Will Bill be a plus or a minus in Hillary's campaign?

tobr24u(z6 RI)March 28, 2013

It will be interesting to see how or if she uses him. Could he be seen as the power behind the throne if she does and thus detract from her image as president? Could she use him as Bill used her when president in the health care push? And for the country could their maturity and experience make for one great presidency? Your thoughts on this are requested but there is no guarantee that they will be respected...

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Elly_NJ(NJ z6)

Bill is a big plus.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 7:15AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Very big plus.....

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 7:19AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

I don't know. Bill lost out to Obama first time around.

Since Ashley Judd decided to drop any challenge to McConnell, Bill will have time to travel with Hillary. We'll see.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 7:29AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

A plus. He is moral roadkill, but a more skilled politician , he has no equal.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 7:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Bill would be a Big of a plus for Hillary as much as "W" would be a Big of a minus for Jeb.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 9:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Big plus. So big people might actually forget that it's Hillary running and not him.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 9:41AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Oh, I don't think there is much danger there--Hillary will give a sharp jerk on the reins and Bill will immediately trot docilely as she dictates. I think their deal was that either he is 100% on her side or he's outta there!


    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 10:29AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Huge. His popularity is thru the roof.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 11:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

He is unlikely to make any difference in either direction.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 11:40AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I agree. He will be a big plus.


    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 11:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Hard to tell.

During her last campaign for the presidency, I seem to recall that he put his foot in his mouth in a couple of ways that made me wonder if he wasn't trying to sabotage her campaign. Perhaps my recollection is faulty.

Despite the corruption of his moral integrity, he left this country in better financial shape than any other president that I can recall. That Hillary will have Bill's advice on that alone will be a huge selling point to the people. Of course his ( and her) weak / bad points will be outed too - all is fair in love and campaigning- but it would be interesting to watch.

Has she given an indication that perhaps she will run after all? It seems incredibly early for a decision to have been made, much less announced.

I continue to hope for her sake that she will choose to leave politics now, on her personal highest point.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

I never thought it would come to this. A woman needs a man to be elected? The times they are a changing.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Your recollection is right on target mylab. She's made her own mistakes. I too, find her execution of her current office incredibly laudable. Ditto all of it!

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Brush, people need people to be elected. Your comment is biased and jaded, without merit.

So what else is new.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

So long as he stays on the same trajectory, I think he will be an enormous plus for her. The country has changed a lot since MonicaGate and now people are remembering the balanced budget, better financial times, and prosperity of the Nineties.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

No I am not! I still don't care for either of the Clintons. Not just Monica. There is much more that happened which I will not forget and others haven't forgotten either. We don't all find the 90s golden times. I remember at what expense the budget was balanced and to where the prosperity went during those times. I've already discussed it before. He was still a politician and still did things in the ways some people liked and some do not. Some are much worse than others, but overall, all Presidents do things that have pros/cons for all they do. Just because you find what he did all "pros", I find much of what he did "cons". Different opinions!

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 1:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

There is no doubt that rightwingers hated Bill and Hillary back in the 90s--remember, they accused them of being murderers (murdering their best friend) and in league with Columbian drug dealers and wasted a couple years of our country's time and money trying to impeach Bill. Those same rightwingers still hate Bill and Hillary even if it is now Hillary and Bill, and if Hillary runs for office, the rightwingers will haul out every accusation they tried in the 90s--just as their starting point.

It is the Democrats and Independents who rate the Clintons so highly--not the rightwingers. Although, strangely enough, a number of rightwing women seem to be rather supportive of Hillary. Not quite sure how to explain that since she would oppose them on probably all the social issues dear to the right-wingers' hearts.


    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 3:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Actually, it was the Clinton's obstruction of justice during White Water that sticks in my craw. They not only should uphold the law as the "first" family, they should be examples for all to see. What an example they were. UGH!!! That cannot be denied and has nothing to do with republicans. Nor can the Gore family pockets getting lined being... never mind, you're not going to be objective.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 3:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Were the Clinton's convicted of "obstruction of justice" in connection with Whitewater or anything else? I wasn't aware there was an arrest, trial, and conviction on that charge.

Or do you mean that in the eyes of the Clintons' political opponents, they were guilty of obstruction of justice even though the courts never concurred in that matter?


    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 3:46PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Oh you're right. They just took documents and hid them for a "bit of time". Luckily, whew, they did turn up. That others associated with White Water did jail time, well, that means nothing, right? Anyone else in the position the Clintons were in would have served jail time. Wonder why they didn't? Not abuse of power. No not at all. Couldn't have been. Those lucky ducks! But I've forgotten all about it. Just like everyone else. I'm open to hearing how above board they were in White WAter with proof, but all the stuff I've seen, mainstream (Washington Post, New York Times, etc.) already had the inklings. I've taken it a bit father, but common sense can tell you, if everyone associated got time.... well you know.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 4:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Rob, what are you referring to, with your comment against Gore?

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:03AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

"In 1998, the U.S. government sold the Elk Hills naval petroleum reserve to Occidental for $3.65 billion. According to the government, the reserve was no longer strategically necessary, and the reserve was sold to reduce the national debt and the size of the government. To ensure competition, the field was sold in segments and offered to multiple bidders.[75] Critics cited Vice President Al Gore's involvement with the company as evidence of graft.[71]"

It may be wikipedia, but it's still summed up well. That's the gist of it.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:13AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

"Despite the corruption of his moral integrity, he left this country in better financial shape than any other president that I can recall."

I think Bill will be a plus... if people remember how he handled the economy. If all they recall are his indiscretions, well... who knows...

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I remember at what expense the budget was balanced and to where the prosperity went during those times.

But do you remember 43, the stock market crash, the 8/6/01 PDB and 9/11, WMD and the invasion of Iraq, Katrina and Brownie, the Bush Stimulus, the Bush Bank bail-out and the Bush Crash?
It is amazing how selective memory works. Oh yes, those terrible 1990's before Bush tax cuts ,9/11 and a decade of War. Terrible times indeed.

As far as Hillary she could win the nomination pretty easily even without the assistance of President Bill Clinton. I think the President's impact would be more relevant in the general election in November 2016 because Bill ("Bubba") , unlike Hillary, has Southern roots and has a broader appeal in a few States that he could flip into the Blue column. If they are successful in gaining an additional swing State or two, the Republicans could really get taken to the woodshed again.

On the GOP side, will they continue with the same 47% narrative and the Radical Rand Ryan plan to disassemble Social Security and Medicare as a single minded strategy to balance the budget? Will they finally listen to Ann Coulter and nominate Christie?

This all seems to be a diversion given how far out the next Pres. election is. Instead of looking ahead almost 4 years, perhaps Republicans should stop the mindless obstruction that is hurting our country and start to work with our current President to help solve problems that impact all of us. Buck up you old GOPers. Accept defeat, try to be constructive, and stop being such whiny sore losers.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:57AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


I'm not singing Bush's praises. Nor would I. But I'm not going to pretend to wax poetic about the Clintons and things that happened during their administration. They weren't angels. Neither he nor she, or Gore. That's what it boiled down to.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

True, Bill had a lot of issues but I believe that he and probably most other Presidents would have responded to Bin Ladens hijacking threats by doing something rather than nothing.
He also presided over a decent economy and left a surplus for the next Resident.

My problem with Hillary is not Bill, but with her vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq. I got the sense that this became more of a political calculation by her just like it was for so many others, including prominent Democrats in Congress. I felt that politics should have stopped at the water's edge for people in both parties. It should have been clear to all that the war propaganda was being fueled by a mindless obsession that 43 had and that no one surrounding him and certainly no one in the GOP had the courage to stand up to 43, not even Colin Powell.
When Hillary bought in, that was the end of any hope we had to stop Bush from invading. That amounted to a betrayal
of principles. There was no excuse for any Senator to vote for invasion because they had access to even more of the shoddy intelligence than we were given. This was a snow job and they knew it.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

But Heri, he didn't do anything to Bin Laden or terrorists. He had his chances... 9/11 was an additional attack.

I will say, I loved and respected what he said. It's the only thing I truly admired about him.

"So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack ��" the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole ��" Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals..."

Here is a link that might be useful: I'm not fully endorsing the site, but it is how I felt...

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I read the article at the link you posted. The article relies on the opinion of none other than Dick Morris, the guy that assured Fox News drones that Romney would win in a landslide.

The main assertion in the article is that President Clinton was preoccupied and therefore did not respond to terrorist threats.

A.) That is not true.
B.) Even had it been true, even in part, it was no excuse for Bush's negligence.
C.) The prior attack on the World Trade Center as well as the vow by the blind sheik to take it down with another was a given. Bush knew and his national security team knew what our intelligence had gathered about terrorist threats and Bin Laden the day he entered office. He was fully briefed on all of it.
D.) Clinton recognized that Bin Laden needed to be hunted down and taken out. Bush sat and waited until 9/11 to hunt down OBL. Then after they let him slip away in Tora Bora OBL was no longer his priority. We had to wait for President Obama who said on day one that killing OBL was a priority and that he would do it.
E.) Bush slept the wheel before 9/11. He did ignored what Richard Clarke told him, ignored hijacking warnings and other Bin Laden threats, and then covered up his negligence after 9/11. He didn't even have the balls to testify without Dick Cheney being with him. What a joke.

F.) Read the article at the link below instead accepting the ridiculous opinion of a discredited Fox News analyst, Dick Morris. That guy is an idiot.

Here is a link that might be useful: Clinton did in fact respond to Bin Laden terrorist threats

This post was edited by heri_cles on Fri, Mar 29, 13 at 12:37

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Yea I know. I'm not an all out war kind of gal, and I am really not endorsing the article. It's just saying what I felt in that two paragraphs. I mean, why was Clinton talking so big? Not that I wanted him to do anything specific? I know Bush was fully wrong. It's really hard to know the "right" thing here. But I do think he had his chances to do something. Whatever that would've been??? I know hard choices. But that's what a president has to do do. Too many things went ignored. That wasn't right either.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Read the article of the time line at the Think Progress link..
Clinton did fool around with inappropriate sex and I found that disgusting.
However that was not something that can be extrapolated into the notion that he did not go after Bin Laden or that he did not organize an anti-terrorism force.
FEBRUARY 26, 1993: World Trade Center bombing.
FEBRUARY 7, 1995: Mastermind of World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef, is captured. He is later linked to Osama Bin Laden.
JUNE 1995: Clinton issues first ever Presidential Decision Directive labeling terrorism “a national security issue.” All prior administrations dealt with terrorism simply as a law enforcement matter.
EARLY 1996: The CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center creates a special unit focusing specifically on bin Laden.
AUGUST 1996: A secret grand jury investigation begins against Osama bin Laden in New York.
MAY 1998: Clinton appoints “counter-terrorism czar” Richard Clarke
JUNE 8 1998: Grand Jury in New York indicts Bin Laden.
AUGUST 20 1998: Clinton orders missile attack in Sudan, narrowly misses Bin Laden.
LATE 1998: CIA beings secret effort with Pakistani intelligence to capture or kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
LATE 1998: Clinton authorizes covert action against Bin Laden and al Qaeda.
JANUARY 2001: Condoleezza Rice demotes terrorism czar Richard Clarke out of Cabinet access.
JANUARY 2001: During Bush’s first week in office, Richard Clarke requests cabinet level meeting on al Qaeda and Bin Laden. His request was denied.
EARLY 2001: CIA and FBI finally certify that al Qaeda was responsible for Cole Bombings.

According to the 9/11 Commission report:

“[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so…We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.”

This post was edited by heri_cles on Fri, Mar 29, 13 at 12:49

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

.....what we needs is a candidate who sings "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" while brandishing a big stick (gun) to the crowds while standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Just the kind of dude we can all chill out with while having a brew....

Too early for me to speculate on the next prez race.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I havent been able to keep up in H.T. this week so am late to this thread - I think some responses must have been removed at one point?
I find the reaction to criticism regarding the Clintons to be as irritating now as when they were in office and it disappoints me that dedicated democrats are still unwilling to admit the effect their flat bad behavior had on this country. The inability to own it then was as divisive as was the inability of then republicans ( now new independents) to own the most horrible decisions made during the Bush/ Cheney years. No, the results of the two administrations cannot be compared and please remember I said this with great conviction. That is not the issue being discussed.
IMO, the resulting damage of *divisiveness* due to the inabilities of party supporters to own the failings of their party are equal. And the failings of those voters to willingly admit to the failings are equal.

I think it is important for liberal voters to be as open eyed to the very real faults and problems of their own reps (certainly including those in the highest seats of power) as they keep stating ( with irritation and exasperation) that conservatives should be.
If democrats are so fortunate as to keep a good and viable percentage of representation in congress and the senate in the next elections and then win the Presidency in 2016, I have stated several times that I hope it would not lead to a relaxation in their current ability to see the party and its individuals failings as they are, admit them with a frankness. It is easy to dismiss failings as being unimportant when things are going very well and I believe that is exactly what happened when Clinton ran both times and some events that took place while they were in the White House.
To continue to brush these personal and bad choice behaviors ( travel gate files, anyone?) off as unimportant is a grave mistake.
And after all, that is precisely what conservatives did with their own with Bush/ evil Cheney and with the line up in the last primaries, including Romney/ Ryan, much to the anger and dismay of every democratic voter here.

IMO in this area, its not a matter of who's party did so much more damage 'so how dare you conservatives compare your failings to ours as equal - that is not the point.

The point is to be able to own the failings of the behaviors and poor decisions of our own where ever they exist so that we always come to the discussion table with clean hands.
If we can't do that or are unwilling to do so, I think it is hypocritical to accuse conservatives of the very same failings and then its time to stop demanding conservatives to do what it is we will not. We don't get to pick and choose what failings we will readily own anymore that we let them pick and choose. Nothing gets to be off limits.

Democrats have always been eager to turn a blind eye to the failings of the Clintons. I never quite understood why. To deny failings gives power to those who see the failings.
If Hillary runs again and wins the primary, things will be very ugly. She already accepted this fact because she ran already. Her avid supporters need to do the same. Admit to the Clinton failings without equivocation and then immediately move on to the very positives she can bring to this country.
To angrily deny or devalue the true failings of either of them while he was President gave those failings great power. People did not forget and will be quick to remind, just as liberals have not forgotten and are quick to remind regarding this past election, with cause.

Democrats need to do what they have been insisting conservatives should should do: own the failings - it is the right and powerful thing to do.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Oh no. I'm basing his actions purely on the terrorist attacks and the questionable Occidental and other issues.

Yes, he should be the best citizen he can be, as an example. Like Barak and Michelle try to do. And they succeed!

Moreover, I don't base Hillary's stuff on Bill's. For me, she has her own foibles. If you can call disregarding the payor side of healthcare when you build a committee, her legal entanglements with White Water (and she knew dang well what was going on and how to skirt it all), etc., as foible.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:58PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I agree Rob, Hillary herself has muck stuck to her and that muck will be brought up and re-examined if she runs. If she, or Democrat supporters dismiss that muck as non existent or unimportant then they do themselves a real disservice and do as they rightfully keep condemning conservatives for doing.

It can be handled if continually acknowledged. It can lose it's power to harm if correctly handled. Not by being dismissive, though. That would be a very poor move.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 1:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

About Whitewater, one can have their opinions on it but here's a snippit from the final report below from Wiki on the matter. After 7 years and $60 million spent Kenneth Starr slipped out the backdoor to more fruitful grounds while his befuddled successor took over and quickly and quietly issued the final report, seems I recall it being released late on a Friday afternoon. After listening to years of Whitewater, Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, etc (rah rahed on for 7 years by Fox and Rush) it was Monica that finally ended the long sorted search for the golden fleece (ing of America) ...

"Kenneth Starr's successor as Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, released a report in September 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."

And as far as Hilliary voting for the war powers act, that's disturbing, but I can forgive only 6 senators for voting for it, they resided in NY, Pa, & Va. The other 94 should have known better, sadly only a few did.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 5:29PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I know how it turned, don't we all? :) but can you not see how so mant things were skirted, ignored, and swept under the table? There is a good timeline wash post did. If you want, i'll get it later. Just because things turned out like they did doesnt mean they should have.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 5:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

My "opinion" tells me that whitewater, VF, etc was just the first of modern times right wing presidential witch hunts after Bush-I lost to Clinton. They'd have a special investigation ongoing for Obama if he wasn't so darn squeaky clean. Try as they might they can't get any of their BS spaghetti to stick to the any available walls. The Ken Starr investigation was a sham and a shame.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 5:58PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Read the timeline, then we'll talk


    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 6:24PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

A Washington newspaper article holds little water compared to a 7 year investigation which ended with the lead investigator ducking for cover as the final report reveals that evidence for criminal conduct was never found. If the Clinton's could have been indited on Whitewater then Mr. Starr would have surely done so if only just to save his own reputation.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

It's always the lesser of evils, I think that goes without saying. The problem is money in politics. That also goes without saying.

Maybe there should be a civil service test - just to become a candidate. So that even if they were evil and had too much dirty money, at least they'd be reasonably smart.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2013 at 12:45AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

1. Bill Clinton's legacy is outsourcer in chief of jobs to China.

His intensive lobbying of the WTO for approval of China into the WTO was the final straw on the back of the US manufacturing sector. Every argument that he presented in favor of China joining was wrong at the time or has quickly turned out to be wrong. Human rights improving in China - wrong. political reforms in China - wrong. Increase US jobs and reduce the deficity - wrong. on and on and on.

Bill Clinton hosed the US. Most of you lament that loss virtually every day here.

You'd better hope he doesn't get anywhere near the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton Claimed China’s Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. “I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I’ve looked at this, I’ve studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO.”

Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. “Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing’s restrictive birthrate policies.”

You'd better hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't get anywhere near the White House

Here is a link that might be useful: Hillary quote - democratic underground

    Bookmark   March 30, 2013 at 5:50AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Alex: "Maybe there should be a civil service test - just to become a candidate. So that even if they were evil and had too much dirty money, at least they'd be reasonably smart."

As long as the voters have to take the same test. ;-)

    Bookmark   March 30, 2013 at 12:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Since you won't look, I've brought the mountain to Mohammed. Are you telling me, all of the points are made up or are unimportant?

Here is a link that might be useful: Post timeline-WhiteWater

    Bookmark   March 31, 2013 at 4:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

As far as the Clintons and Whitewater (and related matters) are concerned, all the timeline finally reveals to me is they were not found guilty. . . , they were not indicted. . . , there was insufficient evidence. . . , Starr cleared them on this and on that. . . , Starr decided not to prosecute. . . , etc.

All reading that timeline did for me was remind me of the mountain of suspicion raised by the Republicans and the molehill (or less) of guilt they actually found.

Definitely one of those political much ados about (almost) nothing. But it did give me a headache all over again, just reading it. Starr alone spent over $30 million on his investigations--what a waste of money!


    Bookmark   March 31, 2013 at 6:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Dang that Ken Starr, he must be the most incompetent special prosecutor in history not to be able to tie it all together. Another $10 mill and 2 more years and maybe, just maybe...

    Bookmark   March 31, 2013 at 11:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

so it's all unimportant. I hear you.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2013 at 8:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Dots are just dots unless one can connect them, this is a game of 20 degrees of Kevin Bacon which does not work. When they tossed in Vince Foster's suicide as some sort of smoking gun it was already apparent that Starr was running on empty and grasping at straws. He knew it was a political witch hunt and longed for an early escape from the right wingnut pressure machine to keep the fire burning. Monica was Starr's golden ring for an exit from this sorry saga and he grabbed it. Sorry Rob, can't buy it.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2013 at 8:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I don't think the question has anything to do with Bill's presidency whether it be his accomplishments or his clear moral failings.

I think he will be a minus because he is just not good in a supporting role, and is at an age where forcing yourself to behave differently has become more difficult.

Hillary suppressed her own urges for glory for years as a younger woman to support him. I'm sure he does feel that he owes her similar support, but he's trying to undo a pattern they began setting in their late 20s now that he is in his 60s.

That's not to mention that impulse control lessens as one ages as well. Which I think is pretty clear in his case when you look back at how he continuously flew off the handle when she ran back in 2008.

This is a seniorish board, so I'm sure I'm about to hear what a whippersnapper I am now (lol) but I stand by this anyway.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2013 at 9:10AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Nor do I buy that they're fantastic individuals that did fantastic things for the nation. They live on the very dark end of the grey specturm on moral standing. There is a valid flip side to the issues which arose while in the White House and a past that followed them. I'm not the only one to see it. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel as you do about either of them, I'm saying this can be a huge contributing factor as to why she lost the nomination. Let's don't have our heads in the sand here. She's not angel.

Bush sure didn't make it through unscathed either. The Obamas seem to be faring pretty well. No stray gun shots from their vice president, for instance. But they're all humans, not to be idolized or upheld as pure.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2013 at 9:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

Hillary has written a guest column in The Onion......

Here is a link that might be useful: link

    Bookmark   April 11, 2013 at 9:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I don't think there's a politician alive with shrewder campaign instincts than Bill Clinton. He will be an asset - on or off the campaign trail.

If he ages at a faster rate than she does, however, he will be a reminder of just how old Hillary will be.

    Bookmark   April 11, 2013 at 10:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

David, that was a good/funny piece. Probably a lot more truth in their than we really want to admit.

    Bookmark   April 11, 2013 at 10:48AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Thanks for the chuckle David.....although I too suspect there it's a good deal off truth.....especially about Bill.

    Bookmark   April 11, 2013 at 12:08PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
"Religious organisations are required to apply...
George Zimmerman is a loose cannon!
Years ago, I wondered whether this might have been...
Donald Trump to launch exploratory committee
because... "the only one who can make America...
What exactly does that mean? It is a term oft used...
President Obama is a psychopath and the US is like Nazi Germany
Presidential hopeful Ben Carson thinks Obama is a 'psychopath'...
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™