Now you can vote on who you think will win the Democrats nomination for president.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? You decide, Click Here

By DAVID BROOKS

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she's just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama's lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi's judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they're drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she's probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let's take a look at what she's going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we'll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we'll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We'll have campaign aides blurting "blue dress" and only-because-he's-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn't vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain's approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton's long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn't know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It's like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:08 PM

Bill Richardson came out swinging Easter Sunday, slamming the "gutter" politics which he says is "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."

The New Mexico governor made the searing remarks appearing on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace.

Asked about James Carville's comments, as reported in the New York Times Saturday, that Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama was comparable to "when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver," an angry Richardson told Wallace, "I'm not going to get in the gutter like that."

Then he followed with a blistering attack on the Clinton's inner circle.

"And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."

He also said both campaigns have been too negative, but then slammed Clinton's campaign.

"And I think it's reached the point where the personal attacks - the 3:00 a.m. phone call ... you know, Senator Obama is patriotic," Richardson said, referencing the Clinton campaign ad that suggests Sen. Obama is not qualified to handle national security emergencies. "He's experienced. He is somebody that can lead this nation," Richardson said.

Richardson had been appointed by President Bill Clinton as Secretary of Energy and later as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Though still claiming loyalty to the Clintons, Richardson seemed exasperated by their unwillingness to step aside for Obama.

"I just feel the time has come to come together behind a candidate," Richardson said.

"...It shouldn't just be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," he said. "What about the rest of us? I got in the race. A lot of other candidates - Senator Biden, Dodd - that are qualified and experienced - you know, Senator Obama representing change...

"So I feel that it's important that we bring a new generation of leadership."

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

March 15, 2008

Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.

Reflecting how tense the situation has become, influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

The committee penalized Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries early in violation of national party rules, barring their delegates from being seated at the Democratic convention this summer. But with the Democratic contest now a scramble for every remaining delegate, the allocation of delegates from the two states could have a substantial impact on the nomination.

Mrs. Clinton won the primaries in both states, but the contests were not sanctioned by the party, neither candidate campaigned in the states and Mr. Obama did not even put his name on the ballot in Michigan.

Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

"If you're not going to count my vote, I'm not going to give you my money," said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida's delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

"If we do not resolve this issue," Mr. Korge said, "I think it's safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000."

The anger from Clinton fund-raisers seems to emanate mostly from Florida, where the impasse appears farthest from resolution. Democratic Party officials in Michigan on Friday proposed a new primary election on June 3 to make up for the January election.

The new vote, which would be run by state elections officials but financed with money raised from private sources, is far from a sure thing. It requires approval by the divided state legislature and from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. There is also no assurance that the party can quickly raise the estimated $10 million it would cost to redo the January contest.

Meanwhile, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Clinton supporter, raised the possibility of seating his state's delegates based on the January vote - which Mrs. Clinton won 50 percent to 33 percent - but awarding each Florida delegate only half a vote at the August convention. That would mean that Mrs. Clinton would narrow the delegate gap with Mr. Obama by a net of 19 delegates, rather than the 38 she would have gained under the January result. She trails Mr. Obama by more than 100 delegates, according to most counts.

Mr. Nelson discussed the plan with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on Thursday on the Senate floor. A Nelson aide said they told him they wanted the Florida problem resolved but did not endorse his half-a-vote plan. Other Florida Democrats said the Nelson proposal was only one of many ideas floating around.

Mr. Obama has consistently rejected seating any delegates based on the January votes in Michigan or Florida, which he said were unfair because neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. In Michigan, while Mrs. Clinton's name was on the primary ballot, many Obama supporters voted for "uncommitted," a line that got 40 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton's 55 percent.

As for the latest Michigan proposal, aides to Mrs. Clinton signaled they were likely to go along with the plan, but the Obama campaign was more skeptical, according to people involved in the process.

"We have to do something," said State Senator Tupac A. Hunter, a co-chairman of the Obama Michigan campaign, "but I don't know if this is even legal."

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said of the Michigan proposal: "Nearly 600,000 Americans participated in the Michigan primary in January, and we have a solemn obligation to ensure that their voices are heard. The best way to make that happen is to honor their votes, but if that isn't possible there should be a new state primary that doesn't leave taxpayers footing the bill."

He said the Clinton campaign was waiting to hear more details.

The plan was negotiated by Senator Carl Levin, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers. The four Democrats, who all claim neutrality in the presidential contest, have been working with state and national party officials and representatives of the two campaigns to try to find a solution to the delegate impasse.

"We agree that the Michigan delegation should be seated at the convention, and without a fight before the Credentials Committee or on the floor of the convention," they said in a statement Friday afternoon.

A person close to the negotiations, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks, said the Clinton campaign was receptive to the June revote plan but the Obama forces were holding back for now.

The person said that Michigan Republicans, who control the State Senate, said they would not stand in the way. But Democrats, who control the state House of Representatives, are divided between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. "The Clinton people say they're not going to block it," the source said. "The question is what the Obama people are going to do."

The situation in Florida seemed more intractable, with Clinton supporters arguing the party's prospects in November could be jeopardized if a satisfactory resolution is not found. Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.'s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.

"My wife and I could max out, and we won't," said Ira Leesfield, a Miami lawyer who has given $61,500 to the committee since 1997. "We're dissatisfied with the D.N.C. not taking the bull by the horns."

About 250 top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton met Wednesday in Washington. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign's chairman and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, encouraged the donors to pick up the phone and call party leaders, as did Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview Friday that he did not approve of donors' holding back their contributions to the D.N.C.

A review of records filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that top donors to the committee gave more to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Obama. Of 196 people who have given at least $30,000 to the D.N.C. since 2005, it appears 71 of them contributed to Mrs. Clinton, with donations totaling more than $295,000, while 67 gave to Mr. Obama for about $189,000. And 25 gave to both.

Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the D.N.C., defended Mr. Dean's handling of the dispute.

"While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results," Ms. Paxton said. "It's never productive to negotiate through the process, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that's fair and consistent with the rules."

Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York, and Abby Goodnough from Tallahassee, Fla.

Hillary Clinton won the Democrat primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday as Barack H. Obama won the Vermont primary.
The wins seem to have energized the Clinton campaign that just a week ago some argued was finished. Obama still has a commanding lead in the delegate count and it's starting to really look like the nomination could be decided by the super delegates.

As of March 5, Clinton has secured 1,457 delegates and Obama has secured 1,566. 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination.
According to Jonathon Alter's article, 'Hillary's Math Problem' http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
Clinton could win all the remaining primaries by comfortable margins and still not overtake Obama's delegate lead.

Meanwhile John McCain has wrapped up the Republican Party nomination with his wins Tuesday.

It looks like Clinton and Obama will be fighting it out until summer. The Dems wish it was over, but it's not.

March 3, 2008
Toledo, Ohio

The question everyone seems to be asking is: "Will Hillary drop out of the race if she loses Ohio?"

Barack Obama has the momentum with 11 straight primary wins, but Clinton has a slight lead in Ohio and a win here could keep her in the race.
Bill Clinton has basically said if she loses in Ohio she's finished.
Obama has been advertising heavily in Ohio, I hear one of his ads about every 10 minutes on the radio, and seems to be gaining a little traction here.

This brings me to something I've been thinking about for about a week, I've been thinking about doing the unthinkable. Yes, I've been thinking of voting in the Ohio primary for Her Eminence, Hitlery.
I know some of you might think I've just lost my marbles but the fact is, I don't want Clinton to throw in the towel yet.

Clinton and Obama have been beating each other up pretty good lately. If Clinton can just keep fighting and stay in this until the Democrat convention, it will continue to get ugly between them. In fact, the longer this goes on the more ugly it will get. Aside from being good entertainment, this is providing some good ammunition for John McCain. While McCain coasts to the nomination with no competition left, Clinton and McCain continue to say bad things about each other and risk further fracturing the Democrat Party.

Just think how Obama's supporters will feel if Hillary wins the nomination by way of the super delegate vote. They'll be furious. Some of them so angry that they may sit out the general election rather than vote for Hillary, who they'll view as having stolen the nomination. Some might even vote for McCain instead.
So That's why I'm considering voting for 'She who must be obeyed'.
I've still got one more day to change my mind.

Ohio Democratic voters are nearly split over their choice for president, according to new Plain Dealer poll that shows Hillary Clinton clinging to a 4 percentage point lead over Barack Obama in Ohio, 47 percent to 43 percent.

Trailing in national polls and in the all-important delegate count, Clinton has been looking to Ohio as a firewall to campaign of Obama, whose 11-straight presidential contest victories has propelled him to front-runner status.

But a small Clinton win in the Buckeye State would only marginally help her since she and Obama would split the state's 141 pledged delegates, the bulk of which are awarded as a proportion of the popular vote in each of the state's 18 Congressional districts.

Clinton's lead among Democratic voters is from women, who favor her over Obama, 53 percentage to 38 percent. Men favor Obama by nearly the same margin.

Obama, who is the first black presidential front-runner in history, is crushing Clinton among black voters, 83 percent to 8 percent, according the survey.

Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., conducted the poll February 27-29. It is based on phone interviews with 625 registered Democratic voters who said they plan to vote in the March 4 primary. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points, meaning that either candidate's support could be 4 percentage points higher or lower.

Voters surveyed said they see little difference between the candidates position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Democratic voters blame for the loss of jobs in Ohio and which has been a central them of both campaigns.

Democratic voters support Clinton's health care plan over Obama's, 33 percent to 18 percent. Forty-one percent said they were unsure. The candidates commercials and mailers have featured their health care plans.

The poll also suggests there's not much either candidate can do to peel away voters from the other side. More than 90 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters said they are sticking with their choice.

February 24, 2008

Tina Fey appeared on Saturday Night Live as a guest host last night and used her appearance to campaign for Hillary Clinton (See videos below). Fey, the former head writer for SNL, used the opening sketch as well as a segment of Weekend Update to poke fun at the media for their obvious support of Barack Obama and urged voters in Texas and Ohio to vote for Hillary Clinton because "Bitch is the new black".

Here is a rough transcript of what Tina Fey said on Weekend Update:

Tina Fey:I want to say something about those calling Hillary a bitch...

Yeah, well she is...So am I, so is she (pointing at Weekend Update news host Amy Poehler.) Deal with it.

Bitches get shit done (Amy says yeah and starts nodding her head in rhythmn and saying more yeahs,uuh huhs and a you go girl.)

Like back in grammar school, they could have had priests teaching you but no, they had tough old nuns who sleep on cots and can hit ya and you HATE those b*tches. But the end of the school year you sure knew the capital of Vermont

So come on....Its not too late Texas and Ohio, get on board... Bitch is the new Black!

This makes me wonder if Clinton should pay for this as a campaign ad.

Poor Hillary. She can't afford to attack Obama where he's vulnerable, but she can't afford not to. Even if she does, it's likely it won't resonate with a leftist base made to order for Obama. Worse yet, it's probably too late anyway.

The irony is that if Hillary had been willing to be who she really is -- an antiwar leftist -- she'd probably be in the driver's seat right now. But her calculated and inconsistent shift to the center several years ago in anticipation of a general election created a gigantic Obama-shaped hole on the left.

Hindsight reveals that Hillary's strategy of holding herself out as the battle-tested, experienced candidate was ill-conceived. Not only was it untrue -- most of her experience was vicarious, which doesn't really count -- but the very theme of experience did not play well with a leftist base that was agitating for change, radical change, even if it had to come from a greenhorn. Hillary's claim of mature leadership just reinforced that she is part of the Washington establishment that gave us Iraq.

Even if that issue is becoming moot, its bitter memory is not. Hillary will always be damaged goods to the unforgiving antiwar left, no matter how often she pretends she was duped by a "dope" into voting for the resolution authorizing war.

Of course, Hillary says she's for change, too -- she wants to revert to the Clinton glory years. But with Bill's unattractive side -- defensive, combative, narcissistic -- in such prominent display on the campaign trail, voters are reminded more of the Clinton scandals than their so-called glory years. Simply put, the left wants change, and Hillary has no credibility as a change agent.

So where is Obama vulnerable? I believe he does have a glaring weakness, but Hillary is uniquely positioned not be able to exploit it.

Not long ago, Hillary added to her brief against Obama the charge that he is all form and no substance, flowery speeches without specifics, promises without solutions. I think she was close with this, but she slightly missed the mark.

Just because Obama is given to lofty oratory and inspires hope with platitudes doesn't mean he's an empty vessel. I'd fear an Obama presidency much less if he were just an empty vessel.

We underestimate him at our peril. He is plenty smart and quite capable. And he does have an agenda that, sadly for us, is substance-rich. His generalities-laden, silver-tongued optimism conceals a hard-core leftist blueprint for this country that would make Dennis Kucinich look like Milton Friedman.

Obama's fancy speech doesn't reveal emptiness as much as a lack of realism and, possibly, deception. He waxes eloquent about unity, bipartisanship and hope. But does anyone, let alone Hillary, ever ask him to explain precisely how he would achieve such harmony when pursuing a far-leftist agenda that is anathema to at least a majority of this center-right nation?

How unified do you think Americans would be if Obama were to pursue a policy of retreat and defeat in Iraq just as we are on the verge of wining there? Will the right sit idly by while he implements his version of socialized medicine? How about more onerous taxes? Further entitlement spending? Open borders?

As a Hail Mary, perhaps Hillary could say: "Barack makes nice-sounding words. But he's not being straight with you. I'll be straight with you. We Democrats do offer hope, but it's not the kind of hope Republicans are going to like. We can't promise you we'll achieve perfect harmony or bipartisanship. In fact, we can pretty much guarantee Republicans will try to obstruct our program for change -- you've seen how they've blocked our plans since we took control of Congress -- because we have a different vision, a progressive vision looking to the future. Barack gives you the false hope that this is going to be easy. I'm telling you the truth -- I'm giving you the reality. Like at all other points in our history, it is going to be a struggle against those who don't share our vision. But it will be worth it, and we'll prevail, because we have the right vision, the noble vision that is best for the people and reflects their will."

The problem is that Hillary might even be worse off using that approach because to attack "hope" and to try to put a damper on Barack's infectious optimism is like trying to badmouth motherhood and apple pie.

Nor is she, being sympathetic to socialism herself, in a position to point out Obama's inconsistency in pretending to love individual responsibility and entrepreneurship while recommending mostly government-based solutions.

Let's face it: Short of a major scandal or a vice-presidential nod, Hillary's pretty much out of luck.

Posted by David Limbaugh on February 21, 2008 05:37 PM to David Limbaugh

Texas could be the last stand in Hillary Clinton's run for the White House. Even Bill Clinton admits that the Texas and Ohio primaries are almost do-or-die for Hillary.
"If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you," the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech.
Based on the demographics of the state, Texas could prove to be a difficult challenge for Mrs. Clinton.
With polls showing the race essentially tied, several independent political analysts say that even if Clinton takes an overwhelming share of Latino voters, she will be hard-pressed to carry the state, much less capture a large share of delegates.
Voting in the Texas Primary will be March 4 and Texas will allocate 193 delegates.
Texas has a one-of-a-kind primary/caucus system, where two-thirds of the state's delegates will be awarded in the March 4 primary, while the remaining third will depend on the results of caucuses later that evening.
Another factor is the open nature of the primary. Texas, like Ohio which also votes on March 4, allows independents to vote in the Democrat primary which has favored Obama in other states.
Clinton could expect to win up to 2/3's of the Latino vote but Obama has been pulling 80-90 percent of the black vote.

Sunday, February 17, 2008; B06

AT HIS BEST, Sen. Barack Obama is a tribune of hope, an eloquent politician-prophet who unabashedly calls on Americans to remember that "we rise or fall as one nation." He is the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner today in part because, to many people, he forthrightly identifies the country's problems but in a language of hope, optimism and generosity.

And then there are moments like last Wednesday, when Mr. Obama struck some unusually sour notes in what was billed as a major economic policy address. Yes, there were the trademark invocations of "shared sacrifice and shared prosperity." But Mr. Obama's remarks were also tinged with an angrier, and intellectually sloppier, message. We thought we'd heard the last of class warfare and populism when former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally bowed out of the race. In his speech, Mr. Obama quoted Mr. Edwards approvingly; he then echoed him in implying that he could pay for new domestic programs with an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and in exaggerating the "millions" of job losses attributable to trade agreements. Mr. Obama even seemed to draw a line connecting the current subprime mortgage crunch to "decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China."

These simplifications might help Mr. Obama beat out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the dubious prize of an Edwards endorsement. They might play well in Ohio, where foreclosures are rampant, some plants have shut because of international competition -- and the Democrats hold a crucial primary on March 4. But they are not worthy of a candidate whose past speeches and writings demonstrate that he understands the benefits of free trade. "I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade," Mr. Obama declared, candidly, then quickly promised that "I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers." It's not clear what he means by this. Mr. Obama supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement, which contained such protections, but he opposes the proposed pact with Colombia, which has labor and environmental provisions similar to those in the Peru deal. To account for the seeming contradiction, Mr. Obama echoes organized labor's exaggerated complaints about human rights violations in Colombia. He doesn't support the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which promises the greatest benefits of all the pending trade deals to the U.S. economy -- but is fiercely opposed by a narrow slice of the auto industry and the auto workers union.

Thanks in large part to former president Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party abandoned protectionism and embraced the challenges of economic globalization. Still, like the campaign of 2004, in which eventual nominee John Kerry railed against "Benedict Arnold CEOs," the 2008 Democratic primary is in large part a contest for the support of the party's most anti-trade elements (especially labor unions) and thus has prompted populist rhetoric from the major candidates, who feared being outflanked by Mr. Edwards. Until now, Mr. Obama had not been the worst offender in this regard. Ms. Clinton has been egregiously quick to recast herself as a trade skeptic; her first response to Mr. Obama's speech was to issue a press release denying that she had said some nice things about NAFTA in the past, as Mr. Obama asserted. But its doubtful that either the Illinois senator or Ms. Clinton, as president, would actually adopt the entire anti-trade agenda of the labor unions whose support they now seek. All the more reason to be disappointed at the posture they are taking now.

The media has always been kind to the Clintons. Their ability to not report certain things, or to find other stories to take attention away always made me wonder if the 'mainstream media' was actually unbiased.
Here are some of the records set during the Clinton administration that most in the media won't report:

Records Set

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Crime Stats

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

Campaign Finance Investigation

- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.