In Indiana where the Clintons were never really popular but Bill is[was] beloved by Dems,  I have heard that all week from good Dems.....They are claiming Clinton fatigue,  they dislike the mistating of Obama's comments and a desire for Hillary to win or lose this on her own without having to have her husband come in and bully her opponents.

People get over this kind of thing.  I was seeing red for about a week over the Katrina thing but like, whatever.

We also shouldn't discount the degree to which the media framing has engendered this perception (every night, it's like episode 234728 of "has Bill Clinton gone too far?"), and of course, just like in 2000 it's abetted by any number of liberals.

I imagine this is a good part of the reason Edwards has seen his SC numbers rise recently.

None. But thanks for the concern trolling.

56% said that Obama had been unfair too. That seems like a sizable number to me--so why aren't we asking what damage he's done to the party?

If it was up to the media and the blogs, Hillary would have dropped out of the race a long time ago, after finishing tenth in Iowa, just behind John McCain, who seems to get more support than her on DailyKos these days.

Fortunately, it's up to the voters, who, while generally scored and looked down upon with contempt by the punditocracy, still hold the key to the nomination.

Frankly after watching the Clintons' performance over the past few weeks I can only conclude they just don't care.  Defeating Obama in the primaries is the first priority and they have done a masterful job of framing it they way they wanted to leading into the big states.

Any collateral damage will be absorbed and accepted and a narrow win is a win, to them.  Nothing else much seems to matter.  I'll bet Penn has micro-polled this to death and concluded that they can still eke out a win and the numbers look better to them with Obama's candidacy framed narrowly.  She was always going to be content with a 50% plus one victory.  November is still a long way off.

My father, a diehard Dem and a huge fan of President Clinton, called after the South Carolina debate to say the same thing...

I would say his tone is more one of disappointment in the Clintons for resorting to the tactics they have.  

I can only imagine that this will do more to reinforce Obama's (somewhat dubious) message that he is the one to usher in a new type of politics.

If I mailed the absentee ballot, I'm not so sure I would have blackened the square next to Hillary.

Bill needs to get off the trail, and all this race-baiting had better stop.  It's a shame we could throw the election away on this stuff.

It's been obvious to me for more than a year that the party would have been better served by Hillary keeping her Senate seat for life. I wish she hadn't run for president. If we have to go back to the 90s, I would much prefer Gore. Yes, Hillary will be divisive, and yes, she will probably lose states we could have won with a different nominee.

But these people who only just discovered that the Clintons put their own interests before those of the party? Where have they been? Haven't we known that since Lani Giunier got kicked to the curb?

And I'm really tired of the righteous indignation coming from the Obama camp. The way they twisted Hillary's LBJ comment and Bill's "fairy tale" comment was ridiculous.

Do they think that the Republicans are going to play nice with Obama? Do they think whining about unfair attacks is going to win the general? I was talking with a Democrat here the other day (Edwards supporter), and his comment on Obama was, "Talk about a guy who can't take a punch."

Go back to any election, in either party, and you'll find the supporters of the losing candidates (not saying Obama is losing yet) saying EXACTLY the same thing. Whatever. I'm an Edwards guy but am very impressed with the scrappiness, toughness, and yes, flat out political meanness of Hillary Clinton. You go!!!

Obama supporters are kind of meandering over toward the characteristics of cult members. They cannot abide by anyone criticizing their man. Well, then they're never going to win. And we're as Democrats will never win with him at the helm. Thick skins are pre-requisites in this game.

So,it's all about race.  

Thanks to both O and C.  Meanwhile, the really gutsy candidate is forsaken.  Shame.

I don't see that Obama has been treated so unfair... He has been treated much better than Hillary when Obama and John Edwards both teamed up against her in Iowa and NH.. Then the Clintons have the press that completely one sided in Obama's favor... They say that the Clintons have played the race card without saying how, and why would they want to go to a black state and play the race card, that favors the black candidate... And I don't think Obama has played the race card, the only group that is playing the race card is the press.. I do think that Obama is getting a free ride and with things going this way I feel that I must vote for Hillary as a protest vote.

Obama represents the death of the Democratic Party--God bless the Clintons!  They are the real Democrats.  

I loathe Obama and his GOP minions.  And Hillary will be the nominee on February 5, when real Democrats vote in real primaries.

I am honored that the MSM hates the Clintons.  I hate them right back.

I would like the Obama minions gone--let them find another party.

this is such a bogus, nonsensical diary. what exactly did the Clintons do, again? nothing that by any stretch of the rational imagination is dirty or particularly untoward by historical standards. They did, certainly, twist Obama's words on Reagan, but for the most part this is media-driven sturm and drang that is accentuated by the voices of Clinton hatred on the web.

Jon Stewart had a great piece the other night in which he showed clips of all the media talking heads going off on Clinton 'ranting and raving,' going 'off the hook,' being red-faced with anger....etc etc. He then showed the clip of the guilty party in which the supposed demon was speaking in a soft, rational voice and making, in fact, a relatively complex argument. That is not quite to the point of supposed attacks on Obama, but it's analogous. The idea that there has been some sort of ungodly aggression (from either side) is simply, silly, and a diary with that as its assumption is intellectually dishonest. An invention of the media echo chamber that should be rejected by anyone committed to rational political discourse. If, as Stewart did, you look at what the Clintons have done rather than what the media says they did, this is no story.

One comes to websites like this to escape media spin, not to read  it accentuated for partisan purposes.  

And I say this not as a Hillary partisan (though I like her a lot), but as someone who will be voting for Obama.

Actually, in terms of my last point, anyone want to take a bet that the positive numbers for both Obama and Clinton will be very high among all SC Dem voters in exit polls? If that's not true, than I'll agree that there has been real deep divisiveness. I'm fairly certain, however, their positive numbers will stay quite high, despite the media onslaught. One can cherry pick out a silly quesiton from this exit poll (EVERY candidate is unfair to their opponent in a campaign, this question shows nothing), but in doing so you're simply seeking to make a political point.

And can we also stop with the anecdotal 'I've heard from ALL my friends (i.e, your dog and your cat) that NOW they couldn't EVER vote for Hillary Clinton. Uh...right. Before the campaign all we heard was 'no one i know will vote for her' but that turned out to just be a function that among certain liberal elites the Clintons are hated. That says nothing about their overall electoral support, as has been shown time and time again. The idea that just this week there has been a tsunami of anti-Clinton feeling that has swept the nation is the epitome of lame non-thought.

Why don't we wait and see the results. I'm not in the least surprised black supporter of Obama were complaining.

Can someone give me just 1 (one) example of something that the Clinton campaign used that other campaigns haven't?

Because there isn't anything.

Campaigns grab soundbites by other candidates and run with it. Film at 11. What do you think the Obama campaign pushing Hillary's MLK quote was?

Every campaign in the history of mankind is full of that stuff. But when someone named "Clinton" does it, they're evil.

The mass hysteria I'm seeing against anyone called "Clinton" has reached beyond ridiculous levels. The character assassination on them is unbelievable.

Poor diary that is beneath you.

1. 56% of voters think Obama went too far as well, that's only 14% lower then Hillary's number, and while I think 14% is a far amount, I do think we should be worrying almost as much about his 56% as we are about Hil's 70%.

2. When did "really wishing" someone would "just go away" become not irrational hatred? Sounds kind of irrational to me.

Clinton is good about planning his words to give him plausible deniability with a literal interpretation of his words.  Fortunately, it may be that black voters know what he really means.

Yeah, the Clinton's problems are always everybody's fault but their own.

I wonder if in that unfair campaigning question you had to pick one or if you could say both.

This diary is a bunch of overhystarial non sense. Hillary will be fine if she's the nominee, and she is the likely nominee regardless of what happens this evening. People talk to a few people and treat their thoughts like it were some scientific poll. Please.

The centerpiece of the diary is an opinion piece in today's LA Times.  You can disagree with it, you can dismiss it as being significant, but since it does come from the paper of record for the biggest city in the biggest state it is not nonsensical to be written about.

I have never voted for a Republican.  I am a white gay male, consider myself progressive in my politics, am in my 40's, and an attorney who makes a good living. I read this and other progressive liberal blogs relatively frequently, although not obsessively.  This is my second post in well over a year. So, in that context, I will tell you that I will never vote for Hillary.  If she is the nominee, I will simply not vote.  If surviving four more years of a Republican is what we have to do to turn the page on the Clintons--on full display the last two weeks, especially--then so be it.  And I can tell you that I have heard from many, many people I know and work with that they feel the same way, and have been disgusted by how Hillary and Bill have nakedly displayed their say-anything, do-anything, to get back in power ambitions.  Karl Rove would be proud.