I'll never find out, since one paradoxical aspect of Common Dreams is that the content and comments editors don't do "dialogue" with visitors, but only giveth and taketh away-- but I'm curious why this article disappeared from the front page in record time.

And just to add one more suggestion to the Memory Hole Suggestion Box: it would be helpful to include an index of CD articles by author, to facilitate locating articles once they've been removed from the current page. Thanks for, um, listening... maybe.

Let's see - on Feb 1, 2009, Bill would have us accepting George III as a poor misunderstood bloke who meant well.

oh, the GATEKEEPERS are going to be rife in upcoming days.

There is SO Much evidence of Bill's "conflicts" of interest that you have to be blind not to see them.

I COULD provide probably 100 relevant links about the Hills and Bills build the wealth for ourselves show, but why bother?

Here are two REALLY good ones -
www.peterfpaul.com
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/013108.html
We should help elect NO incumbents or past power mongers
Let Sibel Edmonds speak instead.

I think it is time to implement some kind of rating system for articles. This is the worst story I've followed on this site to date. At least it was short.

I found this article lame for the reasons stated by previous commenters.

It's an unnecessary, derivative paean reminiscent of "Let Reagan be Reagan".

Moreover, it's really muddled. It's obviously true that the corporate media, especially the celebrity infotainwhores, are by and large sacks of shit who should be slapped down when asking bogus questions intended merely to instigate or provoke.

But is the suggestion that Bill Unchained has important things to disclose a joke? I already know what Bill's agenda is, and what he'll say: take my wife, please! Furthermore, Bill has hardly been a shrinking violet, and has never been cowed or humbled by the media.

In fact, I join with others who've seen more than enough of Bill's wagging fickle finger of fate.

I think Mr. Davis ought to stuff this article back from whence he pulled it.

The only pile of steaming shite bigger than this is Mr. Bush.

I fully agree with RichM and kathyodat about the complete horror of Clinton's terms of misrule. We don't need this endless game of musical chairs in the WH with the only players being the Clintons and Bushes.

I'm not sure what Davis' point here is, but if he thinks Billary is our last best hope against Bushism and a careerist media, he's naive as hell. But we may be missing a larger point here. I think Clinton should be able to say any damn thing he wants to this horseshit MSM that has thoroughly corrupted and trivialized our political culture. Even if it means going after Obama the way he has, and only to get Hillary elected so he can serve yet another term in office. None of this is working out real well for Billary, concerning their scurrilous attacks on Obama, so let them loose. Why rein them in when they're only burying themselves?

Give their power-mad tactics free rein, so they'll be exposed for what they are, the most unprincipled political family this side of the Bush crime family. Let Bill be Bill. There certainly isn't any way to cheer on the MSM's censorship of what he does. They're way worse than he is.

Bill, I've liked many of your articles, but what in the world made you write this stuff? Did the Clintons pay you to do this? What has either one of them accomplished in the past to make them worthy of so much approval from you? Or do you support NAFTA, welfare "reform", turning loose the telecommunications and banking industries, the accelerated increase of our national wealth to the rich - well, RichM above has pretty well laid it out. Bill Clinton has consistently caved in to the right, and Hillary's history before and during her Senate tenure doesn't look any more encouraging.

This article has no more substance than a cheerleader on a football field.

kathyodat

Thought I would point out that a similar thing happened to Teresa Kerry when a Sciafe operative baited her about Laura Bush and she bowed up big time. That incident (Ms. Kerry's statement about Ms. Bush) changed more than a few votes from Kerry back to Bush since Ms. Bush was 'wronged'.

Very few observers noted the sequencing and the individual reporter...they mostly berated Ms. Kerry for her 'unwarrented attack' on sweet Ms. Bush. Kerry paid for having a feisty wife in much the same way Hillary is paying for having a feisty husband. We fuss about politicians saying what people want to hear but we punish them severely when they don't.

I see a resemblance in the Bill Clinton baiting. Wonder if it is the same reporter.

It would be refreshing if people would quit rerunning 'Swift Boat' attacks on the Clintons' personal life and supposed theft of government furniture...unless of course the same people would compare the damage done to the country by a president who only lies about reasons for wars and has cleverly gotten around laws with the signing statements he freely uses to this day. While it would be nice to have a truly sinless president, I guess, I personally would rather see the lies of a Cassanova than the lies of a Hitler. The Cassanova lies weren't as expensive and fatal as the Hitler lies. I don't see any real pressure to send Bush back to the waste lands of Texas either from Congress or the public at large. Where is the outrage?

Parenthetically, my preferred candidates left the race so I'm still trying to make a choice I can live with.

This article is utter drivel & no one should even consider taking it seriously.

To the extent that Bill Clinton matters, he's an intensely negative quantity. He's a very skillful performer -- a dangerous quality in such an unprincipled, devious & corrupt individual.

As president, he did incredible damage to US society, by his service as a covert corporatist/militarist. Only a Democrat would have been able to push NAFTA & "welfare reform" through -- & that's just what Billary did.

And right now, what he's actually doing, is running for president AGAIN. In the 90's, the two Clintons were co-presidents, & the two of them are running again. It might be one thing, if they represented any positive virtues. But a careful look shows that since GW Bush was installed in office, neither Clinton has opposed or even seriously criticized anything Bush Jr done. Instead, Bill has been playing golf & doing some globe-trotting with Daddy Bush, sucking up to that family of criminal tyrants. Jesus H Chr*st, what a recommendation!! This is going to be the Democratic Party ticket!! Their campaign slogan should be, "Vote for the Clintons!! We Suck Up to The Bush Family!!"

There should be a parenthetical note in their campaign literature saying "We don't have much respect for democracy, either. We think the 22nd Amendment is a joke, so we just dodge it by this husband/wife gambit. We think it's cool that Bush Jr was made president -- and because we see nothing wrong with the presidency being handled as a family matter, now it's our turn, again!"

In around 2024 (after Jeb's 2nd term), we can all look forward to Chelsea running against George P Bush.

Bill,

I have written in the past to you complimenting your writing which was informative and well reasoned. Not this time. Bill and Hillary have a long history of twists and half truths to be generous. I do not want anybody to focus on a guy who says it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. A guy who has been dishonest to his wife and Americans more times than we know. A guy who reportedly was absconding with furniture from the Whitehouse as they were leaving until noticed and stopped. A guy who treated a young intern as a human humidor.

We all know more than enough about Bill and Hillary and it is an indictment on our society that they have not been relegated to the swamps of Arkansas from which the emerged.

They do not merit serious consideration by serious people period.

To Bill C. Davis,

"I want finally to hear what he has to say because now he's dangerous and dangerous is what is required." What do you mean by this? This is not a rhetorical question.

In my judgment, you use loaded language ("dangerous", "attacking", "out-of-control and controlling franchise") that is all staked around one lone fact: that Bill Clinton responded to a reporter with the phrase "shame on you." My feeling is that I'm supposed to get behind your rallying cry against the "careerist media."

But (and here's the paradox) while I am opposed to media that is based on few facts and rife with undertones, I am also opposed to your article for the very same reason.

Bill Davis should lose his first amendment rights. He has made me ill with this crap.

Stop telling us to drink the kool-aid! God.

Yes!!!

Bullshit.Tony