Update: After this story was published, the senator's office clarified that Reid was referring to President Clinton, not President Obama. The post has been updated to reflect that change.
(CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is gushing over his former Senate colleague Hillary Clinton, saying Wednesday night the former secretary of state would do a "better" job in the White House than her husband.
"Hillary Clinton may have a bigger fan than Harry Reid; I just don't know who it would be," he said in an interview that aired Wednesday night on PBS' "NewsHour."
The Nevada Democrat praised Clinton's work as former U.S. senator and as the nation's top diplomat, saying her legacy will "go down in history books." He added that he "of course" has "such admiration for the president," but Clinton would fare better as the country's chief executive.
Remember, the last three or four years he was here we reduced the debt and created 22 million jobs – pretty good deal. And I think that they're a pretty good team, but she'll handle things probably even better than he did," he said. "I think that they're a pretty good team, but she'll handle things probably even better than he did."
"Is that right? Even better?" the host, Judy Woodruff, asked.
"Oh, yeah," he replied.
Asked in the interview if he'd like to see Clinton run again, Reid said: "I don't know what more I can say than - to be a cheerleader for - than what I've already said in this interview."
The Real Tom Paine wrote:
Calling W those things did not make them obstructionist: actually being obstructionist, a la McConnell and Boehner, does. Democrats were a minority party for most of W's presidency, anjd he needed their votes to get any sort of Medicare or Immigration reform accomplished. How is it that simple name-calling equal to McConnell's and Boehner's obstructionist votes on everything from the debt ceiling to health care? As usual, you can't even be honest about your own side's performance, or lack thereof.
Ignore those lies. He tried to peddle them yesterday. Reid called Bush a liar because during the 2004 election he had come to Nevada and promised that Yucca Mountain would not become the nation's nuclear waste dump. Almost within days of winning the 2004 election, Bush flip-flopped and said Yucca Mountain would become the nation's waste dump. Reid was right. Bush lied to the people of Nevada and the nation. And, yes, I got exceited about it.
As for the loser comment. It never happened. Oh yeah, in yesterday's versions of these lies it was both Reid and Pelosi who had said those things. It seems that our neo-libertarian friends just love to tell lies and argue opinions as if they were facts.
I choose to train, & pray that my off-springs, my subordinates to would be better workers than me.
If you are talking about the Socalist State, coming on since FDR yes Hillary will be good. More and more debt, less and less jobs, Hkllary Care, Obama Care, Putin Care. After the 1930's Big Social Programs were put in place so we wouldn't have another Depression. So I have to ask, if things are worse than the 1930's, WHAT HAPPENED? Now the Unions, which are nearly extenct, want no part of Obama Care. THE BEST LAID PLANS OF MICE AND MEN..
I'm curious if you thought Pelosi, Reid and the democrats were "obstructionists" to GWB when they referred to him as a loser, a liar and a total failure
I don't know tom l.
I couldn't care less about politics back then, which is probably what prompted me to vote for the Crawford Village idiot the first time he ran.
Why dontcha ask that question to Rudy NYC, Sniffit, or my other friend Lynda. I think they've kept abreast of these types of goings on for quite some time.
"Update: After this story was published, the senator's office clarified that Reid was referring to President Clinton, not President Obama. The post has been updated to reflect that change."
I suspect CNN got what it wanted the first time around.
"Are you still worried about the "time stamp" issue with Weiner or has your Karl Rove on election night moment ended?"
I've been 100% consistent and you're yet again failing to prove your "hypocrisy gotcha." It's really getting lame at this point.
1. With respect to Weiner I merely pointed out that people were believing accusations, yet again, without the evidence to substantiate them because TheDirty.com published the images only after blurring out the timestamps. If you go back and check, I quite clearly and promptly condemned Weiner's behavior and inexcusable, inexplicable stupidity
No one is better than Bill!!
The copywriters at CNN are swimming so much in the funk of Weiner that they don't even know what they're writing anymore. Maybe just take down this post?
Hey, here's an idea! Put up another "opinion" about Weiner! Let's see, we already had the dopey evangelist this morning ... what does Dr. Phil have to say?
2. With respect to McDonnell, I was quite clearly being intentionally sarcastic and using hyperbole to illustrate just how ridiculous the IOKIYAR double standard was proving to be, since people who come here daily to excoriate Obama for outlandish conspiracy theories were calling the substantiated accusations against McDonnell "liberal smear machine." Poe's Law just bit you.
Maybe ole Harry got some brains afterall. Me remember. Slick Willie responsibile for first Republician Congress in 40 years. Republician Congress drag Willie kicking and screaming to balanced budget. Hilllary, who know? Me think if Hillary run and get elected, Rome burn even faster. Careful what you voter for, you may just get it.
""Update: After this story was published, the senator's office clarified that Reid was referring to President Clinton, not President Obama. The post has been updated to reflect that change."
I suspect CNN got what it wanted the first time around."
Indeed. And note how CNN very carefully avoids admitting that the context of Reid's statements and the facts he stated were sufficient to indicate that he was referring to Bill Clinton, not Obama. Instead, CNN avoids accountability by continuing to pretend that the statement was so ambiguous that they had to call Reid's office to get confirmation of what he meant. Way to take responsibility for yourselves, CNN.
Dominican mama: "Why dontcha ask that question to Rudy NYC, Sniffit, or my other friend Lynda. I think they've kept abreast of these types of goings on for quite some time."
I'll gladly answer that I personally lost respect for GW soon after I voted for him in 2000. Do I agree that calling him a loser, a liar, and a total failure was appropriate from his peers on the Hill? No, tom l ... I do not. Do I agree that the Democratic party obstructed the GW administration? Considering what he got passed through Congress with their
help ... no, I do not agree that they "obstructed" his Administration. Certainly not to the extent that has happened with this Administration.
"As for the loser comment. It never happened. Oh yeah, in yesterday's versions of these lies it was both Reid and Pelosi who had said those things. It seems that our neo-libertarian friends just love to tell lies and argue opinions as if they were facts."
Good grief, Rudy. What has happened to the Libertarians then that they feel such a need to lie to this extent? That is it for me. Here I thought I was giving an honest reply to a question asked in good faith, and get egg on my face for my honesty.
Man oh man ... the dance is over, the party has ended, and the door is shut and locked tight.
I must admit that the moderators are moderating their behinds off on this story. I can't tell you how many posts I've tried to post to no avail.
They do indeed control the "vertical and the horizontal" don't they Lynda?
i don't think the families of her four dead employees would endorse hillary clinton, especially after she coldly and cruelly lied to them face to face. how many more people would she get killed with her incompetence? yes, i know. what does it matter?!