i love the way hillary and obama are fighting back.

[cloud75]

i know right now it's bad but when they do it to to a repuke in the GE we will all be cheering them on we must fight back with whatever it takes unfortunately that is politics in america.

[Politicub]

1. I agree

We haven't seen anything yet - just wait until the general and what the republican try.

[maddiejoan]

2. I'm tellin' ya

If these two unite on a ticket together --the GOP is gonna take a collective shit in it's pants.

[DJ13]

3. Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post today

Clinton has three problems that make her the weakest, most divisive Democrat in the race:

First, she is a living symbol of the culture wars of the 1990s and will rally the Republican base like no other candidate.

It is always easier to remind voters than to instruct them. And it won't take much reminding for Republicans when it comes to Clinton and her high-profile husband. Just a few words and phrases are necessary to evoke an entire era: "I didn't inhale." Kathleen Willey. Whitewater. "Two for the price of one." Polling to select vacation sites. Baking cookies. Joycelyn Elders. Hillarycare. "What the meaning of the word 'is' is." Blue dress. "That woman." Lewinsky, as noun and verb.

For many conservatives -- social, economic and otherwise -- that list is the trumpet call to old battles. Clinton may feel victimized by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- but she also recruits it, feeds it and sends it to war.

Second, Clinton is the candidate who most muddles the Democratic message of change.

This will undoubtedly be a change election -- about 77 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, the highest number since the 1995-96 shutdown of the federal government. But unlike many past presidential contests, no Republican incumbent or vice president will appear on the ticket. All the Republican candidates are able to run as fresh faces.

It is Clinton who carries the heaviest burden of the past -- who must defend her years of service as a golden era. She is the most backward-looking candidate of either party -- the closest there is to an incumbent in the 2008 election. This could allow a smart Republican to wear at least a portion of the mantle of change.

Third, the Clintons practice a form of politics without honor. Already Clinton's proxies have attacked Obama as a drug user and maybe a drug dealer, and bemoaned politicians who "shuck and jive." These are code words one would expect to overhear from George Wallace at a cocktail party with Lester Maddox. Robo-calls in Nevada made reference to "Barack Hussein Obama." Clinton accuses Obama of defending a slumlord -- and even, God forbid, of defending Ronald Reagan.

Given the Clintons' cultivation of ruthlessness as a political art, none of this is surprising. Obama is the soaring candidate -- the candidate of idealism and aspiration. Clinton's only hope is to bring him down to earth, then bury him in flying dirt. Clinton prefers a war of attrition -- blow for bloody blow -- because her team is better at the tactics of politics. Unable to inspire, Clinton chooses to destroy.

This may work in the primaries since many Democrats seem to prefer a fighter to a lover. But I suspect these tactics will eventually backfire. African American Democrats cannot be pleased to see Obama cut and bleeding from a thousand distorted attacks. And while Clinton is clearly the best partisan in the race, the country does not seem to be in a partisan mood.

A presidential election between, say, McCain and Obama -- both positive and honorable candidates -- would be better for the country. A race between McCain and Clinton would be better for the Republicans.

[cloud75]

5. that is a very good critical piece on hillary of all weaknesses

none of them have to do with her policies and issues for moving the country forward. i would like to see one on obama i'm sure the repukes have there playbook ready for him too.

[Bonobo]

4. Nobody in GD really wants this stuff sneaking back in here, no offense. NT