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.


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. Pa Guys

    The 'two-fer' Clintons are pathetic liars.
    They cannot tell the "truth from fantasy."
    Hillary lies and Bill believes it

    April 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm |
  2. Kambiz Rahnavardy

    As opposed to Carl's diatribe, I believe you showed what positive writing and campaigning means. I think Obama supporters need to be enlightened a little, for the sake of the democtratic party.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
  3. lennie

    I don't think Carl's piece can be rebutted by saying "yeah but look at what Obama did or said". Bernstien's piece was about what Clinton would be like as president and rebutting that piece by saying that what Bernstien didn't like can also be found in Obama is nothing more than Clinton propoganda. I'm sure the Clintons have been good to you Mr. Davis, but if you are going to rebut what a large percentage of Americas believe about your candidate, do so with an honest rebuttal, not a strawman argument against Obama.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm |
  4. George / Sarasota

    Way to go, Lenny...!! You have just given the word "rebuttal" new meaning. It's extremely obvious that Carl Bernstein has always had it in – if you will – for Hillary...perhaps because she prettier than he is, who knows really. One thing a lot of people do know for sure is that Hillary Clinton is the BEST candidate for president and this is becoming increasingly clearer with each passing day. Ironically, Carl might have to start referring to Hillary as "Madam President" in the not so far away future. Look on the bright side, Carl: you`ll have an opportunity – once again – to capitalize on Hillary in your next "novel" about the first female president of the United States of America!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:32 pm |
  5. Anonymous

    Mr. Bernstein's piece was based on personal opinion and that is obvious. He is not forcing the American people to share the same opinions as him. It was put on CNN so that people can think critically and decipher truth from opinion and it seems that many people aren't able to distinguish the two. Therefore, people should try offering intelligent and respectful analysis of the election campaign and stop bashing those who are brave enough to run for the country's leadership position. If anyone else thinks that none of the candidates are capable then try acquiring the guts and the courage to run yourself if you can do a better job!!

    As people so proudly boast, "Americans have the right to their own opinions". Hence you should accept the statements for what they are, HIS OPINION so stop being so hasty to make foul comments simply because you disagree with what he says.

    And Mr. Lanny Davis thank you for offering the other side of Mr. Bernstein's piece because people need to see both sides of each candidate. Well Done!!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm |
  6. LannyForPresident

    This is what I call an intelligent comment: statements backed by facts; not statements filled with all kinds of adjectives (all of them non-sense and baseless).

    Lanny, You disappointed me with one thing though: you were too soft on Bernstein.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
  7. Patricia

    A very weak rebuttal to Bernstein's commentary. I'm undecided on either candidate but Bernstein was giving his opinion, and from anyone who watched the news during and after the Clinton era, the many "facts" that he could have mentioned but didn't are known by most people who watch the news. But what's weak is that Lenny's criticism of Obama and defense of Clinton in general just wasn't a strong argument. Just sounds like a rebuttal for the sake of rebutting because he took Bernstein's commentary personally.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
  8. Dianne Thomas

    Thank you for giving us the "other side." I am so very tired of hearing allegations abount Senator Clinton, without hearing anything concrete to back them up – like facts and figures. The media have been very one-sided about their reporting, and we need more people like you stganding up for the truth – not innuendoes and lies.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm |
  9. Mike

    You go boy!

    April 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm |
  10. dl

    I think Lanny has a hard time viewing the "repugnant" tactics of her campaign because ...well, he is one of those repugnant tactics to be honest. He is what give lawyers a bad name.

    The reasons Whitewater was investigated was to find something to hold over Clinton...once HE lied on the stand ...Hillary was an afterthought...those millions of dollars of investigations focused on one issue that could get Bill removed. So to say that Whitewater was so overwhelmingly and exhaustively searched out with those millions and "nothing was found" is disingenuous at best.

    The reason Bernsteindoesn't recite each individual scandal involving the Clinton presidency is because the LISTS are too long and it would have taken the whole article just to do that. Bernstein's argument is backed up by the sheer lists and uniqueness of the size and spanse of those lists. Who has this many questions and controveries and lawsuits and investigations associated with them. Name me one other politician.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
  11. Joyce Hays

    I completely agree with you Lanny and I like the way you discuss issues. You are always fair and clear about what you say.

    As for Carl Bernstein, each time I see him discuss Hillary Clinton on television, his whole character changes along with his body language. For some reason, he really hates her and doesn't mind letting his vitriol ooze out of every pore. He doesn't discuss her, he rages about her. Someone should analyze Carl Bernstein's behavior a la Hillary Clinton.......or maybe women in general.

    Some men are deeply threatened by powerful female personalities and react like Carl Bernstein does.......irrationally. Even my husband is turned off, when in political interviews, Carl lets fly, his own inimitable "Hillary speak."

    With emotions as high as Carl Bernstein's, over Hillary, nothing is going to rein him in; nothing can calm such a vicious personal vendetta. The trouble is, that people like CB can be very destructive, especially for women.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm |
  12. Kory

    Lanny is definitely not an objective observer as he is a Hillary apologist. Bernstein is a good critic as he wrote a book on CLinton with her permission, so if anyone knows her I would go with Carl. I remember the gridlock of Clinton's second term, nothing got done. Look at the way Hillary has run her campaign and ask yourself is this the way she will do business in Washington.

    April 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
  13. B. Daniels

    Lanny, it's not an attack, it's an assessment. An assessment that, as a Bill Clinton supporter, in total agreement. Hillary is not Bill. Her vicious attacks on Obama clearly demonstrate that she has neither the diplomacy or honesty to lead America.

    Betty, Barack is as qualified as Hillary, as twice as what we need in these desperate times in America. Hillary's elected experience is 6 years in the U.S. Senate, Barack has 10+ years as an elected representative. Hillary's experiences as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. don't count–Bill was the elected official. Get it?

    April 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
  14. Michael, Tampa Fl

    This guy was a crook while he was in the Clinton whitehouse and still is!

    Talk about "OLD " Washington insiders,

    April 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm |
  15. SN in MN

    Bernstein is a hack trying to be relevant by jumping on the Obama band wagon. His career was over the day Nixon resigned!

    April 15, 2008 at 11:59 am |
  16. SN in MN

    Great article Lanny. Obama and his stooges have been running a sleazy campaing from the beginning. And the media has piled on Sen. Clinton in a vicous, reverberating echo of the Obama slanders.

    Obama and his minions have divided and destroyed the Dem party. Unless McCain turns out to be a child molester, the election is already over.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  17. Lyon

    Bravo! Hillary Clinton is this blue collar American's canidate without question. I tell you how out of touch the pundits are: Blue collar workers not only don't care that the Clinton's made $100 million in the last 9 years, we applaud them! The pundits and O'bama supporters think we are bitter? Hillarious!

    April 15, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  18. Natalie

    I think it's very interesting that in order to make Hillary look better, Davis must criticize Obama. Carl's piece was not about Obama's positives, but strictly about Hillary's negatives. Is it not possible to write on Hillary's positives without putting down Obama? That's why Hillary's campaign is in trouble now.

    And if all of those who have known her for several years still admire, trust, respect, and love her, then why are so many of the superdelegates flocking to Obama?

    I'm voting democrat in nov, i just think Obama is the one w/ the most integrity, trustworthiness, and admirability at this point.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  19. David in Shawnee

    Simple question of fact, not opinion – who is airing an attack ad right in PA right now, and who isn't? Also a factual question on thruthfulness – did Hillary run under sniper fire in 1996, or not?

    April 15, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  20. Carl Fraizer

    Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Lanny! They are all sad, "Bitter" people. Can we see the end game here? Hillary destroys the Obama movement and the Democratic party. John McCain wins the Presidency and serves 4 years. Vice President Romney wins in 2012 and serves 8 years . The American people continue to suffer. Gas prices hit $6.00 a gallon. 10,000 dead Americans in Iraq/Iran. Half a million dead Iraqis and Iranians. Oil company profits hit a trillion dollars. Cost of three wars bankrupts the American Treasury, but Republicans get richer. Riots in the streets, while the children of the wealthy vacation on the Riviera (especially President Romneys kids, who invite the McCain kids to join them). Wake up America. Stop letting your hatred and fear blind you to your own self-interests. This is the future I see, thanks to Hillary.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  21. Dean

    Want do you mean baseless?
    She lied about Bosnia, she very probably lied about her reasoning behind her Iraq vote. if she didn't understand what the vote entailed then she probably does not have the judgment to be president or answer calls at 3 in the morning. If she did understand – which everyone else in the country seemed to – then she is being disingenuous or – to put more simply – lying.
    It is reasonable for people to support Hilliary despite her "imperfections" – politicians are politicians – but to say criticism of her is untruthful and unwarranted is delusional.
    It seems most Hilliary supporters have this blind spot.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:50 am |
  22. Pat

    Thank you for explaining why so many people (roughly half) believe her and continue to support her. She is the "go to" girl if you want to take government back from the Bush damage.

    The truth is the only thing against her is the smear campaigns against the Clintons, particularly her husband, and the fact that she is a woman.

    The truth is Obama is pretty much a light weight in the government. We don't know enough about him and the way he votes, when it counts. We are trying to elect this guy because of how he says he would have voted.

    The truth is Obama has some pretty unsavory connections and friends that Clinton doesn't have. Can we risk it?

    April 15, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  23. Lois

    Isn't it ammazing, Barack Obama is praised for his oratory skills, but OOOOPS, he mispoke!!! Double standards strikes again!!!

    Hilary is still the best candidate, the strongest candidate to get things done.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:46 am |
  24. Jason

    Lanny Davis just spun Carl's article to such an extreme it is bewildering.

    Obviously, only the Clintonistas will fall for the Spin as they are rabidly blind to any acceptance of reality regarding HRC or her lost candidacy.

    As for those of us that have lost all respect for HRC due to her entitlement mentality, scortched earth campaigning, and continued need to lie and accuse others for what she herself does – those of us that see Obama as the real deal for positive change and unification in this Nation, we will continue demand that HRC's Rovarian tactics be stopped and a new era of positive leadership be introduced into 1600 West Penn.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:38 am |
  25. Kathy in Oregon

    Melissa M — you said exactly what I was thinking.

    If anyone over-reacted, it was Obama. I saw him attacking Clinton over this..and he looked ridiculous during his “Annie Oakley” rant in front of a Penn audience.

    The man went TOO FAR — name-calling, and using a mocking, sarcastic tone. Ecouraging the crowd to laugh at his characture of Clinton. The man totally lost his “COOL”!!

    Obama’s behavior was extremely immature and unbecoming of a presidential candidate. After witnessing his temper-tantrum, I can’t imagine that man as president. EVER.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:38 am |
  26. Mike from Syracuse NY

    Between Berstein and Davis we have some very convincing arguments that neither Democratic candidate is fit to be President.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:37 am |
  27. tonya in michigan

    lenny,lenny,lenny you yourself question clinton.problem is some people would rather go down with her campaign than admit they were wrong. thats not helping the people of this country and i think people have to realize this now!! we are seeing people abandon her and that is a major issue. and it has been said it is because of her character,and disregard for the truth.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:37 am |
  28. Nicholas Lefevre

    Would you folks please cool it! Supporters of Senator Clinton and of Senator Obama are natural allies in the effort to reverse the disastrous results of the Bush administration. Some of the folks trashing Obama and Clinton are Limbaugh "Democrats" – Republicans posing as Democrats and trying to damage both candidates. Don't let them do it and don't help them do it! Both Obama and Clinton are highly capable and their policies are nearly identical.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:37 am |
  29. grrr

    Davis isn't offering anything here other than his own (strongly contrasting) opinion of Hillary. That, and a brief for her campaign, which Bernstein does NOT do in his piece.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:37 am |
  30. Chris

    Lanny, I appreciate your rebuttal, but the tone of the "personal attacks" in this election are coming from Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy and even the "offhand but racist" tactics of Hillary's supporters, including President Bill's South Carolina comment. What I believe Carl's piece is accurately saying is that Hillary is either in control of this vitriolic campaign or she's not... and both represent a flawed character that most do not want to see in the White House. I will say this, I truly believe that Hillary's "kitchen sink" attack on Barack leading up to Super Tuesday have doomed the Democratic Party's run for the Presidency. It has fractured the Democratic Party, and by doing she demonstrated the kind of political mentality that most Americans are so SICK of today. I will not be surprised to see John McCain win this November.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:28 am |
  31. frank

    I totally agree with Lanny Davis and Geraldine Ferrara in their support
    of the Best candidate for U.S. President Hillary R.Clinton. However
    this comment will probably not be posted since it will be"moderated"
    by CNN comment policy which seems to bias against Hillary.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:25 am |
  32. jody

    I am glad CNN actually allowed someone to write a positive piece about Hillary. Between Cafferty and Bernstein, one would think CNN can't do anything by spew venom about Hillary, and show nothing but love for Obama.

    Thanks, CNN, for allowing Hillary one moment of respite from the onslaught of your attacking hordes!

    April 15, 2008 at 11:15 am |
  33. James M.

    Whenever they say Mrs. Clinton is "ready on day 1", it sounds more like a threat than a promise. Ready would mean knowing who she owes, and giving positions to people she knows she better not slight, cashing in on old debts, and being ready to please with the most popular policies.

    She scares me. If I was guilty of a crime, and needed the meanest, shrewdest lawyer, I would chooses her. If I want the last man standing, it would be her. If I desperately needed an agenda to get pushed through to the letter, I would trust her. To make every snob and powerpusher comfortable at a reception, I would have her hosting it.

    If she is chosen there will be no leeway or flexability, no positive surprises or ingenuity. I´m just so worried about her having to be the better man on the world scene. She doesn´t compete with women either. There are no women on equal footing with Hillary, it´s so painfully obvious that she is the only female competitor for president of the US. She is not paving the way for other women, she is the only woman available, and no others are in sight.

    Obama will find support, he will ask the most competent people, he will improvise (how scary!) and innovate. The best people and ideas will come to him. Even his imperfections seem acceptable, for the whole package.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:12 am |
  34. Jim

    Lanny, Lanny, Lanny... back to being the Clinton's lapdog.

    "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."

    You have to be kidding, right? That is an endorsement for POTUS? Even if true – integrity???, so what? My wife is a great mom, who is also kind, wayyyyy funnier than HRC and a great friend to have. Should we crank up the political wheels for my wife to run in 2012? How to you reconcile that warm and fuzzy picture of HRC with her negatives that approach Bush 43's?

    That "Ready on Day One" unsubstantiated assertion only reminds people of sniper fire in Bosnia. I recommend that you stop repeating it, regardless of what the talking points memo of the day says.

    While you are technically correct (the lawyer in you) in that the Clinton's were never convicted of any wrong doing, many of their ties were and throughout the entire process(es), both Clinton's were less than co-operative. As noted by a commentator on Imus this morning, the 90's were great for the Clinton's, but people tend to forget the seats that Dem's lost because of them.

    Let me know about my running my kind, loving wife in 2012.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:11 am |
  35. Jason Eckroate

    Why does every Hillary supporter on here have to say that just because we don't support Clinton, then we are somehow against women. I have no problem with women, or having a women President- but not Hillary, not now. I was open to both of these candidates, but at the end of 2007 I picked Obama- just like chapman the more I looked into him, the more I liked- and 2008 has done nothing but harden my resolve for Obama. Hillary has run a repugnant campaign- her behaivors and attitudes have been dispicable. You want a fact for that one, Lanny? Well, for starters let's look at the Florida and Michigan situation: Hillary was perfectly fine with their votes not being counted when she thought she was going to walk away with this nomination- now she wants the votes to count because she needs to have them and she tries to put all the blame on the Obama campaign for their not being a solution because he wants to make sure that whatever decision is made will be fair and legal for everyone.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:03 am |
  36. Steve Pierson


    Thanks for reminding decent folks that Clinton-bashing is still fasionable and still morally impugnant.

    The more commentary like Carl's the more I lean toward voting for Hilary. Every decent, intelligent person can see Carl fueling the hatred that demands a scapegoat.

    April 15, 2008 at 11:02 am |
  37. John

    It's funny how this resonse is not as big of a headline as Carl's was. I think more people should use factual information when being judgemental. Good for you Lanny!! Go Hillary.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:57 am |
  38. Allen

    Lanny, is this the best you can do? You should have done a more extensive rebuttal as you first suggested. When you boil it down, your rebuttal is simply "I like Hillary better". You don't even address the main issue of the commentary (i.e. what would a Hillary Presidency look like).

    You've got to do better.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:57 am |
  39. chris

    Nice, Lanny.

    Don't bother actually defending Clinton . . . just launch into a barrage of criticism of her opponent.

    I feel just great about the fact that both Democratic candidates are doing the dirty work of shredding one another before the national campaign begins! This way, we can all enjoy another eight years of the same incompetent, disastrous policy initiatives we've gotten from Bush when McCain inevitably coasts to victory.

    You're supposed to be defending Clinton, making a case for her, but you can't. There's no case to be made. Her campaign has been terrible. She and Bill have been nothing but negative throughout. So you like her and believe in her, that's fine. But rather than attempt an impassioned defense of her politics, you open an ugly assault on her opponent. Well done. When the GOP takes the White House this year, to whom should I mail the turd sandwich?

    April 15, 2008 at 10:53 am |
  40. al

    Voting and expressing ones opinion is the basic right of every American. No matter who you support, I wish the entry fee to vote was that you had to use the rational logic that "Chapman" spoke. Evaulate things for yourself ( kinda hard to do with some of the new spin), and make an informed decision.
    The president of any nation or business has the job of getting as many of the "right people" pulling in the same direction.

    Politican fear you being informed on the issues and how special interest has steered our resources into the hand of the select few. Politican love it when you are "exhubrant and consume" with emotiontal issues that are in many cases a matter of personal choice. Meanwhile they bail out Bear Sterns and say nothing about CEO getting millions for ruining their companies.

    Do you think China is giving tax breaks to companies that reduces their manufacturing base? Do other countries borrow money to go to war and then turn a deaf ear to the failing of it educational system. That's what "experience and lobbyist connected " politicans will give you in return for your vote.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:46 am |
  41. Toni

    Lanny, thank you for a pro-Hillary piece at last. I too believe she is the best candidate for the job, for all the reasons you mentioned in your article and for her dogged desire to turn this country of ours into the right direction. Go Hillary!!!!!

    April 15, 2008 at 10:43 am |
  42. Barbara

    When I read Bernstein's analysis, I was stunned by the truth and the courage of it, not to mention how impressive the style of writing.

    Bernstein has made himself vulnerable. Davis is playing nice right now, but were I Carl, I'd make sure I looked both ways before crossing the street, metaphorically speaking.

    I was disappointed in Davis's response, not because I expected a different posture, but because his defense was so weak and his writing so dull. But having heard him on a three-way public radio forum responding to what he thought were unfair criticisms of Clintton tactics in the primary, I'd guess that it is pretty hard to think or write when one is foaming at the mouth.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:43 am |
  43. Nyaribari

    Common Americans, give space and chance to other millions of Americans. America is not a monopolitical nation. Neither should it be a clintobushcentric state of America. I dont like this bush-clinton-bush-clinton ping pong game!!

    April 15, 2008 at 10:42 am |
  44. nancy davis

    I believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. I pity America if Obama wins the nomination. I can clearly see he has no respect for women (remember the way he purposely turned his head to keep from speaking to her). I don't believe he cares about black people either.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:31 am |
  45. Mary

    Thank you. We need someone to raise up the level of dialogue.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:31 am |
  46. zona

    I agree with Chapman above. Thank you for the comment.

    Bernstein and Davis obviously have opposing views on their candidates, but Davis spent a great deal of his creative writing slamming Obama, not praising Clinton.

    I have honestly tried to LIKE Clinton, but I just can't fathom being behind a person who has been caught in so many lies, and who is so flippant about getting caught in them. Bosnia bombing, the girl rejected by a hospital, NAFTA, $800,000 in THEIR pocket from NAFTA sppeches, the war voting record...Clinton's flippancy at getting caught in "untruths" reminds me of good old Bill's comment "I did not have sex with that woman". How can people be behind such a couple who try so hard to schmooze the American public? Do they think we are that much in love with them?

    April 15, 2008 at 10:25 am |
  47. Jake

    Lenny claims that Hillary is honest, kind and all those other flowery things yet can't give an example of any of these claims. He claims Bernsteins claims are baseless so are Lenny's claims that Hillary are all these "positive" things. Where's Lenny's proof? Instead he deflects the question and points out Obamas percieved inconsistencies. But that's a lawyer for you-instead of addressing Bernstein's claims he points out someone else's (Obama) inconsistencies.

    I'm sure Bernstein left out details as I'm sure Lenny did as well. That's understandable since each is trying to make their argument. But Lenny shouldn't pretend that he's somehow being "objective" about his stance on Hillary by qualifying through his claim of being a friend of Bernstein or admiting that he's a biased in favor of Clinton. Logically, one could conclude that he's biased against Obama then.

    This isn't some revelation or some objective perspective-you've already chosen who you like. So, let's not pretend that we're simply being objective and this is somehow more information to convince others of your perspective. The truth is you'll take this tid bit and utilize it to validate and shore up your own baises for or against a particular candidate.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:24 am |
  48. CeeBee

    Ditto what Ed said. Someone who lies as often and as shamelessly as Hillary Clinton does is not Presidential material.

    April 15, 2008 at 10:20 am |
  49. Larry

    Obama is right about one thing, there are a lot of bitter people out there. Most of them are his supporters. Go Lanny and Go Hillary!!

    April 15, 2008 at 10:18 am |
  50. nancy

    Thank you Lanny. One of the responders made a very good point. If Bernstein had written an article like that about Obama, he'd be called a racist. I'm sick of this whole media bias. Yeah, like Obama is the second coming. Please, what the heck do we know about him. A vote for him is like a vote for Jimmy Carter. Anyone notice how history is repeating itself- the war, the economy, the price of oil? When are we as a nation going to learn from our mistakes?????

    April 15, 2008 at 10:12 am |
1 2 3 4