While we're on the subject of crass gossip, Wonkette claims Tweety gets highlights put in his hair at the salon in the Four Seasons Hotel.  Imagine what FireDogLake could do with a photo of him with those tin-foil thingies all over his head!

Yes.

Please.

Lots of people should start doing this.

Not just to Giuliani, but to Matthews and all the other peck-sniffers as well.

If the Clinton's relationship is fair game, so's everybody elses.

people that actually hang out with non-democratic voters know what Hillary is in for, If she gets the nomination we'll fight like hell, but she's y far the least likely to win.

I seem to recall there being a lot of proverbial brothers in Arizona in 1998, as well.  If all the Clinton-hate anecdotes of the past decade had any relevance or representativeness at all, Bill would've been drawn and quartered and Hillary sold to the Chinese before the 90's were through.

Your brother has bought into a right wing talking point. No documents "magically" turned up in her "private" office years later. Gene Lyons and Joe Conason debunked this right wing lie years ago.

First, those documents were not in Hillary's private office. They were in the office of Carolyn Huber, the former office manager of the Rose Law firm, and they had been gathering dust there for years before Ms. Huber realized they were there.

Second, they weren't even originals. They were photocopies, so if someone was allegedly trying to hide them, they must have been stupid because they would have no way of knowing how many other copies were floating around.

Third, it's clear Hillary had nothing to do with the records being "missing" or turning up at a later date. Here's a description of Ms. Huber's discovery of the billing records:

Huber recalled coming upon the time sheets in August 1995 in the "book room" on the third floor of the White House, inside the Clintons' private quarters. Without looking to see what they were, she had stuck them in a box and taken them to her office for later filing. Then in January 1996, she had opened the box and gotten scared.

How she could be sure they were the same papers without having examined them in the first place was never clear. Putting the 1992 campaign records in order and storing them was one of Huber's secondary tasks at the White House.

Fourth, and most importantly, the billing records were actually exculpatory. Why would she hide records that proved everything she said was true?:

Hillary Clinton emerged from Starr's grand jury to say that she had no idea where the billing records had come from, but was glad they had turned up -- perhaps because they provided only exculpatory evidence. Along with Vince Foster's handwriting, FBI fingerprint analysts found his fingerprints, as well as those of the first lady. Hers were found only on those pages dealing with issues discussed during the 1992 campaign -- but not on topics of more recent interest, such as the ill-fated McDougal real estate development and shopping center known as "Castle Grande." All the forensic evidence suggested that the billing records had in fact been misplaced ever since the 1992 election.

The records' contents also supported Hillary's testimony and public statements in detail. In her sworn statements to RTC investigators, she had recalled only a single phone conversation with Securities Commissioner Beverly Bassett Schaffer regarding the Madison Guaranty preferred stock issue. The records showed exactly one, on April 29, 1985.

Asked whether she had done any work on McDougal's "Castle Grande" development, she had replied no. Republicans charged that an unused 1985 real estate document she had prepared for Webb Hubbell's father-in-law contradicted her. But the billing records, like all internal Rose Law Firm documents, referred to that transaction not as Castle Grande but as "the IDC matter."

A small part of a large parcel of land Madison Guaranty bought from a company called the Industrial Development Corporation later became known as "Castle Grande" -- but not the part described in the document Hillary Clinton had prepared. Her answer was accurate. After studying the newly found billing records, the investigators at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro came back with an even stronger conclusion that nobody at the Rose Law Firm had done anything unethical or illegal in their representation of McDougal's savings and loan.

IIRC those document didn't turn up in her private office but in a different one. Still in a box from the move.

Those documents actually supported her case. So she purposely hid documents that would have helped her case?

Funny story, recently the company I work for had to settle case because we couldn't find the relevant documents anymore.

Later when a colleague retired we found them, in one of his bookcases, still in the box from when we moved. It had cost us a lot of money.

Well Tweety's brother is a county GOP chair in PA.  Didn't Tweety once work for Tip O'Neill?  Is Tweety bending over backwards to convince people he's no northeast liberal elite or something?

So your point is, well she's a good person but the republicans have made her radio-active, so lets invest in somebody who hasn't been made radio-active yet.

It doesn't work that way. the republicans will make every candidate of ours radio-active. And after yet another Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or who-ever, people will wonder why they went wrong yet again

It isn't us, it isn't our candidates. It's the republicans. And if we let our fear of them make our  choice for us, we'll simply lose again.

I agree with Nevadadem here.  We have just seen the Republicans go with somone who had the "advantage" that he energized the base by always being able to count on the hatred of liberals.  That has worked out so badly for them that we actually have chance to nominate and get elected someone who can start afresh.  And instead we may pick someone who's election simply resets the political table so we can refight the same battles of 8 years ago against a now reunited opposition?  I suppose it is emotionally satisfying in a way, but is it really the best choice we can make?  What a missed opportunity!

And, yes, this is unfair to Hillary.  It is not really her fault that she stands for battles of the past, but she does.  Politics is often unfair.  For example, Jeb Bush is now eliminated by the lousy job his brother did.  That is unfair, but it is just the way it is.  I do think that in 2008, Pres. Bush will be unpopular enough that she wins if nominated.  The question is how open a hearing does she get for her Presidential proposals versus the other Presidential choices she has, and what chances for political realignment does she create against our other choices?                

I am not an Edwards supporter, Obama is by far the best choice for the nomination.

They are looking at the general election.  The only one that even gives Republicans a chance is if Hillary runs(Recent polls of course .. who knows what they'll look like 6 months from now).  Just look at the polls.

I don't see it so much from Edwards' supporters but from Obama supporters pretty non-stop. I see a lot of cross over between Edwards and Clinton supporters and virtually none between Clinton and Obama.

That is the best assessment I've ever heard of Gore's mistake.

"never leaves a fingerprint"- I'm laughing too- you have to give them credit when credit is due.  I guess they have picked up something over 16 years.  They are really good at attacking their enemies and bad news.  But of course, they have had plenty of practice at it.  Let's see what happens when the books actually come out.

hate to brake the news to ya but those swing voters simply like Obama and they don't like Hillary, everything else is secondary to Americans when selecting a president, there is a reason why Reagan won 2 landslide wins.

Are you living on Mars?  Have you seen the latest head to head polls?  The only Dem who gives hope to the Repubs at this point is Hillary.

We donot know what they will say about the senate years. I am sure it will be a different reality from what her campaign is saying.

I learned one new thing from these books about Clinton:

She flunked the DC bar exam just after graduating from Law school. This surprised me ,since everybody talks of how brilliant she is.

Can we be a little bit more ambitious and want the next President to do more than just "fix" the Bush mess?

I agree with you on the allegations of copying which are ridiculous but I have to disagree about how being rich has anything to do with caring about poor people. Bad journalists use that excuse all of the time for how a candidate is weak because he or she has millions whilst speaking out against stagnant real wages and the declining middle class.

If a candidate has a history of promoting policy that hurts the poor, that's one thing. But a rich person, and a person who garners donations from wealthy people can have just the same interest in the welfare of the American people. Ari Berman used that kind of attack this month on Hillary in The Nation failing to understand that anyone running for president pretty much has to be a millionaire.

I think you are very paranoid and delusional.

I am not an edwards supporter, but your attack not only on Edwards, but his supporter's is repulsive and you will not win any friends on this blog for Hillary.

Yeah, another word, Miraleung, for that is trolling.

That's great but she did flunk the bar exam in DC. that is a fact. She doesnot like to talk about it and hid it from her best friend for years.

I could care less about her marriage. I care about policies, and I dis-agree totally with her stance and history on the Iraq war.

I have been to war and this is the most important issue facing the american people and opinion poll's bear me out.

That sound's like Bush

Good news for all of us is that we live in a Democracy where everybody has the same rights and voices.  

The voters will decide that one.

How can he be a VP if he could not take over the presidency on day one? She would be irresponsible to pick a VP who could not immediately assume the presidency on day one.

I'm hopin' for a Clinton/Clark ticket. They'd be unstoppable.

I think you totally hit it on the head about the primary and the presidency not being a novelty contest. I've long agonized over why it is that we always cast our lot with the newbie whose mistakes we don't know of and whose experience is lacking (like, say, George W.) instead of the people who have experience (and whose mistakes we do know of). Clinton, Richardson, Biden, even Dodd have proven themselves but invariably there's this predilection for the dark horse candidate who somehow won't repeat the mistakes made by his predecessor.

Anybody choosing a VP needs to choose some one who could step in immediately if something could happen to them. Reagan was shot only two months after his inaugauration.

Thus, I donot understand your reasoning that the VP would make more sense to Obama. Politically it would be a very poor move to accept the VP position. How many VP's get to be President on their own immediately after a two term president.

I am old know to remember that many said the same about JFK in 1960.

Thank god he was elected rather than Nixon. Especially with respect to the cuban missle crisis of 1962

I would not rule out that she might pick Obama. I do think it would be a high risk choice though. I think she will want to have an "experience" ticket with a VP who has as many years of experience as she does.

I think it is a little pre-mature to be talking about a ticket when the first primary is 7 months away.