And if you think the Clintons are playing "dirty" and "tough", I do believe you'll faint when you see what happens when former Swift Boat patron Bob Perry dumps $250 MILLION dollars in the general election sliming whomever wins the democratic primary.

Geebus. Stop the outrage and roll the frickin' sleeves up and fight for christ's sake. Think of it as a proving ground for the onslaught yet to come.

This is where you are mistaken. I have no problem with John Edwards or Barack Obama. They have both tried to deliver their message, like them or not, without trashing the others. My problem is specifically with Hillary and Bill Clinton. All this stuff started when Hillary was smoked in Iowa.

I don't consider myself a "fanboy" in any way. I'm actually a pretty mature guy. I just refuse to accept any more of the lying and cheating of the Clintons. Hillary's trying to change the rules in Michigan after the ballots are cast says all you need to know about her ethics. Try and justify it if you want.

Or if you want to be very Clintonian, just claim you never agreed: What word? She *didn't* agree not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It was the dem party, not hillary, that stripped those two states of delegates.

And the argument that it was just the Democratic Party that made those rules? I thought she was running as a member of that party.

Yes, I'm sure they would. A rather telling short list. Amazing that your quick list doesn't include torture, violating the constitution, a fiasco of a war, etc. Rather, it includes a) an incident which embarrassed Republicans, b) a lame attempt at getting the overwhelming influence of money out of politics by a dork and c) doing what every single republican in history has done. Just because you may hate Bush for all the most bizarre reasons and none of what any other human on earth would consider to be a reasonable reason doesn't mean you've won any brownie points in my book. The enemy of my enemy is often my enemy as well.

It's also hilarious that you're oh-so-very upset about pardoning Mark Rich, who was at worst a mere criminal. While pardoning Scooter Libby for exposing NOC CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction, during a time of war for purely political reasons doesn't even register with you. But hey, more power to you. You've obviously got lines that can't be crossed.

Have fun with the CDS. 8 years is a long, long, LONG time.

I'm quite confident that as revolted as Robert was with Clinton, he doesn't feel the same revulsion for Bush.

Don't be so sure. My list of grievances against President Bush would fill a couple of books. To name just a few, the Terry Schiavo incident (a breaking point for me), signing McCain-Feingold, letting spending get out of control, etc.

Where Vince Foster is concerned, you must know nothing about me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist of any sort.

Point taken. I was merely pointing out the contrast between Clinton's two terms and the two terms of the current president. I'm quite confident that as revolted as Robert was with Clinton, he doesn't feel the same revulsion for Bush.

But regardless, my point about Clinton Derangement Syndrome remains. One can criticize what is happening without having CDS. I'm really surprised Robert didn't bring up Vince Foster, quite frankly.

However, saying that doesn't make Clinton's problems evaporate.

Never even implied that it would. There's a difference between criticizing and merely using an issue as an opportunity to put back on the CDS simply to bash and rehash how much one loaths the Clintons.

As I said, one plus of Hillary is how much she's going to drive a large segment of y'all on the right absolutely bat sh*t insane. It's going to be a real treat to do 8 years worth of blog posts contrasting the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" with "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". I can't tell you how much fun it will be to hear "Hitlery" for the 50 millionth time...

Good times.

I think the point here, which I agree with, is that it's poor form to argue during the nomination race for the delegates to count in order to gain favor in a state you promised the party you wouldn't campaign in.

I see your point there. I chalk this up to "politicians acting like politicians." Which granted is not exactly great praise, but not likely to tear apart the party either.

Pug:

You know, Tlaloc, there is still something to be said for keeping your word. Even for Hillary Clinton.

What word? She *didn't* agree not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It was the dem party, not hillary, that stripped those two states of delegates.

Many of us who are coming down with Clinton Derangement Syndrome are Democrats.

The problem seems to be less about Clinton and more about Obama. Certain Obama supporters seem to regard their choice as divinely mandated and take offense that he hasn't been coronated.

I find it odd, personally. All three major Dem candidates have serious drawbacks. They all also have significant strengths. Obama really isn't objectively better than Hillary or Edwards, and yet he has this devoted cult of fanboys that flock to him.

*shrug* whatever.

Man, where were you during the '90s? I mean, Democrats afflicted with the syndrome were the primary reason the whole impeachment fiasco went as far as it did.

How quickly people forget.

I don't think it is mutually exclusive to criticize both the Clinton and Bush administrations--and Robert wasn't making a comparison.

If it makes you feel any better, as much I disliked a great deal about the Clinton administration, I would agree with you that if we stack up the key negatives from the Bush admin and compare them to those of the Clinton admin, Bush's are worse. However, saying that doesn't make Clinton's problems evaporate.

As I wrote back in November (the context being that some were arguing that "Clinton fatigue" would defeat Hillary in the primaries):

I will say this: can anyone really argue with a straight face that the problems of the 1990s were actually worse than those of the 2000s? Forget any issues of blame, and recognizing that it isn’t as if the 2000s haven’t had plenty of good, but please—there is no contest between the menu of issues on the table now as opposed to a decade ago.

And in another post:

while we may have been debating stains on dresses, inappropriate usages of cigars, and the precise definition of sex, one has to admit that all of that looks almost whimsical where compared to protracted questioning of AG nominees over whether waterboarding is torture , debates over the limits of domestic surveillance, or discussions of how many years we will be militarily committed in Iraq.

Having said all that, however, doesn't mean that I want Clinton to be the next President.

Hal, this may not be the good news you think it is. Many of us who are coming down with Clinton Derangement Syndrome are Democrats.

You know, Tlaloc, there is still something to be said for keeping your word. Even for Hillary Clinton.

She agreed to the rules, whether they were stupid or not, and now she wants them changed when the outcome will be to her benefit.

There are plenty of Democrats who are sick and tired of this kind of thing, along with the lying, that is coming from the Clintons. I think you better reconsider how ridiculous it really is when someone says they are tearing the party apart.

If the Clintons think they can just go back and mend fences after all this, I don't think Bill's alleged charm will be enough for a lot of Democrats. Hillary, of course, has no charm.

I can see giving them back as a gesture, but I think it is rather tacky to make the argument during the primary.

I think removing the delegates was a poor move, but the parties weren't really in a position to control the move backwards.

I think one thing I have noticed about this primary season, is all the whining about Iowa and New Hampshire getting first shot at picking the winner is really meaningless.

To date we have had several primaries, and a clear winner still isn't there, and I am not even sure we will have one after Super Tuesday for both parties.

The early races are really more about weeding out the also rans, than choosing a winner the eventual winner.

I hope that the parties will get together after the 2008 and work out a plan that can make things better, but somebody is always going to go last and somebody is gonna be unhappy about it.

I do think the decision to penalize the states by taking away delegates was short sighted. Why would the party place itself in the position of possibly nominating someone who couldn't get the highest delegate count of all the states.

The courts have upheld the right of the parties to do this. The courts decision is all the more ironic when you consider some states force both parties to allow outsiders to vote in their primaries/caucuses.