Notice how the beginning of this story employs "today's Bill Clinton tirade" to set the atmosphere of the story? These over-the-top exagerations have become the pattern of Election 2008 news coverage.

If you look up the meaning of "tirade" in your Merriam-Webster you will find that it is: "a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language."

The hack who wrote this piece didn't spice-up the story enough. She should have added "Bill Clinton also struck...." somewhere in it to really top it off.

These ill-conceived shenanigans by news "reporters" are beginning to be scrutinized. Starting with the expose of what really happened between Bill Clinton and the CNN reporter:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801240005?f=h_latest

I loved every part of that video. Wish Bill could run again :)

I saw absolutely Clinton anger or lipping off or anything.

Ya want ta see Clinton go off?

Go watch how he cut that moron from The FoxNewsWhorehouse Chris Wallace down to size. That was going off and it was well deserved by Wallace.

THIS IS SO STUPID. BILL CLINTON WAS NOT ANGRY AT ALL AND WAS NOT EVEN "GIVING THEM HELL"

HERE IS THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/35404.html

Clinton said the reporter, and the network was doing biased reporting, that they were a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign and extorted "shame on you" to the reporter. It seem rediculous for Bill Clinton to be saying "shame on you" to anybody, let alone a woman. Those are very serious charges for a person to make. But, let's step back for a minute. Is Bill the candidate? Is he running for office? He is overshadowing Hillary by a mile and is hurting her campaign severely this week. If he was factually accurate about anything he might be taken seriously, but he's not. He's on some wacked out tangent and blaming the media is rediculous, especially since the media is ALREADY heavily biased towards Clinton for fear of being labeled misogynistic. Is this what people want for the next four years?

Oh, and I didn't hear a denial from Bill Clinton to the question. Has anybody interviewed the six women he allegedly took to the caucus in Nevada? Can we see what they have to say and who they are?

Oh, bullshit.
I saw the clip and Bill wasn't yelling. He was pointing out the truth--the MSM would rather report on guttersniping than issues.

Rachel unfortunately I have noticed some pro-Clinton bias in your posts lately (undermining some readers' views that HuffPo is a pro-Obama site).

The problem with Clinton's remarks was his hypocrisy. First, he castigates Yellin and CNN by extension for not asking question about issues that concern voters. Then he goes on for more than a few minutes and instead of talking about issues he talks about the controversies he claims to deplore. The fact is he wants to fight over these controversies and he believes by demonizing CNN he can curry sympathy for his wife with regard to the way things are reporting.

Also his reference to John Lewis and Andy Young is frankly pretty sad. For a former President to feel necessary to cite prominent civil tights leaders because his own credibility is questionable is sad and makes me feel as if I wasted a lot of energy defending him from the diversionary impeachment of the 1990's. He could have made a short response but he wanted to stir something up so he went on for minutes and never discussed the issues that he claims citizens care about.

Being compared to Atwater? I can hardly believe the CNN repoorter asked that question.

That's National Enquirer crud.

At one of Bill Clinton's appearances in SC on Wednesday, an elderly black man stood up and said "black people are voting for Obama because he's black. But he can't win and he will make sure the Republicans win in November." Clinton showed "concern" while a few others nodded.

After it was over, reporters tried to get the man's name. He refused to identify himself and left with his BODYGUARD! Now, tell me. How many people attend town hall meetings with bodyguards, especially elderly black men in SC? This guy was a plant by the Clinton campaign used to continue to play the race issue.

The '90s are over people; WAKE THE F*CK UP!

Do you want to go back to a Republican­-controlle­d Congress? That's what will happen if Hillary wins.

Red-state Democrat Reps and Senators will lose their re-elections b/c of association with HIllary if she is elected.

The press, whom I will not sully the word journalism for, are doing a terrible job. If all one listens to, sees, or reads is the reporting on any supposed incident one might get the impression that Senators Obama and Clinton were moments away from a fist fight. However, if one instead views the source material in whole (i.e. watching a speech or a debate), then the distortions of the media (again not journalists)becomes apparent. The media is failing us by not accurately informing us. Instead the media presents opinion and misrepresentation. What ever happened to Who What, Where, When, and Why?

I'm not sure what the early signs of dementia are, but irascability can surely be a symptom. Bill is doing a lot of damage to his wife's candidacy, to his party, and to his reputation. It's becoming obvious that Hillary's election would constitute a 3rd term for Bill. Sure, Hillary's her own woman, without a doubt. But Bill intends to inject his own ideas and policy preferences into his wife's presidency, should that occur. However, Bill's ridiculous, mean-spirited, and truth-twisting tirades against Obama may well be a factor in costing Hillary the nomination. I least I hope they do. The last thing we need is this couple back in the White House, particulary with Hillary's newly exposed penchant for obfuscating, lying, and secrecy. Hillary's "experience" has apparently turned her into just another Washington politico, no different than hundreds of others who say one thing and do another, and who are beholden to special interests rather than the people who they were elected to represent.

Does it ever cross your mind for just a second that the people who "post" on these blogs may possibly work for the candidates or possibly party representatives?
After all...I don't know who these bloggers really are...most bloggers appear to have agendas...and they can say most anything without recrimination.
Would it be so farfetched to think that most of these 'posters' are people planted to raise questions?? Just a thought...but think about it for a second...if politicians will basically resort to anything to get elected, why would this tactic be out of bounds?

Does it ever cross your mind for just a second that the people who "post" on these blogs may possibly work for the candidates or possibly party representatives?
After all...I don't know who these bloggers really are...most bloggers appear to have agendas...and they can say most anything without recrimination.
Would it be so farfetched to think that most of these 'posters' are people planted to raise questions?? Just a thought...but think about it for a second...if politicians will basically resort to anything to get elected, why would this tactic be out of bounds?

What we know about Republicans is they do not vote "FOR" issues or leaders, they won't "AGAINST" whatever they are told to fear at the moment. With this insight, Dems need to vote strategically. All of the Republican candidates have major flaws, including and especially McCain. None of them appeal to all the factions of the conservative voter. McCain has problems with the neocons who want the US to be Jack Bauer in 24 and torture, he has problems with the bigots- amnesty for illegal immigrants, anyone? And Wall Street? He is against Bush's tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

So, in order for him (or any Republican) to win, the Dems need to have a candidate they can promote as something to fear far worse than the differences they have with the Republican nominee.

Unfortunately Hillary and Obama can deliver the red meat they need to instill enough fear into republicans to drive them to the polls. Whether it be Clinton hating, fear of women in control, fear of a black man in control, fear of a (wink wink) possible muslim in control, Bill Clinton's penis, etc, etc.

John Edwards is the only candidate that will not only adhere to the Dem principles, but most importantly, the Republicans are not going to be fearful enough of a white southern man (albiet with great hair and a big house) to vote for a Republican they can't fully get behind.

Hillary and Obama will still be in the Senate and still have fabulous futures ahead in the party (if their bickering doesn't completely destroy them and us). Vote strategically. Edwards is our only hope and the GOP's worst nightmare. It's about time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot and feeding the monster.

Go Edwards Go!