In his own words: Bill Clinton on Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson

The bitterness of ex-president Bill Clinton's scorched earth march to the sea across South Carolina lingers not just in the chilly relations between his wife, Hillary, and Sen. Barack Obama, and apparently in the votes of thousands of South Carolinians. There was considerable criticism of Bill Clinton for injecting race into the race, which Obama easily won 2 to 1.

But now some of Clinton's supporters are suggesting he was not seeking to marginalize Obama as an old-fashioned hopeless black candidate, but that it was actually reporters who injected race and the Rev. Jesse Jackson into Clinton's post-election analysis.

Thanks to our colleague Jake Tapper over at ABC News, we have the entire transcript of that controversial exchange between Clinton and reporters. As we occasionally choose to do here at the Ticket, we've laid out a longer conversation so readers can soak up the context and full impact of the politically spoken words. Now, you can make your own judgment as to who brought the Rev. Jackson into the conversation:

Bill Clinton:  Wow. Hi, Everybody.

Reporter:  How’s it going for you this morning, Mr. President?

BC:  Oh, good.  You know, I like election days and I think it’s interesting they vote on Saturday here. It makes it easier for working people to go.  You know, there’s really not much you can do to change a lot of votes, but by stirring around, you may induce people who are for you to go ahead and vote when they might not have.

Reporter:  You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?

BC:  Oh yeah, we’ve done our best, and we’ve had, I particularly have enjoyed, you know, my role here has been almost exclusively to go around and do town meetings and answer questions, that’s most of what I’ve done, and I’ve really enjoyed that.  I think it’s been immensely impressive to me to see in the audiences whether they were predominantly African American, predominantly....

white, or totally integrated, there has not been a great deal of difference in the questions people ask.

If the voters really are intensely interested in what we can do to change the economic direction of the country, what we can do about healthcare, what we can do to restore our country’s standing in the world.

And there doesn’t seem to be even a great deal of difference in the questions asked, depending on who they’re supporting, so I’ve -– I like that, because, you know, I just answer questions.  They know I know some things about this stuff, I make the case for Hillary as best I can, but basically I just tell them why I’m for Hillary, and then I answer their questions.

Reporter:  That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race-baiting here.

BC:  Yeah, well I would refer them to what John Lewis and Andrew Young –- two people left who were with Martin Luther King every step of the way -– said.  I don’t have to defend myself on civil rights, and John Lewis and Andrew Young said what needed to be said about that.  There’s nothing left for me to say.

Reporter:  Mr. President, Senator Kerry that -– had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week.  He said being a former president doesn’t give you a license to abuse the truth.  Just wanted your reaction to that.

BC:  Yes, but did you notice he didn’t specify anything?  You notice that?  They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing is specified. I’m not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me, and I have no -- he can support whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, but there’s nothing for me to respond to because I don’t believe in labeling, I think he should have specifics, so today we just want everybody to vote.

David Wright:  What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?

BC:  [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here.  He’s run a good campaign everywhere, he’s got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization. 

DW:  He says he is sometimes not sure who his opponent is, you or his wife. 

BC: That is bait, too. 

DW:  Your wife, rather, sorry.

BC:  I am working for my wife because I believe she’d be the best president.  If weren't married, I'd be working for her if she asked me to.  And his wife’s done a good job for him, and -- 

DW:  She’s not an ex-president of the United States, though.

BC:  I know but that doesn’t mean that –- I’m still a citizen now, when, you know, I can't wait to get back to my foundation work.  I’m not a direct, directly involved in politics but I am concerned about my country and I think she’d be the best president. 

And I would be working for her if we had never been married.  She’s the best qualified person I’ve had a chance to support for president in my lifetime.  For, because of the variety of experiences she’s had but because of the things she has done in every stage of her life to change other people’s lives for the better, and that’s what I say, my message has been 99.9% positive for 100% of this campaign. 

Not only about her, but about the other candidates.  And I think that when I think she’s being misrepresented, I have a right to try to, with factual accuracy, set the record straight, which is what I have tried to do.

Andy Fies:  Do you feel that you’re more actively involved than you ever thought you’d be at this point?

BC:  Not exactly, I just –

AF:  Or out on the trail more?

BC:  No, I just, you know -- before what I was doing was trying to help her raise funds and not make any public impression, because I wanted America to have time to get to know her, the way New Yorkers have, the way people in Arkansas do.  You know, she’s doing terrifically well in the polls down there because they know her.  She did well in the Republican as well as Democratic areas of New York because they know her.  She’s done immensely well in the U.S. Senate, passing bills with Republicans with stunning levels of success because they know her. 

So -- but now, you know, what happened is there’s so many elections happening so fast that you need all your family members, I mean I think Chelsea’s working in a way I’m not sure she thought she would be, we just all wanted to be hands on deck and I think it’s been the right thing, it’s kind of a family affair.  My 88-year-old mother-in-law is working harder than she thought she would, but she likes it.

Oh yeah, I like this, I like the one thing I’ve been criticized for that I think is accurate -- I have not said anything that is factually inaccurate and that’s why when people say I have, they never specify because they know I’ll win the fight.  But the -- but I do think that the difference between running now and when I ran for myself, shoot, when I ran in ‘92, I could have cared less what anybody said about me. 

Really, I didn’t.  I mean, you just go right on, you’ve got your positive message, you stay on message, if somebody has an argument, you have an argument.  When it’s your spouse, I think it’s harder to take when you hear people say things and call them names for months.  That’s harder, you know, and I think I was a little hot in New Hampshire, and I think I got criticized for that, and one person said to me, she said, I talked to one person who had been critical, who said, look you told the truth, everything you said was true, but people don't want to see you mad about it.  Just relax, chill out.  And I think that’s, that was right, and I think that’s advice that I should have taken and I have tried to take.

David Wright:  That’s Congressman Clyburn said too, chill out. 

BC:  Yeah, but he, Congressman Clyburn is a good man and he, he didn't dispute the accuracy of what I said. He just said that, that, people, we don’t want to get mad, and I agree with that, I don’t -– I agree with that.  We have got to try and hold everything together here because we’ve got a big campaign to win in the fall, whatever happens in this primary, and our side wants to change the economic and foreign policy direction of this country.  And in order to do it, we’ve after –- we’ll have a vigorous primary fight then we’ve got to put our party back together.   And I am looking forward to that.  I --

DW:  But is that going to be tougher to do after the ugliness of South Carolina?

BC:  No, man you've never been in very many campaigns if you think this was ugly, this was a cakewalk.  This is not any big deal.  This is a, you know I -- ever since, when I first started running for president, I was used to people just mauling me.  You know, in some ways it hasn't been as ugly as Iowa was, you know it just didn’t get, the ugliness just was not publicized.  The differences were not publicized. 

[Crosstalk]

Well, I mean Hillary was called untruthful, manipulative, changing her position on everything, you know, a lot of things.  You’ve just got to blow through this, that just all happens, it’s just part of politics, and you just shouldn't take the bait, you should be positive and go on and make our cases.  But when it’s over, if you listen to -- the most important thing to happen in that debate, that achieved no notice, was when they all sat down and cooled down, in the second part of the debate here in South Carolina, and all of them observed that they were all discussing their different approaches to issues that weren't even being discussed in the Republican primary. 

That’s the most important thing, because keep in mind, you have -- I am not being critical.  But you have to cover this race as a horse race between candidates, but the really, the thing that matters to the people who are going there and voting is how their lives are going to change.  So in the end, the election is really about the American people and how their lives will change. 

So for me as a citizen, the most important thing that happened in that last debate was to see Senator Obama and Senator Edwards and Hillary agree that they were talking about things and caring about things that were not even being discussed in the other primary and that keeps saying to America we need to make a change and that means that whoever we nominate in this process can still be elected in the fall, that’s what we’ve got to do. 

We’ve all got to hold it -- They should argue, it’s healthy, heck, let them argue about who’s got the best healthcare plan, who’s got the best stimulus plan, let them do that.  But the main thing is to do it in a way that makes it clear to the American people that our party represents the fundamental departure in American needs, and that’s what I think’s going to happen.

I basically feel good about it. But, you know, by the standards of southern politics and what I went through in the ‘80s at home, and even the ‘92 campaign, this has been a walk in the park, there’s not much negative. We just need to get this show on the road and get back to making our positive cases.  All of us.

Staff:  Thanks, guys.

Reporter:  [unintelligible] 

BC:  Yeah I think they both did a good job, if you look at it, the campaign, the debate ended on a positive note and nearly as I can tell from just the press coverage I read, you know, I mean he put a few licks on her, and other people said what they said, but both of these, these campaigns are making a very -- three different distinct, positive appeals to their voters.  [Crosstalk]  And that’s what I think, and I think you’re going to it because I think we’ll have a good turnout today, but I -- you shouldn’t, you guys, you know, that stuff happens, but it’s very bad to have 100% of the interpretation of the campaign come out of 2% or 3% at most of what is said.

If you look at the general thing, the Democrats offer a rather dramatic change in economic and foreign policy from the Republicans.  And that’s what the American people are looking for.  And I say -- OK, so you’re going to change, so how will the healthcare deal work, how will the economic deal work?  I’ve been going -- all I do is go to these meetings and let people ask questions, so I know how they look at it.  And that’s good for us.  And we’ll keep it together, it’ll be fine.

BC:  Thank you.

The comments section is now open.

--Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Erik S. Lesser / European Pressphoto Agency

Comments

[Rebecca]

Al Sharpton lost to a white candidate in a much more recent South Carolina election. So obviously South Carolina's African American voters do not vote based on skin color alone. The only similarity between Obama's campaign and Jesse Jackson's campaign is the skin color of the candidates. So, yes, that was obviously an attempt to marginalize Obama as a "black candidate", rather than a very successful candidate who happened to be black.

Jackson did not win Iowa, he did not come within 3% of winning New Hampshire - both states with a less than 2% black population. He also did not get a quarter of the white vote in South Carolina.

Also, the Clinton's top pollster came out with the remark that Hispanics have not shown an "affinity" for voting for black candidates - a statement which has been proven to be blatantly false.

No one in their right mind would accuse the Clintons of being racists. They have done a lot for minorities. What they did, though, was attempt to divide voters by race, pit them against each other, in order to win votes - that's what playing the race card means in this election. And it is just another example of how divisive this couple is.

[John]

The Clintons will unite people alright - they will unite Republicans against them in the general election. That is one of the problems with the "experience" the Clintons have had - America has also had experience with them, and it wasn't all good. Bill Clinton was disgraced before the nation as a calculating liar, most infamously with his "I never had sex with that woman" (relying on a definition of 'sex' as intercourse'), and during his impeachment hearings "It depends on what you think the meaning of 'is' is...".

[Jerry Tsai]

Not again! When will y'all realize we don't give a hoot what Bill Clinton says. What happened to substantive, informative news? We want to hear from Obama, (Hillary) Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, and McCain.

Bill Clinton embarrassed himself several times last week, but you're embarrassing yourselves by bringing up this uninspired topic.

[Sharon]

So this proves what - he worked for civil rights? Bill isn't running she is and she was republican. All he had to say was that it was a great win, congratulations, something, anything than to invoke Jesse's name. He knows he is one of the most divisive people in the country. Hillary and every other candidate has changed their minds about things. The difference is, specifically about the war, she can't admit when she has made a mistake.

[Hillary For REAL Change]

WE LOVE YOU BILL!!! YOU'RE THE MAN!!! THE MEDIA IS ALL HYPE AND OBAMA IS A WHINER!! WE WANT BILL!! WE WANT BILL!! WE WANT BILL!!

GO HILLARY!!!

[Jesse Cline]

how is this supposed to change what he said? It was extremely condescending of a former President to dismiss the results. What he was implying is that Jesse Jackson won that state because he was black and he was never president, so Obama winning is therefore equally irrelevant. There is no way it can be interpreted any other way and its not the media's fault for covering his blatant racism. Why did he have to compare it to a black man? Why didn't he mention that Edwards won SC but never was president? that seems more current and relevant.

Here is another good analogy, Bill Clinton won SC in 92 and it propelled him to the whitehouse!

Typical Clinton politics; plant the seed and then deny the intention. I am so sick of those clowns. Go Obama!!

[Ugh]

My favorite quote:

BC: No, man you've never been in very many campaigns if you think this was ugly, this was a cakewalk. This is not any big deal.

Yeah, and I wound up cakewalking to the Obama campaign as a result. Thanks for the frosting, Bill.

[Hillary For REAL Change]

"The difference is, specifically about the war, she can't admit when she has made a mistake"

NO, wrong, the difference is Obama wants to make Hillary's early vote on the war a 'mistake' Keep in mind that is when 90% of this country ALSO backed this war! WE WERE ALL duped, Bush lied and had everyone thinking we were dealing with a WMDs and that Saddam had nukes pointed at us, end of story. The REAL difference is, OBAMA cannot admit when HE is wrong, like lying to the world on National TV during the SC debate saying he only worked with his criminal partner of 17 years Tony Rezko "for 5 hours" BULL. The difference is Obama knew Rezko for 17 years, did real estate deals with and took campaign money from Rezko KNOWING Rezko was a crook. The difference is Hillary is honest whereas Obama is obviously not as proven by his lies about and relationship with Tony Rezko, who by the way is now in jail on fraud, extortion and money laundering charges.

[Boyddollar]

Bill Clinton need to go Fishing.

[William E. Land]

As a lifelong Republican untilGeorge W. Bush was elected by obvious fraud in 2000, I can tell you that It's not Bill Clinton who is devisive, it's George W Bush and the NeoCons around him wh have that "honor" Cliton had the personal morals of an alley cat, but he left this country in good shape financially, while George W. Bush has bankrupted us, financially and Morally.I was not and stillam not a Clinton supporter, but compared to our current president, he would be ranked way higher , in my opinion.

[David]

Bill Clinton, to his credit, opposed (quietly, perforce) invading Iraq. Why couldn't he persuade Hillary Clinton to oppose it?

A quarter of US Senators and a third of the House were NOT fooled into supporting Bush's sale of a war with Iraq.

So poor Clinton was just a hapless victim of George Bush's wizard-like mental trickery?

Okay, if he really fooled you, you're too stupid to be President.

If you SAY he fooled you and it's not true, you still don't deserve to be President.

I for one even BELIEVED the WMD line. But I KNEW that there were alternatives for dealing with that other than committing to a full, on-the-ground, violent removal of the entire country's government. So did PLENTY of Senators and Reps.

Clinton stood down and enabled a George Bush policy that has been, as millions of us predicted, an earth-disturbing SINKHOLE of thousands of lives, tens of billions of OUR dollars, and international goodwill. And now we are feeling the consequences in our economy and with our currency.

She does NOT deserve the Democrats’ nomination.

Barack Obama publicly tried to persuade others against the invasion. An American President with such a record is one with whom the other nations of the world will be much more willing to work.

Barack Obama's opposition to the 2003 invasion, from whatever large or small pulpit he had at the time, is more than a well-earned merit badge he can show off while running for a higher office. It will be a great asset to America in its ascent out of one of the darkest, most shameful periods in its history.

[Peter]

Aye yie yie..............

You can feel the heat coming from the kitchen.

Say Andrew, do you think that maybe Hillary should ask Bill Clinton to drop out of the race?

You know what? Timing (these days) is everything. If Hillary were to file for divorce, declare that she's now celebate and ask for Rush Limbaugh's endorsement (Rush is furious with the GOP) she would win by a landslide.

God I love this country.

Peter :)

-------- Ron Paul 2008 ---------

[Ron Blum]

Clinton has too high a negative ratings. Too many people will vote against her. The religious right are among those who will come out to vote against her but with Obama on the ballot might not vote at all.

I support Obama and will campaign for him. If McCain is the Republican I will vote 3rd party, others I know will support McCain. Hillary is unacceptable. Even Bill is unacceptable as first mate.

Republican candidates for congress will run against Clinton. Mitch McConnel of KY is one. With Obama running we may get rid of him. Hillary may insure his reelection. Support for Hillary will come at a price. You may not reach the finish line.
Negatives as well as positives count.

[Hillary For REAL Change]

Hillary did not 'stand down' for Bush, she agreed as the MAJORITY of the Congress, Senate and American people did along with her, to approve the preliminary bill as 'muscle' to force Saddam's hand, and provided there were checks and balances. No one could have ever predicted Bush would go ballistic minutes later before the ink had even dried on those pages. No President had ever done quite what Bush pulled on this country, including other Republicans. Bush lied to the American people and he lied to the Congress and then took matters into his own hands on an emergency clause he dug up and used as an excuse. This is exactly why he should have been tried for war crimes. This war was illegal all along. He distorted and misused the Constitution and his executive powers to rush to war. The THREAT of war is what they agreed to and voted for to let Saddam know they were serious about his giving over information on his weapons programs. He never would have complied ANY other way. In good faith the ones who signed gave Bush the stick with the promise not to swing it without their voices and he swung it with all he had the second he got his hands on it ANY way ignoring all sense of reason. Bush took it and ran ignoring EVERY last one who told him he was making a mistake. Kerry called the 'flip flopper' for his yes / no vote was suckered too, we all were, even YOU. You cannot simply compare or equate anything to what Bush did himself all on his own. Bush jumped the gun on us all, took matters into his own hands and launched a war before anyone could blink. This is not a lesson of what Hillary or anyone else did right or wrong, this is a lesson on why you never elect, or trust a Republican like Bush with the authorization to wage war ever again in any small way. He abused his power, that is quite clear and that is not the fault of anyone but Bush and only Bush. Stop painting Hillary with Bush's mistakes, had she been President NONE of this would have happened.

[N. E. BodybutHillary]

It is clear that the Clinton campaign is attempting to pigeonhole Barak Obama as a black politician in an attempt to distance white voters. For this I believe that Bill should be henceforth referred to as the 1st ex-black president.
I will not vote for any candidate who tears up when they are confronted with a difficult challenge. That is not a quality desirous of a United States president.

[nyer]

I think Hillary in part voted for the war because she felt she had to, to prove she, as a woman, could authorize war if necessary. And it's what most of the country wanted. I think her decisions during her years in the Senate were influenced by the fact that she was beaten down by the political machine as first lady, during the healthcare mess (way more radical than anything Obama ever attempted), and because she was criticized mercilessly and de-sexualized because of her personality. But because she wants to be president -- and for a long time there was this lingering question of "if a woman were to be president, could she make the same tough decisions as a man" -- she felt she had to prove that she could.

Part of the gender role mystique is that the male goes out, fights the wars, does the dangerous jobs, hunts for the food, while the woman remains innocent, beautiful, the caretaker. That existed for thousands of years, it's burned into our subconscious, and it hasn't completely gone away yet. So, she goes and tries to prove that she can be the president, do the dirty jobs, face the world's ugliness and make tough decisions. But then she's criticized again for her "lack of personality," which is code for being too masculine. Reporters talk about what's she's wearing! If her clothes show too much cleavage! But then she's made fun of for not being "soft." But if she were "soft," she couldn't be president!

Think about it: People had such an issue with the role she was taking as first lady, even though her issue-based endeavors weren't illegal. She was too involved in policy rather than redecorating the White House for the era.

Anyway, if she doesn't get elected, it won't be the first time a more experienced, more qualified woman was passed over for a man. Wonder why Obama's message is more conceptual, general, inspirational, and hers is more particular, wonkish, tedious? Because she he more knowledge than him! Who do you want to deal with the terrorists who are taking over parts of Pakistan, a nuclear nation, during a period of instability? Someone who has experience with difficult foreign policy issues, or a bright-eyed idealist who just thinks but doesn't know from experience? There's a reason why idealism fades as you get older - because you have more experience with reality! Electing Obama is like giving the teenager who just got his license the keys to a double semi full of schoolkids and asking him to drive it through the narrow, winding appalachian mountains. Because he's more fun to ride with. Get real, this is one of the most important jobs in the world. EXPERIENCE MATTERS!

[MO]

The Bush and Clinton administrations have been characterized by distortion, lies and corruption...morally bankrupt administrations. Billary would represent another 4 or 8 years of the same. Look at their past (http://prorev.com/legacy.htm). Then look at their recent behavior...the degree of distortion about Obama's record, the attempt to paint Obama as the inconsequential black candidate, the reticence to admit her wrong vote on Iraq, and on and on. If you're honest, you'd have to admit that they are unsuitable to return to the White House.

Honesty in the White House would be refreshing for a change.

[Jose Reyes]

It is inescapably clear that the Clintons are furious because they though the nomination would be handed to them.

[FJ Stratford]

Can anyone tell me what Obama really means when he says "Change"? I cant find any specifics in his speeches. Its just all so general.

From what? Of what? By What? For What?

I'm beginning to think that even he himself doesnt know which changes he wants to accomplish.

[PNW Trojan]

Billy Bob Clinton is looking forward to his new Post at the White House; Intern Recruiter, Trainer and Supervisor?

[BO]

Obama likes Reagan. Like the frat boy he was during those years. Like the frat boy he is. Note the sexist way he and his wife have campaigned. They have exploited our society's latent hatred of competent women.
shame. And to think he'll throw our chances down the tubes by not being fully honest sooner about REZKO. What a little brat.

[Chris]

To all you Hillary supporters claiming Hillary was innocent and should not be criticised for her vote on the Iraq war, you should read this thoughtful piece by Robert Scheer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080130/cm_uc_crrscx/op_175100

"Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy's congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what he said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, "Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House," including former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama."

It's so easy to see in hindsight isn't i?. Obama didn't have hindsight to see that his conviction would be vindicated. Nevertheless he stood up for what he believed in and raised his voice in opposition against the popular consensus, because he believed he was right. He risked his political career for his judgement and conviction. History has shown he was right.

Now, you are saying we should not criticise Hillary for not showing the same judgement or the strength of character that Barack displayed, because that was the popular consensus? That we should not be disappointed at the lack of spine shown by her regarding all of Bush's initiatives? Fair enough, but equally you should not try to undermine the oustanding judgement that Barack demonstrated back in 2003. Making statements that Barack's opposition to the war in Iraq is "the biggest fairytale" is incredibly offensive, and an insult to everyone's intelligence.

[Jesse]

NO THIRD TERM

[Hillary For REAL Change]

Hillary did not vote on the original bill for any other reason than she, like her fellow Senators, were lied to by Bush. Bush agreed with those who signed he would use the bill to force Saddam's hand to give over his weapons programs. Bush is not an honorable man of his word. This was right after 9-11 and "United We Stand" and he turned around and screwed us all. The Bush administration lied and told us all including Hillary with fabricated 'evidence' that Saddam had an - advanced weapons - program. The 'authorization' bill had limitations added on first and that is why anyone who voted for it did. The bill was not and never was meant to be a free ticket for Bush to just bomb away, but the maniac did the minute it was signed anyway. People can imagine, speculate, spin and twist this any way they wish, the bottom line is Bush abused his authority and misused a clause meant for emergencies in the constitution that gives a President the power to authorize war on his own illegally, unethically over riding the bill and it's accountability provions. Certainly Bush's imaginary 'emergency' was fabricated out of convenience for his use. It was never really an emergency, Iraq was not attacking us or about to anytime soon. It was not what the bill was meant to be used for but the minute it was signed, Bush bombed. Hillary was not trying to 'prove' anything, side with Bush or anything ridiculous of the kind, she was lied to and was for pressuring Saddam using the bill to get the facts out of him. If Bush didn't screw everyone and lie, the pressure of the bill on Saddam would have worked fine, but of course Bush didn't want uis to find out the truth, that Saddam never had the WMDs he claimed Saddam did, so jhe rushed right in and now it is too late. Stop blaming Hillary and others, you want to blame someone? blame the stupid people who voted for Bush not only once, but twice, don't look at me, I voted for Gore and Kerry. Bush took this to another level abusing his power all on his OWN. And that, is how it was. Look, the bottom line is, with Hillary in control and President, these things will never happen ever again, that much is clear, because A, she won't lie and B she won't abuse her authority and rush to war like Bush did.

[Felix]

A Vote for Hill is a VOTE for Bill!!!! WE WANT BILL!!! WE WANT BILL!!! WE WANT BILL!!!!