.
April 14th, 2008
06:54 PM ET

Lanny Davis's View: The Carl Bernstein attack on Hillary, and differentiating facts from opinion

Editor’s Note: Lanny J. Davis, a Washington attorney, is a supporter of and fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. From 1996 to 1998, he served as Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton. He is the author of “Scandal: How ‘Gotcha’ Politics is Destroying America.” In this commentary, he responds to an opinion piece by Carl Bernstein on the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. To read Bernstein’s blog entry, click here.

ALT TEXT

I really wanted to write a detailed rebuttal to Carl Bernstein's extensive attack on Hillary Clinton on CNN.com. But try as I might, I could not.

(Carl and I have known each other and have been friends for many years, so I will call him "Carl").

How does one respond to a what was largely a series of personal adjectives, character attacks, and vitriol - with few, if any, facts cited to back up those adjectives and part of an completely one-sided presentation?

Emblematic is Carl's reference to "Whitewater" as one factual example of Hillary Clinton's negative record while she was in the White House. Even Ken Starr and his successor could make no finding of wrongdoing against Hillary Clinton (or President Clinton) on Whitewater after years of investigations costing tens of millions of dollars. Carl forgot to mention that.

Numerous other examples of wrongdoing he cites during the her years in the White House are also devoid of any factual basis - even though they were the subject of many accusations and headlines, innuendo and TV punditry. None of them involving Mrs. Clinton stood the test of due process and a verdict based on the facts.

Similarly, Carl's negative characterizations of Senator Clinton's presidential campaign, such as "repugnant," are entirely subjective without facts to back them up. I do find a lot of double standard in judging the Clinton vs. the Obama campaign tactics, as I will briefly describe below.

The best brief positive statement of what I believe are the facts about Hillary Clinton is this:

Ever since I knew her in law school during the late 1960s to the present day, she has been a progressive Democrat who supported and was often on the front lines of leadership in every major progressive Democratic Party cause in the last 40 years, from civil rights to human rights to women rights to children's rights to public education to health care to economic justice and legal services for the poor to the environment to choice to worker's rights and the minimum wage...I could go on and on. Those are facts. Undisputable facts omitted by Carl. And so is the fact that Hillary Clinton was with her husband on the front lines in the White House for eight years and participated in, consulted, or was party to many of her husband's crucial foreign and domestic policy decisions of the successful two-term Clinton presidency.

As to Carl's reference to her "repugnant" campaign, that's a strong word among the many personal-attack words he used in his piece. But at the very least it should be clear that he uses a double standard in judging her and her campaign.

Two examples only should suffice:

First, Carl criticizes the Clinton campaign for being negative - "her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare...angry, demonizing...."

First, this is a baseless statement - he cannot cite an example of such a personal attack on Senator Obama by Senator Clinton. But Carl also omits any reference to the constant stream of personal attacks on Senator Clinton's character and integrity from the Obama campaign, especially in recent months. In fact, in the summer of 2007, it was Senator Obama himself, who promised not to engage in such personal attacks, who began it all in a front page New York Times story, when he called Senator Clinton "untruthful and misleading." That is the summer of 2007. And if you read that article, you will be hard-pressed to find a single factual example offered by Senator Obama of her untruthfulness.

Second, Carl refers critically to Senator Clinton's vote for the war resolution in October 2002 (a vote joined in by 28 other Democratic Senators, such as Obama supporters John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller, whom Carl also forgot to mention in the piece).

But, as to Senator Obama's record on that war vote, Carl omitted the fact that in 2004, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama was asked how he would have voted had he actually been a U.S. Senator. After saying he didn't think that President Bush had made the case for war, Senator Obama went on to respond how he actually would have voted. His answer: "I don't know." This is the same candidate who based the core message of his entire campaign on criticizing Senator Clinton's judgment at the time she voted for the same resolution.

Senator Obama also said in 2004 that he didn't think there was "much difference" between himself and President Bush on the war.

But Carl omitted reference to those two facts concerning Senator Obama's record on the war.

The obvious explanation for these and many other omissions by Carl is that this is a one-sided presentation by someone who clearly does not like Senator Clinton. Surprise.

For me, I admit my personal bias: I am strongly supporting Senator Clinton because I believe she is the more qualified and experienced of the two candidates. She is ready to be president from day one, in my opinion, more so as compared to Senator Obama. As to her personal and character qualities, the Hillary I know has integrity, is kind, funny, fair, caring, a great mom, and one of the best friends anyone could have. It is no coincidence that so many people who have known her for decades still admire and trust and respect and love her after all these years. And it is no surprise, to me at least, that so many Republican U.S. Senators have told me and many others that she is one of the nicest and easiest-to-work-with people in the Senate. (Carl gives her at least this much credit for being "widely commended by former skeptics in Congress and the press.")

So this is my response to Carl Bernstein - who remains my hero during his Watergate reporting days and has been kind and generous to me personally through the years that I have known him:

You are entitled to your opinion. And I am entitled to mine. But at least we should both remind readers to know what is a fact and what are substantive issues versus what is an opinion and personal attack, and to appreciate the difference.

– Lanny J. Davis

 Comments to the 360° blog are moderated. What does that mean?


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Raw Politics
soundoff (193 Responses)
  1. raul apostol

    Finally! an incisive rebuttal. The prolonged campaign for the nomination is a historic event that virtually unmasked the 2 candididates. Such process as only possible in a true democracy presents a wealth of lessons for the thriving democracies of the world.

    Obama's unmasking as opposed to Hillary is the more revealing. From the Rev. Wright commentaries to his views of rural america the Obama I admired appears more of an orator par excellance. Hillary's and McCain speeches though boring and seldom applauded appears more consistent with the facts of these two candidates lifetime work.

    April 15, 2008 at 1:36 am |
  2. Sarah

    Lanny – I completely agree with you.

    Carl Bernstein has written what can only be explained as a purely sexist tirade against Hillary Clinton.

    This is not unusual for him or the many men of the media who claim to be unbiased.

    They comment on Hillary's likeability by dissecting it based on perceived emotions – she's too cold, too calculating, too shrill. Or in Bernstein's case use the word "angry".

    If Hillary were a man, however, these same things perceived as unlikeable by these men would be perceived as a plus.

    A man playing to win – is shrewd, a good business man, a champion. A woman playing to win is "angry, calculating, shrill".

    April 15, 2008 at 12:13 am |
  3. kent

    I have already made up my mind. Don't confuse me with your version of 'the facts.'

    April 15, 2008 at 12:12 am |
  4. Robert

    The problem with Lanny's article is that he is not exactly unbiased in his comments. He is an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton and a front man for many of her attacks on Obama. He tries to act like he is acting independently but his true colors alway show.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:11 am |
  5. Lonny

    Let's see.......

    On one side we have a journalist.

    On the other side we have a lawyer.

    Which expert, who makes a living by twisting the truth are we supposed to believe?

    Guess I'm not edumacated enough to discern "The Truth."

    April 15, 2008 at 12:11 am |
  6. Flor

    Lanny,

    Excellent article on Carl Bernstein’s extensive attack on Hillary Clinton; Carl Bernstein deserves no respect for attacking a lady.

    Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:10 am |
  7. Rebecca V

    After reading the article, I couldn't help but have these two thoughts:
    1. The press truly has been in love with Obama. Why hasn't he press pursued those in more detail is beyond me. Even Anderson in his most recent extensive interview with Obama didn't even care to bring those issues up. What's up with that? It's really true that the press has fallen heads over heel over Obama.
    2. Why hasn't Hillary attacked Obama on those points is beyond me. It looks like Obama is the greatest liar. On one hand, he says how holy he is. On the other hand, he would put out false stories about Clinton. I don't know how that makes Obama so noble.

    -r

    April 15, 2008 at 12:09 am |
  8. Matt Hardeman

    right on. bernstein's agenda has been clear since he was somehow included on the 'best politcal team on televison' a long while back. CNN how you have lost credibility so!

    shame on you!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:09 am |
  9. workmonkey

    Lanny takes a lawyerly approach to the Bernstein article, which is to flip the argument upon Obama, rather than explain Hillary. Carl and Lanny have an unfair advantage over us: They personally know the candidate they speak of. Yet they obviously have two polar opposite opinions, leaving us at square one. The rest of us can only use the evidence we on and read in newspapers. Hillary may have "integrity" and be "kind, funny, fair, caring" as Lenny says, unfortunately the evidence we see seems to radically refute that. I simply can't see how someone kind, fair, caring, and full-of-integrity can so often appear totally opposite of that. If Lanny is indeed correct, Hillary might need to start working a bit harder to demonstrate those characteristics to Americans. Because as of now, her actions show her to be every bit as deplorable as Carl implies she is. Perhaps Lanny and Hillary are peas in a pod, and what is acceptable to Lanny is repugnant to those of us with some sense of objectivity.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:06 am |
  10. Allen J. Duffis

    During the three years I have published my political opinion blog, The Conservative Independent, I have run across a lot of what Mr. Davis has pointed out.

    People often hate the Clintons, but cannot exactly articulate – why? They pick and choose among worn out platitudes and hip degrading sayings: like referring to CNN as the Clinton News Network.

    However, when one takes the time to closely examine the Clinton presidency (minus the Lewinsky affair), and the backgrounds of both Clintons, this partisian prejudical barbarity does not hold up.

    Let's face it, for some unknown reason, Hillary Clinton is not likable – at a distance. That quality is a campaigning drawback, not a malignant personality fault depicting some inner evil.

    Therefore, I think Hillary Clinton is correct in her decision to remain in this race. In my humble opinion she has a great deal to bring to the office that is of value to my country.

    I would also recommend to Mr. Bernstein that , in the future, he research his opinion articles a bit more thoroughly before 'putting pen to paper'. He seems to have trouble differentiating between opinions based upon proven fact, and thosethat are the end result of opinionated gastric distress.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:05 am |
  11. Dianne

    These are the facts. Just google:
    clinton air attack 1999

    That's all !!!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:04 am |
  12. suren

    I am not American. I am neither white nor black. I cannot vote. It is a shame that you have very short memories ......... Clinton eliminated the budget deficit – low interest rates, record surpluses, unemployment and core inflation at their lowest levels, increase in real median family income – best economy ever. United States was respected by the rest of the World.
    No doubt, Obama is a very talented politician, with impressive qualities. How is his administrative and foreign policy experience? His understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the U.S.? What will be his approach to foreign policy? The muslim world and Al-Quada want him to win and they are throwing their full financial support behind him through many Americans. Grow up. The Wright videos will be used extensively by the Republicans to raise money and get out the vote in November.
    Guys: Are you ashamed to have a woman as President? Hilary can be very successful as President and she deserves her chance. Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and the late Benazir Bhutto were all successful leaders. Do you want to be seen as a backward society?
    Hilary is a good leader and equally very intelligent. She is a strong advocate for women, children, health care and has worldwide respect.
    She is very passionate about providing greater educational opportunities to all children, she will restore America's standing in the world, she will create jobs and America will have a better chance of getting out of this mess under her Administration. She is like the "Devil" you know, compared to the Obama you don't know! Support her and give her a chance. Next time is for Obama!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:04 am |
  13. Carla Ontario Canada

    Lanny, thank you for telling like it is. Hillary has shown me that she is strong, courageous and has a good plan to put the USA on a better track then the last 7-8yrs. She also says what she means(no flip-flopping like Obama). She is the best candidate for President.
    All i hear from Obama is:
    I wasn't there (pastor comments)
    I didn't know / didn't hear(pastor comments)
    I showed poor judgement (rezko/house deal)
    I won't shop at Walmart (wife resigned from Walmart supplier Treehouse)
    I was against the war (so was everyone else but Bush & co. lied to USA & the world)
    BUT Obama does says he agrees with Hillary (at the debates)
    This just shows me that he is not very original and very slick with his words.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:04 am |
  14. Tony

    Even IF CNN is too scared of Hillary to cover the truth of her history, I would rather have the most incompetent President in history than Hillary.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:03 am |
  15. dash

    Looks like Carl is a paid critic..People know what I mean. I heard him on CNN lots of time (CNN's best political team, all are hillary haters, except couple of). Carl is trying to sell his book that no one is buying.
    Somehow he needs a publicity. Easy target Hillary. Because you can not critisize Obama. Otherwise you will be called racists.

    April 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm |
  16. Sol

    Lanny, what are you and Billary smoking?- give me some of it !!!. "You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool them all the time" You need a new pair of glasses – Hillary is bad for business period. Fini

    April 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm |
  17. ED

    Lanny,

    You never did say that she is honest.

    Hillary and Bill are both liars and we have known this about them for a long time. Her behavior in this campaign has demonstrated this repeatedly.

    ED

    April 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm |
  18. Marie

    Lanny - I've heard/read you in several fora in the last few months - public radio, tv, in print. You and your take no prisoners approach that is so representative of the Clinton machine is precisely why I did not vote for Hillary. Painting a lemon orange doesn't make it sweet to the taste.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm |
  19. Betty

    Thank you Lanny. Sen Clinton is by far the best choice. While I think Sen Obama is a very polite and nice man, I really am concerned if he is qualified to be President. Certainly his wife's comment about our America did not sound as if she really cares much for us. If people do not care for our country, why don't they leave? I certainly don't want them here.
    Thanks for setti ng the record straight, Lanny.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:50 pm |
  20. Sharon

    Christine how can Obama steal an election he is winning?

    April 14, 2008 at 10:50 pm |
  21. mari

    Thank you Lenny, Hillary has my complete and utter support. It takes a real diligent person to know what the candidates are about. To come out and stick your neck out for her like that says a lot about her. Go Hillary all the way!

    April 14, 2008 at 10:44 pm |
  22. John

    It's a sad day for Democrats when the candidates give the Republicans all the ammunition they need for the fall campaign. It has been said, I agree, that Obama wants the presidency for the country; Clinton (or given her tactics, H-Rod) wants the presidency for herself. No matter what claimed experience, it's performance that we want. One doesn't get that with her defiant, self-righteous style. Experience is not performance. If experience is what she has, why has she performed so poorly: voted for the war and mismanages her campaign. If the phone rings at 3 am, I think Clinton will be up in an instant to answer it. With Obama, I think the phone is not going to ring in the middle of the night.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:44 pm |
  23. Chapman

    I read both pieces. I started this primary season a strong Clinton supporter (yes both). What struck me after reading both was how in Bernstein's piece he barely mentions Obama. In Davis' piece every other point is a slam on Obama. That is exactly the tone that has repulsed me & opened the door for me to look more closely at Obama & the more I checked the more I liked & the more I liked the more I checked & amazingly enough for the first time in my adult life I see a man who has a shot at being President who I believe is truly inspirational (no not in a Jesus messiah he's perfect sorta' way) in a human way. Lanny you failed to win me back...

    April 14, 2008 at 10:43 pm |
  24. Laurie

    Great rebuttal indeed. It was so sad to see what was a great journalist resort to the dime-a-day punditry riddled with biased opinion and try to play it off as fact. But it's no surprise that those who support Obama and write the kind of dribble Carl wrote, come across as some sort of great journalistic piece–this is a wolf in sheep's' clothing. Just like Obama is too. If Americans keep buying his rhetoric like his statements about being "one of us" then they should also believe Hillary is. No! They are all politicians doing what they have to do to compete: say whatever they can to win. Hillary is up front about her tactics and plans....Obama is NOT!

    April 14, 2008 at 10:43 pm |
  25. Kath

    Lanny, did you not read the title to Carl's article: "Carl Bernstein’s "VIEW": A Hillary Clinton presidency"....last time I checked it is a free country!!!
    stop victimizing Sen. Clinton....she is painted as a negative person directly as a result of her conduct during this campaign....we now know that her claim about opposing NAFTA from the beginning was a bogus one since her released schedule confirms that she attended those meetings, cheerleading NAFTA behind closed doors.....so her kitchen sink strategy gave her Ohio ( notice I am not including Texas because Obama won more delegates there)....

    April 14, 2008 at 10:43 pm |
  26. Jane L

    I agree with Mr. Davis. Mr. Bernstein has credibility because of his part in uncovering the Nixon Watergate scandal years ago, but he seems to be playing fast and loose with that credibility in his unsupported attack on Senator Clinton.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm |
  27. ShariB

    How refreshing to find an accurate, pro-Hillary position for a change. It's depressing to live in such a misogynistic society. Thank you, Lanny....and GO HILLARY!

    April 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm |
  28. Eric

    It's too bad that the Clinton camp could not have gotten a hold of a video of Obama saying "i dont know" if asked how he would have voted on the war if he was in the Senate. Obama has used this as his biggest hammer versus Hillary and the Iraq vote is one of the most significant things that will probably cost her the nomnation.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:39 pm |
  29. vvvv

    i agree with Lanny fully. i always know that Hillary is a very bright woman with lot lot lot of experience. Go Hillary!

    April 14, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
  30. Christine

    Hey Vince,

    Get real, are you afraid of women? No one would really give two cents for your grassroots movement. If Obama steals the nomination I will be just as angry as you and I bet I can be more vocal than you.

    April 14, 2008 at 10:09 pm |
  31. Daniel P. From Long Island, N.Y.

    Lanny (what the heck kind of name is that ? !), you convinced me ! I'm finally a convert ! I WANT Billary elected so she can show all the poor people like me how we too can make $ 109,000,000 !!! 🙂

    April 14, 2008 at 10:09 pm |
  32. Cliff S.

    Lanny Davis misses the point of Carl Bernstein's view... It was not meant to be taken as a factual article. It was meant to be his personal view after a career of studying politicians, extensive study and contact with Hillary Clinton, and his feelings based on the conduct of her campaign.

    And you know what? I believe he's dead-on the money.

    April 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
  33. gerald

    I disagree. All of you attended some University, Hillary is focused on Obama. She has not talk about nor come close to saying anything new. Lately its been he said, when it comes down to voting for either canidate,I will vote Obama. Really she sounds like a two year old . I loveCNN. I will change the channel if it's a grown woman crying on the tv .

    April 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
  34. F. R. Haurand Jr.

    Lanny: "I believe she is the more qualified and experienced of the two candidates" is an opinion too!

    April 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
  35. Prince

    Lanny J. Davis must be smoking what Bill Clinton supposedly didn't. Carl Bernstein gives us facts about Hillary and Lanny Davis whitewashes her behavior. For him to say that he can not find a single example of an attack on Senator Obama by Senator Clinton is beyond addressing. He may be a lawyer who cannot hear or see the truth because he is both deaf and blind to it.

    April 14, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
  36. Vince Los Angeles

    Mr Davis:

    Barack Obama was being KIND when he referred to Hillary Clinton as "untruthful" and "misleading". Initial evidence of this was Senator Clinton's claim of "30 years of experience". This LIE insults the average person's intelligence. That's like a surgeon's wife claiming experience in surgery by association. Senator Clinton has continued throughout this campaign to prove Senator Obama's words to be true. I submit "BOSNIA SNIPER FIRE" as the most recent example.

    Senator Clinton is a liar. So is her husband. I'm not running for office so I can be less tactful about saying it. I'm sick of the two of them and I'm completely SICK TO DEATH of you excusing them and constantly spinning their lies. I am absolutely disgusted with you trying to keep the Rev Wright issue alive. I think it's disgusting but totally in character of a Clinton campaign. I've already burned by Democratic party card and registered as an Independant. I promise you this Mr Davis. IF YOU AND YOUR CRONIES STEAL THIS NOMINATION FROM OBAMA I WILL HEAD A GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO DISCREDIT SENATOR CLINTON AT EVERY TURN AND I WILL DEFINATELY BE VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN.

    April 14, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
  37. Annie Kate

    Lanny,

    Very well said. I'm glad someone has answered Mr. Bernstein's attack piece. I would rather see facts than what was written and I appreciate you pointing that out as well as you stating your preference.

    Annie Kate
    Birmingham AL

    April 14, 2008 at 8:05 pm |
  38. hannah Meadow

    Why doesnt anyone discuss the fact that Chelsea who embodies all the values of the Clintons works with Hedgefunds and helps rich people with their money. She is said to embody all their values and this is what she chooses to do-talk about elite instead of any type of service work.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm |
  39. Mike - WA

    In my 35+ yrs as an American voter I have never seen a politician as dishonest and disingenuous as Hillary Clinton. Sadly, I think that her flawed traits are driven by a narcissistic mental illness that causes her to truly believe that she is entitled to the Presidency and believe that the country cannot live without her Both her and her husband are extremely dangerous. Voters need to recognize that they are not voting for someone that cares about the populace. They are voting for 2 power-hungry egos that have proven for 2 decades that they will do and say anything to have their way.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:44 pm |
  40. andy

    Sen . Clinton is strong and smart and it seems to be wiser then most democrats I have heard and it is to bad that America Democrats can not see this and continues to push for inexperince which has brought us to where we are at this point ! So I hope the country can see past this unfair and bias media and allow Sen Clintons Ideas to be seen as progress and not look at what most republicans are afraid of not to say most Male democrats who I almost can hear wispering ( she is a WOMAN ) and no more needs to be said !

    April 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm |
  41. Steve Bates

    Thank You for exposing the personal attack machine that has been aimed at Senator Clinton throughout this campaign.There is indeed a double standard at play and it is propagated by those who feel they know what is best for the rest of us. Senator Obama has such a thin record on anything that it is hard to believe he has escaped without being vetted. His aquaintences with a corrupt Chicago businessman and his 20 year history of listening to his fiery pastor will not be left alone by the Republican party should he become the nominee. Remember when Governor Dukakis had an 18 point lead in the polls?

    April 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm |
  42. MMiller

    Well said. I also reference Mr. Bernsteins comments to 'personal attack'...I believe he is very upset because BO finally gave one speech where he describes average Americans with his personal vision of average Americans. We are, to Barak Obama-racist, ignorant and most appalling taught those biases by our church.
    Mr Bernstein must be appalled by this characterization as he is included, as a white man. To me, what BO said was stunning. I am sure from Mr Bernsteins attack on HRC that he is doing what BO does best..deflecting to Mrs Clinton every issue to which he has no substantive remedy, all the while calling her the cause of his issues. Mr. Bernstein must remember these are BO words..not Mrs Clintons.
    Mr Bernstein must also remember that if he is willing to stir the pot with these negative attacks on Mrs Clinton than he must ready himself and BO for the attacks coming from the Repubs that include Mr Obama's association with Mr. Rezko and his 12 denials of any association..on film and audio tape. He must remember the trail of Mr. Obama's Legislative years which includes the mystery of sponsorship and authorship of bills, recorded in BO's name which were not written or proposed by him. Mr Emil Jones seems not to be satisfied with pork, but, wants steak. Mr Bernstein must be prepared for Mr Obama's 'lost' legislative documents and calenders which the Repubs feel will link his admitted drug use to a larger story than what he wrote in his autobiography. This story seems to be exploding on all fronts with drugs, Rezko, hospitals, kickbacks, lots, homes, wanted criminals..it could be a much larger circus than any we may have witnessed before, including Watergate.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
  43. June in Canada

    quote:
    But at least we should both remind readers to know what is a fact and what are substantive issues versus what is an opinion and personal attack, and to appreciate the difference.

    Don't be so "elitist, patronizing and bitter" Lanny. Please give the readers credit for having a brain of their own. This reader is quite capable of sorting out truth from lies even though I don't have a law degree.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm |
  44. Devon

    Obama has made the point before that politicans use these hot button topics to motivate people to vote rather than on issues. Bush did it with gay marriage, others have scapegoat legal immigrants as taking away american jobs and the list continues. The question is are we going to allow this to continue?

    April 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
  45. Laura

    Thank you and AMEN! Too bad such an intelligent piece won't ever find it's way into the public conversation. Just not dirty or nasty enough for the public palatte.
    And that is the difference between Clinton and Obama.
    Funny that Obama is still playing the same Bush game.....if I say it, it makes it true..regardles of what the truth actually is. Definitely not funny haha, but peculiar.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:15 pm |
  46. huntingdonpost

    Great rebuttal. It is time that someone pointed out that ad hominem attacks are not facts.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:14 pm |
  47. Steven

    Absolutely right, Lanny. Thank you for distinguishing the difference between opinion and fact. Some people have opinions with little or no evidence to back them.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:11 pm |
  48. Chelci

    Thanks Lanny for straightening out the facts of Carl's misconstrued "facts" as he sees them. At least someone can get it right.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
  49. Matthew

    Obama's biggest problem is he's an intelligent undefiled black man. They will have to come better to destroy him. I believe his comments about these people being bitter is true or the news media and the "American" people wouldn't react so bitterly. Bitter because of the truth. The closest Hillary has been toward working class America, who are typically non white Americans, is from what she see's on the late night news. She is the typical inconsistent, bitter, deceptive, white American.

    April 14, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
  50. Mary

    Right on Lenny.. I just shared some of my personal comments reagrding Bernstein. I love you Lenny.........

    April 14, 2008 at 7:07 pm |
1 2 3 4