.
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. Carol

    Dear Mr Davis,
    I thank you for replying to Mr Bernstein's views on Mrs Clinton. For the past few months Mr Obama and his supporters kept saying so many negative things about our New York Senator. I thank you for letting the public know the real Hilary Clinton. I like Mr. Obama, but the person who is experienced and qualified for the job is Senator Hilary Clinton.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:11 am |
  2. Joe Cassidy

    Come on Lanny,,,, how much money have you made off the Clintons over the many years you where the " Spin Doctor"

    how much did they pay you for this great "SPIN"

    one wonders.... fiction seems greater than truth in the politics of our time.....

    JC

    April 15, 2008 at 10:10 am |
  3. Jennifer

    Right on Lanny! I've been saying these things all along, but somehow the media does not pick up anything positive about Hillary. Obama has been blatantly lying about her all along and getting away with it because of the Clinton-bashers....Obama's so called "experience" in passing legislation is also a big lie – and his arrogance in stating that he knows all there is to know about foreign policy is breathtaking....when he talks, he talks like he is talking down to everyone. Sorry, but he will never get my vote. Hillary 08 or McCain.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:10 am |
  4. Adam

    Lanny,

    I am a supporter of Obama and I admit it, but you can not possibly believe that Clinton is not resorting to trench warfare? Her campaign prides itself for throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, they spent the entire weekend calling him an elitist for stating something that she knows is true but she wants to use to score points. They have said he is unfit to be president. You certainly can believe she will make a better president, I do not but I understand the argument, but be honest with yourself she has run a dirtier campaign than Obama (not to say his is squeaky clean) but anybody can look at her campaign and see that that is the path she choose, no two ways about it.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:05 am |
  5. Pat M Canada

    It is more than clear that Carl has no love for the Clintons so one has to take his comments with a peck of salt.

    However, Hillary Clinton by her own merits has given her opponents a free ride and they are loving it. When you leave yourself as open as she has for criticism you should expect to get plenty!

    She has railroaded her own campaign and when she wasn't at the wheel driving it into the ditch, Bill was.

    She has destroyed her credibility and any chance she had of being in the White House single handedly. She has no one to blame but herself and Bill.

    I truly believed Hillary was a better politician than she has demonstrated throughout this Campaign. She has made herself look small and needy.

    The tragedy is – this is truly not who she is but is definitely the person she herself has dipicted thoughtout her Campaign. From the moment she announced she was now taking over her Campaign, her Campaign went South and is still on the same track! And that doesn't speak well to political prowness and leadership.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:58 am |
  6. Jackie Phillips

    Lanny, you have your head in the sand..Carl is very accurate and truthful about the BITTER HILLARY. Not only is she bitter about losing the Presidency that she thinks is her "right", she is a liar, and not a good one at that. Our country needs to go in the right direction, and needs to elect Barack Obama to take us in that direction.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:45 am |
  7. Betty

    I agree 100% Lenny. And I did not know about Obama's stand on the war. Interesting how he's trying to re-write history on his war stand! I am amazed at the vitriolic hatred for the Clinton's that have no facts to back up the hatred! Opinions of right wing talking heads repeated adnauseum.
    I WILL NOT vote for Obama.
    I cannot support another failed presidency. Bush is/was enough.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:42 am |
  8. PSKing

    Every one is certainly entitled to their own opinions. I appreciate your devotion to your candidate- I do not, however, agree with your assessments. Time after time we see HC lying and manipulating those around her. When ol' Bill was in the WH doing a little bit of this-and-that, I almost felt sorry for the woman. After seeing the "real" Hillary emerge during this campaign I have reevaluated my stance. She is a liar and a thief. Her war to win the WH is based solely on her unquenchable thirst for power. A person of that ilk has no respect for others, as her concern is for her own gratification. She is volatile and angry. There are so many chips on her shoulders – she'd probably spend the better part of her first year in office getting even. No thanks. I'd vote republican before I'd vote for this piece of work.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:41 am |
  9. Carol

    right on

    April 15, 2008 at 9:40 am |
  10. Sharbob

    Thank you Lanny, you showed great class and integrity in your response. You are a true friend who can acknowledge that Hillary is not perfect but explain why you feel she is the best person for the job without trashing Obama. Carl Bernstein cannot even come close to walking in your shoes! Yes, he is entitled to his opinion but he forgot to inform us that his article was just that – his biased opinion. No matter how I dislike a person I can somehow manage to be fair in my criticisms of them – Carl Bernstein is incapable of being objective. He is blinded by his desire to portray Hillary Clinton in a negative light and influence this Democratic primary. Sadly, he is not the only one! Thank you for the facts you offered in your rebuttal. I had no doubt that Hillary has been an advocate for the poor and down-trodden in our society for her entire life. She is brilliant, capable and ready to lead. I hope she keeps fighting for her chance to do that. Such a brilliant mind should not go to waste. The country needs her at this time.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:39 am |
  11. Alice

    Shari B –

    I am an Obama supporter and resent the implication that I must be therefore be a misogynist. (That's like saying if you are not for Obama, you must be a rascist – are you?) I happen to be a woman, and a strong supporter of women's rights. I think we women can do a lot better than a schemer who is more interested aggrandizing her own power than helping us.

    If Hillary is having a rough time, it is not because she is a woman – but because she is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:38 am |
  12. Daniel

    Lanny,

    This is a heated race, and it is understandable that both candidates have to draw stark differences between each other as the days wear on and more and more votes are tallied. Still, it seems Clinton has gone above and beyond what is reasonable in this matter to the point of really damaging the Democratic *Party's* chances. When Mitt Romney dropped out of the race it was at a point where he could still credibly throw his support behind McCain. After some of Hillary's comments on Barack, even going so far as to outright state that John McCain would be a better commander-in-chief, it will be very difficult for her to claim (and for us to believe) she supports him if he wins the nomination.

    In my view, if this doesn't end soon, a Democratic party loss in November will be very easily placed on her shoulders.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:33 am |
  13. Jay

    A one sided rebuttal is completely appropriate. He is not a journalist but an avocate. Mr. Bernstein is a journalist and should no better. I am skeptical that Hillary can turn it around in time, but the democrats will pay mightily in November. I hope I am wrong about that.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:23 am |
  14. Tammie

    I think Bernstein's account is more accurate.
    Sorry to say this but the Clintons will turn on your soon too Mr. Davis, it's only a matter of time.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:21 am |
  15. Larry, Apex, North Carolina

    Hillary and Bill Clinton care ONLY about themselves. The interests of the United States never enters their minds. The love of POWER POWER POWER (and ego) is what drives these people.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:20 am |
  16. LeighB

    Thank you, Lanny. Hillary deserves much better than she has gotten from the press. She is a very accomplished woman who has worked for decades to improve the lives of others. I would be honored to have her as my President.

    April 15, 2008 at 9:17 am |
  17. gary

    Despite your comments, I think Hillary will say and do whatever it takes to get elected; no matter how underhanded or deceitful.

    She can't even manage a campaign, so why would I want her to manage the country!

    April 15, 2008 at 9:14 am |
  18. Aly

    "...kind, funny, fair, caring and a great mom"? Yeah just what we need in a president! That's all you got Lanny? A great mom? Seriously???

    April 15, 2008 at 9:12 am |
  19. Bob in western PA

    Lanny, get real. Again and again Senator Clinton shows she will "do what she has to" in order to pander to some voters. As a lady once said, "You gotta be a fool to be fooled by this woman."

    And, Clinton's completely out of touch on the bitterness/anger issue. Maybe from her $ 109 million tower she can't see the real working people in this country. I'm in Pa, and I can tell you that many people are fed-up with the ultra-millionaires who look out for themselves, and don't seem to care about regular folks.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:54 am |
  20. Brendan D

    Mr. Davis,

    What you have done with this piece is to excuse the outright lies Mrs. Clinton has told. Mr. Obama has stretched the truth as Mr. Clinton and all other politicians have done. However, Mrs. Clinton has outrightly lied. Period. Sir, how do you excuse that, and why?

    April 15, 2008 at 8:53 am |
  21. Tony

    Lanny,
    Thank you very much for being kind and truthful to the Clinton's. Shame on Carl Bernstein and those who support Obama and are out there bashing Hillary and Bill Clinton all the time.

    Lanny, you're a true friend. A friend one can count on. Continue your good works for the Clintons and God will bless you for that.

    Obama is as divisive as the word divisive itself. People, do you know who campaigned for Obama in Illinois when he was running for the US Senate seat in 2004? Nobody but the Clintons!!! And now Obama is calling them untruthful, too divisive...etc. Obama is the one who is too divisive and unfaithful. My question to Obama and his supporters is that, would you allow someone to come and campaign for you if you know that he or she is too divisive and dislike by many people as Obama now claims?
    Obama is now stabbing the Clintons in their back and he should be ashamed of himself.

    I am an African American and Hillary Clinton has my support and vote.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton for President 2008!!!

    Tony

    April 15, 2008 at 8:49 am |
  22. Jason

    Thank you for that response. Carl Bernstein went way over the line on what was clearly an attack on Hillary. She is by far the best one for the job.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:48 am |
  23. ike

    Right on Lenny, tell him like it is. Facts are more substantive than baseless accusations and personal attacks. And this guy claims to be a neutral observer.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:48 am |
  24. Max

    This piece by Lanny Davis is a skillful dissection of Carl Bernstein's article – nicely done, sir.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:47 am |
  25. Tari Torch Sweeney

    Sorry – Bernstein may be a bit "vitriolic" – but he wrote a good description of Hllary and Hillary and Bill. There are reasons not to like her. I cannot even watch her anymore; I am so disgusted with her behavior and her bringing the campaign to such low levels. Good thing Obama has a sense of humor...I sure don't.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:39 am |
  26. Letha, Sioux Falls, SD

    Excellent piece but to bad so many did not actually read it. Carl Bernstien should return to his office and take down his Pulitzer for journalism, brush it off and try to remember why he won it. It was not for his option but because he know how to quote the facts and not just drop garbage on the paper. Sadly, the Obamanation has again dirtied the article but not reading the facts. It doesn't matter which person wins the nomination because someone wont be happy and it wont be based on the facts of truth for both candidates.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:38 am |
  27. marie

    Maybe you Clinton-haters would rather have a weak president who will give in to terriorists because we are too "elitist" to do anything but talk to the worlds most vicious dictators? Just remembering Obamas statement in the California debate. He does scare me with his "pie in the sky" attitude. Or is he a wolf in sheeps clothing just to get the young, naive, vote? We really do not know, do we?

    April 15, 2008 at 8:36 am |
  28. Gwen

    Hillary doesn't care what she does to the democratic party – she only cares about securing the nomination for herself. Her selfishness and dirty "Rovian" tricks are breathtaking – the woman knows no shame.

    Obama was right on when he said people are bitter. The company I work for employed 412 people in 2001. Now there 127 of us. Most of our jobs went to Juarez, Mexico and a few (customer service) went to India. Gas is $3.50 a gallon, groceries cost a small fortune, and the Iraq war just keeps dragging on and on....and all Hillary can do is harp on the the fact that Obama is an "elitist".

    Talk about the issues, Hillary, and quit making a fool of yourself and destroying the democratic party in the process.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:36 am |
  29. Andrew from PA

    When Hillary Clinton lied about ducking sniper fire (besides other lies), Obama did not take the advantage to pounce on her. He did not say a word about it. However, whenever Obama makes a little booboo, she's pouncing on her like there is no tomorrow. She's all about dirty politics. She refused to focus on the issues, but instead focus on negativity.

    April 15, 2008 at 8:13 am |
  30. Moses

    I am voting for whoever is the democratic nominee but I have my doubts in regards to the American people voting Obama into the White House.

    April 15, 2008 at 7:59 am |
  31. Paul

    Carl Berstein is absolutely correct. I failed to see any valuable argument that Lanny made to refute Calls statements and accurate observations (NOT ATTACKS). There is a pattern here of deception the Clinton campaign is perpetuating.

    I was a strong Bill Clinton supporter, but having observed the current Hillary C. campaign, I can never vote for her in the general election.

    She is continuing to destroy our (DEMOCRATS) chances of winning this election. Here willingness to destroy Obama at all cost, is a perfect gift to Mc Cain, and it will be painful to watch this in the fall.

    I strongly believe that Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Nancy Polosky, Reed (Senate) should act sooner rather than later, as this on-going battle is hurting us more than it is helping the party.

    The Democratic party does not belong to Hillary & Bill. It is time that the party leaders step in to resolve this issue, or say goodbye to the White house in the fall.

    April 15, 2008 at 6:52 am |
  32. Kwame

    How can anyone sit there and defend the kind of win-at-all-costs campaign the Clintons are running? Hillary is a disgrace. Jack of all trades, master of none. A far cry from what Bill Clinton was. The only thing her winning will do is create a bitter divide the Democratic party. And that will lead to a congress that can't work with each other, and for the next 4 years, nothing will get done. I would have gladly voted for her in 2012 or 2016 because after all, she could have run on her name at ANY time. But that time is not now. Open your eyes people. As the separation in class widens in this country, we're looking a lot more like some other nations in the world that we so arrogantly claim to be "greater" than. The time for change is NOW. If she steals the nomination, I won't even try to stomach voting for her in November.

    April 15, 2008 at 6:27 am |
  33. Doreen

    Lanny, Lanny, Lanny. You have not changed in all these years. You are a Clinton supporter because they have supported (financially) all these years.

    April 15, 2008 at 6:19 am |
  34. Dora

    Having read the article fully written by Carl and having lived thru the Clinton White house years I have seen first hand the bias against Hillary Clinton. From day 1 of the Clinton years in the White house the press and some Republicans have had a witch hunt going on to find something wrong. And they never did, not from Hillary.And might I ask why bring their child into this discussion. Obama's wife works in a field that rips Americans off everyday. And her husband donates money to boards she sits on. And gets a tax break. Back up your statements with facts or it's up an opinion used to further your own gains. GO HILLARY They CAN'T KEEP A GOOD WOMAN DOWN

    April 15, 2008 at 5:56 am |
  35. Otille

    Lanny,

    So many have been fooled by Obama and his persuasive skills that they, perhaps unconsciously, overlook the faulty argument behind Obama's basic premise for his campaign - his objection to the Iraq war.

    It's probably not that these Obama fans don't know how much he has double-spoken and woven his way around the issue, but that for some inexplainable reason, they willingly look the other way and ignore the cracks behind Obama's inconsistencies about the Iraq war.

    I'm truly disappointed about this "strange" reality.

    I, however, am thankful that there are still people like you who are able to deal on and write about the facts in a simple yet profound way. Thank you Lanny!

    April 15, 2008 at 2:47 am |
  36. Tiff

    Right on, Lanny! But judging by some of the comments on this blog, you might as well be talking to a wall.

    Bernstein is certainly not the only person who continues to cite Whitewater and the like, for which there has never been one iota of proof of any wrongdoing on Hillary's (or Bill's) part. In fact, the only thing proven is that they didn't do anything wrong or unethical.

    I mean, really, does anybody with a brain honestly believe that if there had been even a hint of wrongdoing that Ken Starr wouldn't have broadcasted it widely (posted it on the Internet like Bill's Grand Jury testimony)???

    As you stated, neither Bernstein nor Obama backed up their attacks on Hillary's character and trustworthiness with even one example or fact. But apparently that doesn't matter to many Americans. Why we have more examples of that very thing in the comments to this blog. More vitriol, NO FACT, NO EVIDENCE.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:42 am |
  37. Rob

    Dash,

    I would like to inform you that a number of these comments are pro Clinton, and a number are pro Obama. Up to this point no Obama supporter has said anything about racism, yet more than one Clinton supporter have said Obama supporters were sexist or misogynistic. Opponents of Obama have been trying to attack him by saying people will cry racism if anyone says anything negative. I'm sorry but that really hasn't happened. I wish I could say the same when some people attack Clinton. Neither Clinton nor Obama is perfect, but please people; not all attacks on Hillary are sexist. It may be shocking but some people don't want her to be president for normal political reasons.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:38 am |
  38. Bob

    You got that one right dash. Totally agree. There is no such thing as perfection. They both have their faults. The people that say Hilary says the same things over and over should listen as much as I do to the speeches Sen Obama makes. I have the first five minutes pretty well memorized. From the "steps where Lincoln started" to the "my cousin won't be on the ballot" to "I made a bet on you" etc. etc. etc. The media can definitely work the anger up in people. They can twist things and put ideas into the head. Keep it up CNN and you'll have a country of independents in no time.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:32 am |
  39. sara

    Huh...a Washington insider that worked for Bill Clinton defending a Hillary presidency? I'm shocked!

    What White House position are you getting, Davis?

    I, for one, will be voting the ABC (Anyone But Clinton) ticket this fall.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:20 am |
  40. Ernie Reida

    It is a sad time we live in. What should be the greatest moment has become a nightmare. Unfortunately there is such a double standard that it is surreal. One person can say or imply any wrong to the other and nothing is commented about it, the other can say anything at all and the worse possible connotation is applied and it becomes a flag to run up the pole and salute. Obama is the Jimmy Carter of our generation, even if he is for real, he does not have the skills or connections to get any real changes accomplished. After all, he spent 20 years being "mentored spiritually" by someone who hates whites and America. If he is so able to foment change, then why didn't he change that?

    April 15, 2008 at 2:18 am |
  41. Taylor

    I am not sure why Obama is running for the Presidency

    He says he is this great unifies, but hasn't done it yet!
    Experience – he has very limited
    Knowledge – Nothing in depth
    He has mentors/spiritual leaders that denounce the United States
    He Has mentors/spiritual leaders that divide America through racist sermons
    He does not know much about national security
    He does not vote on controversial issues
    He gives a good speech, the press has accepted that his plagurism is acceptable.
    He thinks people are bitter and therefore that is why they go to church, access guns, and hate other people.

    Does anyone know what he actually plans to do with his own bitterness

    April 15, 2008 at 2:17 am |
  42. star555

    gerald–why all the sexism?

    hannah Meadow–Chelsea is NOT running for president. It is her Mother she is supporting. Chelsea is not accountable for what her Mom or Dad do. Get over yourself.

    June in Canada–Obviously readers are not smart enough to form their own opinions based on the truth.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:16 am |
  43. Gio

    THANK YOU LANNY!!
    I've been reading all these blogs on CNN, and it's shocking how all these Obama supporter are bashing Hillary for a comment Obama himself made. What happend to the message of Unity Obama is preaching to you guys?

    Apparently the Obama supporter have this notion that everything Obama says is deemed to be inspirational, and therefore bash those who state the opposite.
    Remember that it was Obama who shot himself in the foot. By the way what kind of childish attacks is Obama making against Hillary about beer, hunting, and some other stuff? And this is the man running for president.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:11 am |
  44. Terry

    Honesty in politics? Ed, you're living in a dream world. All politicians lie.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:07 am |
  45. tbmennett

    Thank you for setting the record straight with respect to the facts. Bashing Clinton seems to be a sport with some. On balance, those of who don't want an Obama presidency, manage somehow to refrain to the ugliness in explaining why. One of the attributes I like the best about Ms Clinton is her depth on the issues and her commitment to her ideals. And, while Obama has shown us he is a real good salesman; Clinton just showing up as the real article.

    April 15, 2008 at 2:01 am |
  46. scott

    SO WELL SAID! I couldn't have read a more positive article about that great woman. A woman who wants to come up solutions as opposed to just speaking the words "hope and change."

    April 15, 2008 at 2:00 am |
  47. Joe

    This is a rebuke of the other article? I really don't find much substance here. Everything brought up in the other article in pretty much on target. This article reads as a silly finger pointing. About what I expect from the Hillary campaign. Don't look at me, look at the other guy!!

    April 15, 2008 at 1:59 am |
  48. Lew

    For people like Lanny Davis a win for their guy or gal means 4, or more likely 8, years of White House work, contracts, etc. Its pay back time, when the candidate you supported wins. "White House Counsel".. hmm sounds nice, doesn't it Lanny? But If your candidate loses, so do you. All that slogging, and paying, and lying... all for nothing, when your gal loses. For the bagman, its not the party which counts, its your horse that matters. So go for broke Lanny. Who cares if its President McCain or President Obama. They have no goodies for Lanny. Only President Hillary does. So do your thing Lanny. And best of luck.

    April 15, 2008 at 1:44 am |
  49. KathleenM

    Thanks, Lanny, for showing us how adults behave. Bernstein's childish and sustance-free rant against Hilary are the empty words of an Obama shill. An empty man speaking for an empty suit.

    April 15, 2008 at 1:40 am |
  50. Shaunte

    Just like Clinton, this author said nothing that was substantive. Weak rebuttal compared to Bertstein's commentary. Sorry.

    April 15, 2008 at 1:37 am |
1 2 3 4