This is what Democrats have to be constantly monitoring and actively fighting back against instead of ignoring it and letting him define his opponents however he chooses to with his fast growing audience of well over 20 million people now:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Clinton Interview Overview...

As Always, It's All About Bill Clinton

Rush's opening monologue sets the stage for a dissection of the Clinton interview from the nation's foremost Clintonologist...

Stop the Tape! Stop the Tape! Stop The Tape!

Rush Monologue Transcripts and Stop/Start Analysis of the Clinton Audio:
• Rush Still Gets Under Clinton's Skin • GOP Backed Clinton's Bin Laden Strike
• Richard Clarke's Book Indicts Clinton
• Michael Scheuer: Clinton Is Lying
• Childish Bill Caught with Socks Down
• How Other Interviewers Treated Him
• Rush's Clinton Interview Wrap-Up
Join Rush 24/7: Get the Podcast

 Pearls of Wisdom...

• Dean Only Democrat Crazy Enough to Back Clinton
• Democrats Panicked Over Bin Laden Death Rumor
• Hawkeye Poll Bad News for Hillary, Good for GOP
• Dem Nightmare: Gas Price Plummets | No Hurricanes
• TIME: Why The Democrat Wave Could Be a Washout
• WaPo: Both Parties Sensing Tighter House Races
• Disgusting Democrats Try To Destroy George Allen

 Only @ Rush 24/7...

Take a trip back in time to unforgettable Clinton moments like the Laugh/Cry video with Rush's prescient commentary...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14907031/page/2/

MEET THE PRESS

Transcript for Sept. 24

MR. RUSSERT: After the 2002 midterm elections, you said that Democrats “failed to offer a convincing case that they could manage national security during difficult times.” Do you think the Democrats have made the case in 2006?

MR. CLINTON: I think we’re doing better. I think, I think every Democrat I know—first, we have nine Iraq war veterans running for House seats. We’ve got President Reagan’s former Navy secretary running a great race in the Senate in Virginia. And every Democrat I know—now, I just heard Amy Klobuchar, a candidate in Minnesota, a prosecutor, speak, and they say something like this: “We face a serious threat to our security from terrorism. The question is not whether we meet it, but how. I do not agree with a lot of decisions made in Iraq,” and then the candidate says whatever they say. “I believe that we have made a mistake not intensifying our efforts in Afghanistan to stabilize a moderate pro-American democracy, to fight—to hunt bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. We made a terrible mistake favoring big tax cuts instead of implementing the 9/11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations. And if we really want to be more secure, we need to have a more vigorous effort to get this country independent of foreign oil. So I will fight for the security of America, and don’t believe them when they say, ‘If we don’t agree with everything they’ve done in Iraq, we can’t be trusted.’” That is, once you say that, once you lay that predicate, then I think our differences on everything from energy to the economy to the deficit to the minimum wage to you name it will carry the Democrats to a substantial victory.

But what they were able to do in 2002 was a great shell game. I mean, you’ve got to give Karl Rove political credit. I mean, they were against the Homeland Security bill for eight and a half months, then they decided they were for it. Then they decided—because they couldn’t make any votes on us, because we’d been supportive of them in Afghanistan, in the weapons inspections in Iraq—so they said, “We’ll just take all the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees, and then when they don’t support this bill, we’ll say, ‘If you’re not for this bill just the way we wrote it, you obviously don’t want to protect America from terror.’” And it was, you know, a lot of people bought it, but I think it’s because we didn’t effectively address it.

In other words, Mr. Rove, and you know, the, the Republican leaders now, and his predecessors too, Mr. DeLay, all those guys, they’re in business to beat us. They believe in what they’re doing. And our job is to tell the American people that we, too, want to protect their security. And we have different ideas about how to do it, and then to trust the people to decide. But if you leave people with the impression that your disagreement with the president’s Iraq policy is not part of a broader campaign against terror, then you get in trouble. I think if we do it this time—and I think we will—we’ll do fine.

It would be nice if some Democrats would seriously organize to help "bust" the "NewsBusters!"

Here is how the extreme right wing NewsBusters.org responded to Keith Olbermann's comments.  There are MANY comments after the post below if you open up this link:

http://newsbusters.org/node/7891

In Latest Rant, Olbermann Demeans Wallace as 'Monkey,' Bush as Not 'True American'

Olbermann: "The headlines about it are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back. It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as 'crazed.' Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al-Qaeda. The nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit."

"Nonetheless, the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current presidential administration. 'At least I tried,' he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. 'That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.' Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.

"President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old, before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

"Except for this: After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts, that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility entirely Mr. Clinton's. Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly. As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him by proxy. Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.

"Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen. He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden. Mr. Clinton was brave. Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

"The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of that slapdash theory is that the right-wingers who have advocated it, who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews, have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw. Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20 of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so? That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie Wag the Dog. Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgement. Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, the future Attorney General, echoed Coats. Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

 

"And, of course, were it true Clinton had been distracted by the Lewinsky witch hunt, who on Earth conducted the Lewinsky witch hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years? Who corrupted the political media? Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air the counterterrorism analysts, like Dr. Richard Haass and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of the cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us here? Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was 'All Monica All The Time'? Who distracted whom?

"This is, of course, where, as is inevitable, Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are. The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four. But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you. The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.

   "Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office

on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly. Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us safe ever since, a statement that might range anywhere from zero to 100 percent true. We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything. And, of course, the one time you ever have given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted tower in Los Angeles wrong.
"Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt, what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack: You did not try. You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor. You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people. Then, you blamed your predecessor. That would be a textbook definition, sir, of cowardice.
"To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past. That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell, gave us in the novel 1984. The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.' 'Power is not a means; it is an end.' 'One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. 'The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.'
"Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862: 'We must disenthrall ourselves.' Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence. He might well have. 'We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.' And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
"The free pass has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush. You did not act to prevent 9/11. We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11. You have failed us, then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11. You have failed us anew in Afghanistan. And you have now tried to hide your failures by blaming your predecessor. And now you exploit your failure to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway, which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding, which only humiliates our country further in the world, and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate. And there it is, sir: Are yours the actions of a true American? I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

http://www.drudgereport.com/ 

this Mitch - as another example of GOP slime tactics

[ BTW did you see today at Huff that Rice is challenging Clinton on 9/11 comments... well this is the great political move that CLinton handed them ( did you read Nora Ephron's comments on Clinton Fox ... I agree 100% with her - she could be a great DNC strategist somebody needs to rein Clinton in .... since 2000 he has been helping the other side or Hillary - in any case as Rice challenges CLinton it gaves the GOP a chance to divide out the African American voter base in the DNC - divide and conquer been around since before the Romans]

www.myDD.com

Republicans Set To Go Nuclear

by Chris Bowers, Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 12:08:29 PM EST

In case anyone has forgotten how vicious Republican attacks can be, here are just some of the ideas they are currently testing before they begin their final round of ads this cycle. From an email sent by a friend of mine in Bucks County (PA-08), who recently participated in a Tarrance Group poll for PA-08: First they ask you what your most important issue is. Here are the answers for immigration:

• Patrick Murphy wants to let 68 million illegal immigrants into the country
• Patrick Murphy will give Medicare benefits to "illegals"
• Patrick Murphy will give full in-state college tuition to "illegals"
• Patrick Murphy wants to dissolve the Patriot Act, making it easier for terrorists to attack our country.

I don't think that this is exactly a push poll (see Mystery Pollster's discussion on push polls last month). My guess is that they are testing negative messages and seeing what impact those messages have upon trial heat numbers. We have seen similar polls in VT-AL and NY-20 this year. Testing negative messages isn't push polling--it is just testing negative messages. I have done the same thing in polls I have conducted.

What is happening, however, is that once again Democrats are shocked at just how vicious Republican attacks are going to be. A source told me that the Murphy campaign received several phone calls from supporters about this poll, because people were shocked at how awful the questions were. Well, in my experience, they might actually be getting off easy. In 2004, Ginny Schrader and Lois Murphy were accused of raping young women in Afghanistan in the final NRCC ads (as were several other Democratic challengers that year). I remember when that ad first went on the air against Ginny Schrader, my current girlfriend (we weren't dating at the time) called me up immediately after she saw it because she thought it was unbelievably offensive. In fact, I believe her exact phrasing was she had "just seen the most offensive ad of her life, and it was against Ginny Schrader."

That is what I believe is happening here. Murphy supporters were polled and given a sample of the NRCC's nuclear messaging for this cycle. Once again, we are shocked and taken aback by just how vicious the messaging is. By this point, however, we should not be shocked. This is simply standard operating procedure for Republicans, just like suppressing the minority vote. Too often, liberals and progressives, who dream of clean, uncorrupted elections based entirely on policy, are not prepared to answer--much less pre-empt--Republican attacks in kind. I have written before about the lack of stomach to win on the left, and that we are repeatedly shocked by Republican attacks in demonstrative of that continuing trend.

 by Nora Ephron - Huffington Post ' Socks'

So Bill Clinton was sandbagged by Chris Wallace. By Chris Wallace? And he lost it. And he wasted a television appearance - when he could have been talking about taking back Congress - talking about (no surprise) Bill Clinton. Poor Bill Clinton. The victim of Fox News, the media arm of the right-wing conspiracy. The man who went after Bin Laden and was accused of wagging the dog. "I tried," he said. I tried? How lame is that? I haven't been able to listen to that since the sixties, when Werner Erhard, of all people, became famous for demolishing that excuse. When people said "I tried" to Werner Erhard, he would put a glass on a table and say to them, "Try to pick that up."

How does it happen? How does one of the smartest men ever elected president end up sandbagged by Chris Wallace? Is this what one docudrama does to the guy? I don't think so. I'm afraid this is classic Clinton, Clinton the monologist, Clinton the guy who used to keep his White House houseguests up until 4 a.m. while he went on and on about what the press was doing to him. What a waste. On top of which: Clinton calls George Bush "43"? Is he so confused about his role in the Bush family constellation that he has adopted their nicknames for one another?

Clinton should simply have answered Wallace's question.

 { THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY HE BLEW - a la 2004 - 2002 -2000 }

He should have said that he went after Bin Laden and that if Al Gore had been elected (which he was) we probably would have killed him and 9/11 would never have happened. And then Clinton should have moved on to his real subject, which is not rescuing his legacy from his self-inflicted wounds, but helping elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. In fairness, he finally got the conversation around to that subject in the final minutes of his interview with Wallace.

But until then, it was only about Bill.