Bill Clinton: Caucus-goers 'don't need a president'. Updated.

Furthering the shiny new 'screw democracy' theme currently emerging from the Clinton campaign, former president Clinton embarrasses once again.

I was disturbed enough to read this interview, given yesterday, by WJC that I had to go back and actually re-read what the man said:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

Follow the link to see the interview.

Of his wife's recent travails, he said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

I'm sorry, but what did you say? Those 'upper income' service union workers in Nevada don't need a president? Those thousands of caucus-goers who turned out to vote for YOU didn't need a president?

If that isn't bad enough, he went on to suggest that his wife's campaign (though he refers to 'we') as having been run on a shoestring:

He said they'd done well considering their slim budget. "We've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring," he said.

He did not mention that his wife's campaign has raised more than $140 million.

Here's a question: DO caucuses actually disproportionately favor upper income voters? I've never seen any stats that say this. But I do remember being very moved by the guys in chef hats, and the waitresses, and the dish-washers, heading into that Nevada caucus on the strip. And in Iowa, where Clinton was trounced into third place - the first caucus, the one she was supposed to win - do those voters not 'need a president'?

If I were Obama, I'd mention, to those planning to caucus in the remaining states - yes, even in the ones that 'don't matter', that president Bill Clinton says they don't need a president. That might fire 'em up even more....

UPDATE: re: a comment from the field, way down-stream, the exit-polling data appears to show that Bill is talking through his a**. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/...