dd,
Maybe you are too young to recall, but, those eight years were really great. There were many reasons why desipte all of the Republican attacks that Bill had 60% approval. If only Bill could've ran a third term...

Now about Reagan. Obviously most of the writers are too young to remember him. This was one of the worst and most polarizing presidents. Remember he was subject of impeachment requests--and not for issues like Monica. But, instead, real crimes. Reagan's only real defense was that he was hands-off (something Obama thinks is good) and was already suffering Althiemers while still in office).

I am not sure what constituency Obama is trying to lure, but I am shocked that any union member would support a candidate liking Reagan. Any Consitution and freedome loving Democrat shouldn't. Maybe as written, there is a sucker born every minute.

"the racism in the comments section by alleged Democrats is appalling."

Where? None in this thread. But unfortunately, a few in others here and on most Web sites.

Wow, Wikipedia says it, so it must be true.

Please give us a break, no amount of info will cover the mess that Obama has gotten himself into in Nevada. Win or lose, he loses.

How about other cliches? Or, more simply, adding Nevada to the list of 3rd world countries with discredited elections? With the culinary union caucus sites, the whole process is compromised. Too bad for Obama that he got caught up in this. If he wins its because of a rigged caucus. If he loses, with this rigging, he really loses because even stacking the deck didn't help. Either way, he's tainted his reputation and loses in Nevada.

Good to see Bill out there Hillary. Whatever role he takes in the upcoming Hillary Clinton administration or as her personal representative it will be an improvement over the incompetence of the Bush administration and the role either Cheney or Rove plays, and played.

Obama is the loser in the Nevada caucuses because of his culinary union connection and their intimidation. At the end of the day it won't matter who or how the caucuses got set up. What counts is that they are rigged by the union and he supported this effort. He wins, it is not a credible win, he loses, its equally bad because he can't win even when the deck is stacked in his favor. Obama loses both ways.

Obama is the loser out of this. If he "wins" it is because the union stuffed the caucus balloting and the result will have no credibility. If he "loses" then it suggests he couldn't even win with the union's tactics. Either way, he loses.

This will clearly be a corrupt caucus. Hopefully there will be monitors at the caucus sites and prosecution of any intimidation.

BTW, I haven't seen anything new about the pledges required of union members. Has this been dropped?

Hopefully the courts will shut down the casino caucus sites tomorrow, else offer the democrats the opportunity to reschedule the caucus once they can fix this. Hopefully, too, we will see some folks prosecuted for voter intimidation.

If you were interviewing these three for a job to run your company, who would you choose? Clinton comes across as the most knowledgeable, most mature, and best to start from day one. Obama might talk well, but you'd better figure on a rough learning curve, and Edwards, well, I'd typically want to interview three candidates before making a decision.

If Obama doesn't poison the campaign, he might make a good VP, otherwise, he should build up some serious legislative experience that goes being voting Present. He should support Hillary over the next eight years and position himself to be her natural successor.

Clinton is the best candidate today. BTW, I like her timely catch last night: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic." He failed even begging to his Saudi friends. I do not think we would ever see Clinton begging to anyone, ever.