Finally Bill met someone who is as good a "liar" as he is. Obama can make up facts with a straight face and give a smooth talk to get the liberal press all excited. Bill must be envious because the liberal base has found a new "Clinton", whom they fondly praised as an usually "good" liar.

Somehow I still get caught off guard and surprised at the bias in the 'mainstream' media. I was going to lunch today and heard the top of the hour ABC News. They article being read was the large turn out in the New Hampshire primary. The ABC News anchor (the regular female anchor whose name I can't recall) attributed the large turn out to people's excitement over Barack Obama. How they arrived at this conclusion wasn't stated.

I can't get the video to play, but the description of fairy tale makes me laugh. Bill Clinton is the undisputed campaign manager for Hillary. Now let's look at some of the Clinton campaign deceptions. We've seen planted questions at political meetings, not once but several times. And it was reported yesterday that at a Clinton rally yesterday in NH, Hills didn't get enough people to fill up the big meeting room. But to create the illusion that crowds were overflowing, some people were kept in another room. On film it looked like there was a packed audience in a room that didn't have enough room for everyone, but it wasn't true.

Let's recall that when running for 2006 re-election, Hillary was asked whether she intended to run for president. Her response was that she only wanted to serve the people of NY. (This of course raises the issue of the gullibility of NY citizens, but that's another topic.)

Now my question is which politician is a bigger fairy tale?

No, the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen was Bill Clinton's 1992 run. The press gave him a free ride, even though the Gennifer Flowers affair, Hillary's commodities fraud, and the Juanita Broderick rape accusation were already out there. The press deliberately ignored the stories.

As for ABC's conjecture: when liberal bastions like Portsmouth and Exeter as well as most of Hillsborough county ran out of Democrat ballots before noon, I'm guessing we're not seeing a surge for Hillary, nor for McCain.

Republican results could be very interesting. The top 4 candidates could have less than 150,000 votes between them.

Absolutely amazing. No political campaign/White House administration used manipulation of the press as effectively as the Bill Clinton organization. Hillary Clinton controlled the Clinton campaign's "dirty tricks" task force and the "Bimbo Eruption Squad" in Little Rock, and was the mastermind behind the White House media spin of the Lewinsky scandal.

It was a fawning press in 1992 that swallowed Clinton's bogus "worst economy in the last fifty years" claims. It was a fawning press that collectively chose to grudgingly give only token coverage to Clinton's womanizing and his involvement in shady real estate deals and a crooked savings and loan, all the while trumpeting Clinton's talking points about the "greed of the 80's." And somehow the Clintons managed to convince Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of Shakedown, Inc. that the Gennifer Flowers/Charlotte Perry story wasn't worth pursuing.

This isn't just irony. This is "karma."

Everyone pointing out Clinton's own "press pass" in '92 and beyond is correct, of course - but that doesn't mean he isn't right about Obama, too.

And if Obama wins the nomination, the press is NOT going to suddenly begin covering him straight, either - at which point Hillary's problem now will become our problem then.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. I really dislike Hillary and Bill. I think Edwards is a ambulance chasing socialist/communist. Obama is charismatic but clueless. Richardson doesn't stand a chance. If the GOP candidate can't win, which of these fairy tale Dem candidates would be best for the country?

COgirl ... if I can ever stop shuddering at the thought of the GOP losing the WH to any of those tools ... eesh.

I'm curious to see who will dig, and how deep they'll get, into Obamrama's "interesting" Illinois political history.

Party like a Barack Star
Party like a Barack Star
Party like a Barack Star
T-t-t-Totally dude

Join the party!

COgirl ~ An excellent question, worthy of more consideration than my off-the-cuff analysis, so I may explore the question later in a separate post (depending on how the Democratic race pans out in the coming days).

Personally, I believe Hillary would be the least damaging of the three - with the understanding that all three would be awful.

Hillary would be, we know, playing for reelection during her first term, so would be inclined to soften her leftist tendencies at least that long. She would also be more inclined to flex muscle abroad, if only to avoid being portrayed as weak.

Either Obama or Edwards would see their election as some messianic mandate. While they might not even be able to convince a Democratic Congress to go along with their schemes, they would be a foreign policy disaster.

My gut feeling is Hillary would be the least of three evils, with the emphasis on "evils."

Q. How can you tell when bill clinton is lying? A.His mouth is open

Jim, your analysis and answer is why I asked the question. I do agree with you on your conclusion. Now that we have the NH results under our belts, I do wonder if that's what the NH voters were thinking when they cast their ballots yesterday. The first state to vote can do what they want to do, but someone has to act like a grownup and think about the implications of their vote.

I agree a separate column to discuss the issue and get other opinions would be interesting.