those Republicans who disenfranchised african american voters in Ohio in 2004?

Now, can't the rest of you do the same? Don't you have to go eat your firstborn, or something?

Obama fan much? When it comes to Clinton, I have trouble differentiating you from Chris Matthews. You pounce on her remarks about Ben Johnson, but you don't bother to examine the substance of what she actually said about LBJ. That you gave the Obama camp AND the "bash Hillary" media a pass for their overkill response speaks volumes about your bias.

Johnson HAD conceded his statements were inappropriate and Hilary was correct about that. She wasn't loose with the fact, you are. How can you profess to know the nature of what Mr. Johnson personally said to Clinton or her staff. I expect he expressed remorse for causing the trouble. Now he has also apologized directly to Obama and there's no conflict there.

I agree that saying he was talking about community service is a real stretch, to put it mildly, but that's what HE said. I guess people think she should have publicly called Johnson a liar for that. I disagree. We can't blame the candidates for everything their supporters say. If you think we should, then apply that standard fairly, at least. Let's blame the candidates for anything any blogger ever said, then we'll get started on people posting comments in online forums.

Just because the apology is accepted does not mean that we shouldn't look into the pattern of behavior and see if it should/will influence our decision on whom we should have as our next president.

The problem I am seeing people having is not with Mr. Johnson's apology, but rather with HRC trying to have it both ways.

--the campaign workers in Iowa

--Bob Kerrey and his apology

--Bill Shaheen and his apology

--Andrew Cuomo and his denials

and now, Johnson's apology...

Too many overzealous campaign workers in the Clinton campaign, I guess. It's all innocent. Nothing to see here, move on, people.

How much "community involvement" do you think I can get for $50?

My name is Tim Grieve and if I couldn't cling desperately to stories that no one else cares about, I don't know what I would do with my sad, sad life.

GOOD THING I'M GETTING PAID FOR THIS CRAP LOL

Tim Grieve... Garbage Picker

Tim Grieve... Reporter

Which sounds better to you?

Trouble is.. to be a reporter, you need to so some journalism.

To be a garbage picker.. you need only watch Hardball and conduct stenography.

When is Greenwald going to take on the junk published by Salon's "reporters"?

Shame.

To those of you who keep slamming Tim, how about YOU all get off the attack bandwagon, and save all your vitriole for the candidates themselves.

Because YOUR candidate Hillary is showing her true colors. She found her voice last week all right, and it's coming out of her #$*$#($* because it's more spin, more nonsense, and more self-serving revisionism.

How it SHOULD have gone..

1. Johnson makes obnoxious smear comment about Obama

2. Clinton says it was inappopriate RIGHT AWAY

3. Johnson apologizes for taking potshots

4. Issue over, case closed

Instead it was...

1. Johnson makes obnoxious smear comment about Obama

2. Public recognizes it's offensive, calls Johnson AND Clinton on it

3. Johnson claims he didn't mean what he did mean

4. Hillary says "I believe he didn't mean what he did mean"

5. Public outcry at offfensive, racist comments continues

6. Hillary realizes it's political liability, and changes her story, now "He was out of bounds"

7. Johnson FINALLY admits he was out of bounds

8. Hillary exposed yet again as a panderer who can't tell the truth

Keep talking, Johnson, and keep documenting the bad moves of Hillary Clinton et. proxies and supporters, Tim. Those of us who don't want Hillary in the White House figure every time you one of them opens their mouths, Hillary's lost more votes...

Instead we get a blurb which begs the question, has there ever been a before-the-fact apology?

something to the effect that our (defenders of Obama) interpretation of the Johnson comment was RIGHT ON THE MONEY and that we didn't interpret him wrong?

I doubt it.

AncientAssyrian, you laid it out real good. That is exactly right! It's disheartening that these aplogists keep defending this kind of behavior. It says alot about character.

Instead we get a blurb which begs the question, has there ever been a before-the-fact apology?

Obama was right about that. If you listen to the WHOLE QUOTE, boys and girls, you hear that he says that Reagan changed the trajectory of the country, in a way that Nixon and Clinton did not,because the country was ready for it.

That's totally true. Have you ever heard the term "Nixon Democrat"? No. Have you ever heard the term "Clinton Republican"? No. Have you ever heard "Reagan Democrat"? Yes. Why, yes you have, if you have any education at all about that period of time.

Because Reagan, for one reason or another (and mind you, he was a horrible president in many ways), managed to trancend party lines unlike the presidents before or after.