Bill Clinton Served Two Terms as President - Hillary Clinton is Not Bill Clinton

[MineralMan]

It's 2015, so people are starting to talk about potential candidates for President in 2016. Lots of right wing websites are trying hard to make Bill Clinton the main issue regarding Hillary Clinton's candidacy. They pretend that Hillary Clinton is just Bill's wife and wouldn't really be able to handle the job of being President, and that Bill Clinton would be telling her what to do.

They're trotting out all the old scandal mongering from the Clinton administration. They're saying that people should look at Bill Clinton, not Hillary, when they think about 2016. I say bullshit on that noise.

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She's never been Bill Clinton. She is her own woman, with her own accomplishments. She has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, all on her own. She appeared to be quite competent at both jobs. She and Bill Clinton are married, but they are not dependent on each other. When Bill Clinton philandered, Hillary was not amused. They dealt with it as a couple and remained married.

Now, some are bringing all that up again, along with other rumors and accusations. Not accusations aimed at Hillary, but at Bill Clinton, a two-term Democratic President who hasn't been in office for a very long time. What that is is misogyny, pure and simple. It's assigning the faults of Bill Clinton, both real and imagined, to Hillary. Why? Because people who are doing that cannot possibly see the possibility of a woman in the presidency without wondering who would be telling her what to do. They don't want a woman as President. They didn't want a black man as President, either. Screw that!

There are reasons to not consider Hillary as the best possible Democratic candidate, and many people think she shouldn't be President, even some Democrats. But trying to hook her to Bill Clinton's past actions and rumors of past actions while refusing to recognize her own qualifications for the presidency is just plain misogynistic claptrap. Hillary is not Bill. They're two separate people. Bill wouldn't be dictating what Hillary should do. Clearly, she is quite capable of making decisions on her own. She's not dependent on her husband in any way I've ever noticed.

The right wing will, no doubt, continue to trot out stuff about Bill Clinton if Hillary decides to run. That's a given. Democrats, on the other hand, should not slavishly copy those accusations and that innuendo and spread them around. That's a weak argument, and an unfair one. It raises ugly questions when it happens.

Don't like Hillary? Tell us why. But don't use Bill Clinton as a reason to campaign against her. She's her own person.

Thanks for reading.

[riqster]

1. Kick.

[dsc]

2. amen

and let's be blunt here. The sun will burn out before you see any male politician blamed for anything his wife does.

[MineralMan]

3. Very good point!

[Jim Lane]

79. I don't think that's accurate.

Certainly it goes in the other direction more often, but I think FDR was criticized over Eleanor's activities, such as her support for civil rights (which went beyond his). Right here on DU you could find people criticizing Mitt Romney because his wife owns a dressage horse.

Most politicians' wives have tended to observe the traditional role of staying in the background and giving first priority to not offending or upsetting anyone. Most of them have succeeded, which is why the kind of criticism you describe has been much less common.

It's probably inevitable that politicians' family members will be dragged into the conversation more and more. There was obviously no sexism involved in the criticism directed at Jimmy Carter based on the doings of his brother Billy.

[dsc]

89. can you link even one article

that suggested Romney should drop out of the race, or refrain from running, due to anything his wife said or did?

[Jim Lane]

118. Moving the goalposts.

I answered your post about a "male politician (being) blamed for anything his wife does."

I gather that there's some anti-Hillary post today (which I haven't happened to see) and that you want to draw fine distinctions between, on the one hand, criticisms made about Hillary, and, on the other hand, criticisms made about FDR and Romney. That subject doesn't interest me enough to pursue it.

[lunatica]

4. The misogyny against Hillary will be as thick as the racism for Obama

The Republicans didn't do their best to cripple and destroy this country with their racist stand against Obama just to welcome Hillary as President. This country will not progress until they have someone like Ted Cruz as President.

The Republican Agenda =

[MineralMan]

26. No doubt. I expect it from the Republicans.

I don't expect it from Democrats. Very sad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. thicker...I have lived in the rural Deep South for long enough to know that rightwing White men...

fear women even more.....

[libdem4life]

154. Hopefully she'll set up a Leftist Latino ... Julian Castro ... as her VP and for future office.

That will really send heads exploding. I suspect what little I've seen and what I've read, he is much like Obama...after a lifetime of racist, bigoted experiences, he's been able to rise above it with an even temper and a disarming smile.

[LawDeeDah]

5. She isn't shy to share credit for Bill's better deeds, whatever they are, so

she has to accept that his not so good deeds is part of the package.

If you are referring to the Eptein/underage girls story and the connection to Clinton, please show us that it is a made up story hatched by the Republicans and there is nothing else to it. Remember, Bill is on record as a liar and a cheater. If Hillary dumped his wrinkled ass instead of kissing it for political reasons I'd have a hella more respect for her. Her judgement on so many matters begs for criticism, her own poor judgements she owns all by herself can fill a 20 pound+ sack.

[MineralMan]

6. If you want to damn Hillary because of Bill, the onus

is on you to show how things relate to her and to prove that such things even happened. It's not my job. Attacking Hillary for things Bill is accused of doing is just lazy and wrong. If you want to attack Hillary, show us things she has done, not things her husband is supposed to have done. And it does appear that you want to attack Hillary.

I yield the floor to your arguments. Let's hear them.

By the way, Elizabeth Warren, who you appear to like, would not engage in such nasty behavior, I assure you. If Hillary Clinton is the eventual Democratic candidate, EW will support her and campaign for her, I guarantee.

[davidpdx]

143. I don't think the whole affair thing is right to put on her, that was all him

The policy decisions we don't know a lot what was discussed behind closed doors. The only thing we know for sure is that she was involved in the effort to try to pass health care. I do think President Clinton made some bad policy decisions (like almost any president does) and we should be asking how much knowledge or input she had in some of those decisions. To think she had none is naive (especially if you believe she is qualified to be president).

I will continue to be critical of the policy decisions she was involved in during her husband's administration, her time as a senator, and as SOS.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. OH PULEASE! That is ridiculous....so she has to renounce anything he did that was Democratic?

just to appease YOU?

[RiverLover]

7. Well, lucky for Hillary some people like you believe this~

Bill Clinton's Out of Touch Economically -- and That's a Big Deal
11/17/14

...The 1990s are over. This is a different country now, both economically and politically. But the presumptive nominee's partner and most important colleague still holds views which are sharply at odds with both economic reality and the nation's mood. That's a big deal. His opinions could have a profound impact on our political and economic future.

If Hillary Clinton disagrees with the former president's views, she hasn't said so.

Positive vibrations.

When Bill Clinton speaks on economic issues, he reveals a deep wellspring of neoliberal belief and a profound detachment from the lived experience of most Americans. His latest slip took place in a speech he gave this week at the University of Southern California. After some bland bromides ("The Internet has done a lot of good&quot and self-helpish sounding political advice ("what you gotta have is an agenda and get things done&quot , the former president said this:

"We are in the best shape of any big country in the world in the next 20 years. No big country that is running this well is as young as we are, as diverse as we are or as technological as we are. In the next 20 years, there will be bad days, there will be bad headlines, but you can keep the trend lines positive."

The millions of Americans who struggle with falling wages, shrinking personal wealth, and rising healthcare costs would presumably be astonished to hear this sunny assessment of their future....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/bill-clintons-out-of-touc_b_6156310.html

Also see~

Bill Clinton: The Great Deregulator

Bill Clinton bears as much responsibility as any politician for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

http://www.thenation.com/article/169834/bill-clinton-great-deregulator

[MineralMan]

8. That's true. She will have the support of many people

in the primaries and in the general election, if she wins the nomination. Does that come as a surprise to you for some reason?

[RiverLover]

9. No. What a strange Q.

I do realize most people are low information.

[MineralMan]

10. Not a strange question at all. Here's another:

If Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democratic National Convention, will you support her and vote for her? That's another question that is not a strange one to ask, especially on this website. As for low information, do you suppose I'm someone with a low degree of information? I assure you that I am not.

[RiverLover]

11. ...

*crickets*

[MineralMan]

12. Crickets, indeed.

[LawDeeDah]

22. how dare you not sign the Oath

It's a frequent issue duck here lately. Get some actual words that come from the mouths of Hillary and/or Bill, some words that make you think, he/she said What? and you get the Oath parchment unfurled to sign with your promise in blood.

Freaking hilarious. That's all they got when confronted with uncomfortable truths.

[MineralMan]

29. What Oath? I'm not asking for any declarations of anything.

I'm making a point about not blaming one person for another person's actions. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

[LawDeeDah]

32. Don't be coy now.

If Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democratic National Convention, will you support her and vote for her?

We know what this means.

[MineralMan]

35. Do you? It's a valid question.

I don't know who the eventual candidate will be. Whoever it is, though, I will vote for and support that candidate. I have always done so, and will continue to do so.

You're free to do whatever you wish. Everyone is. It's still a valid question on a political discussion forum.

[LawDeeDah]

38. It's used as a cudgel and everyone knows it.

coy

[MineralMan]

43. Not by me. If Elizabeth Warren is the candidate, I'll vote for

her gladly and work toward her election. Same with anyone else who gets the Democratic nomination. I will never work against anyone who has a strong chance of becoming the candidate of the party for any office. Not during primaries and not in the general election. I might vote for someone in a primary who ends up not being the candidate, but I'm not about to bash any potential candidate. Ever.

Some people are backing themselves into a corner in the run-up to 2016. That's a shame. Of course, there are also some who appear to be working to dump on just about any Democratic candidate who is likely to be nominated. I'd find that puzzling, except that I've seen it before, and have a good inkling about why.

Right now, Hillary Clinton is the most likely candidate, given the current polling and the non-candidacy declarations of others. So, she's getting the bashing at the moment.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. Me too! I AM and I support the Democratic Candidate...whomever we decide...

[Jim Lane]

114. In general, it's a valid question, BUT....

It's being used as a cudgel if people are implicitly criticized for not giving the desired answer within five minutes. If that wasn't your intention with this post, you should clarify.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. are you or aren't you a Democrat?

THAT is the question....

Democrats support the winner of OUR Primary.

[LawDeeDah]

64. did I miss the primary? what the hell, I slept through it all?

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. that isn't the question...the question is will you or won't you support the winner of the election?

whomever it is...

Because THAT is what a Democrat does!

[LawDeeDah]

70. and what if I don't answer you just to annoy you?

do I have to answer? Is there a rule, and who gts to ask the questions that have to be answred or there is some punishment laying in wait?

lol. wow. have a cup of tea...

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. You see....any Democrat WOULD answer that question....

easy peasy.

And an Independent would be ashamed to admit that they are in a Democratic forum...

[Autumn]

124. You are not a Democrat if Nilla deems you not a Democrat

[LawDeeDah]

125. How could I forget the Deemer Perk some have bestowed upon themselves.

[Purveyor]

151. Now we know who has the Romper Room Magic Mirror!

[Autumn]

153. That's a great one !!!

Yep Romper Room

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. what do you have against elections by the way?

that is what elections are for.

Do you know that even if you didn't vote for George W. Bush...he was STILL your President?

[LawDeeDah]

69. really, where do you get this stuff?

I have no idea what you are rambling about.
You are saying I am against elections? what? I think the ones who have already crowned the queen are the ones against elections.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. Yes you do....You do know....this is how Democracy works...

and you ARE a Democrat aren't you? You ARE voting for the winner of the Primary aren't you?

How is she "crowned" when she has the numbers to back her up...apparently (and consistently I might add) DEMOCRATS want her!

[LawDeeDah]

76. No, I'm a Ferengi

I'm also getting slightly bored, but I'll give you a few more minutes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. You think there are ONLY Democrats on Democratic Underground?

If you aren't voting for the winner of the Primary...then you are Independent....FACTS are FACTS!

and the other facts are...Hillary has 61% of Democratic Support....Hillary is ahead of entire rest of the field by 50 points....not to mention she polls ahead of EVERY single Republican by double digits...

but the Left Leaning Independents would rather bet against THAT!

[LawDeeDah]

84. Okay, now you are in your photo copy mode so I'll duck out for a while.

later.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. You really should....you are out of your element...

Democrats that is....

[LawDeeDah]

155. Why don't you like kittens?

[rhett o rick]

106. How clever to try to get those opposed to HRC PPR'd, when you and other HRC supporters ask,

"If Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democratic National Convention, will you support her and vote for her?" A negative answer is apt to get a PPR for violating the TOS, "But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees".

I guess it would be one big love fest if you could get all that oppose HRC removed. Most likely HRC will be the nominee as she has the Oligarchs on her side, like Goldman-Sachs. But many on the Left are tired of the pressure to vote for the Conservative Democrat's nominee as the least evil.

l think that Pres Clinton and Ms. Clinton have a lot in common in their politics but that's not why I won't support her. There are a lot of deserving Democrats that didn't betray their Party and Country. When betrayed, I can not forgive and forget.

[MineralMan]

107. At this time, nobody is being PPRed for saying they wont vote

for Hillary or anyone else. People have been saying that regularly here. Only after the primaries is that action taken and only for statement made after that time.

So, what someone says now regarding voting for the Democratic nominee has no impact on their DU membership.

[rhett o rick]

111. It's a violation of the TOS but trust you that no one will be PPR'd until after the primaries.

Is that written down somewhere? After the primaries, when the Citizens United's H. Clinton wins, there will be lots of links to statements made now about not supporting HRC in the general. I believe you are a fair person, but IMO others would just as soon PPR those that they don't agree with.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. she already has the MOST support... and 61% of Democrats...

Not to mention that she still polls higher than ANY Republican by double digits...

But to some on the Far left....they would rather gamble against those odds...

[MineralMan]

49. That's true. That makes her the most likely candidate.

It also makes her the largest target, as we are seeing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Yep....and I KNOW how much some fear women with power...even on our side of the aisle

[BlueCaliDem]

57. That's true and that's dangerous for progressive policies and the future of this country.

The "all or nothing" approach by some on the Left is dangerous to us and our country since they don't think in terms of country above and beyond themselves. The hope I have is, should SoS Clinton win the nomination and piss off a LOT of left-leaning Independents, President Obama will come out strongly and campaign for her and bring with him the powerful and growing minority vote. We will need them if so-called Liberals of the Caucasian kind on our far-left will try and pull another protest vote a la Nader in 2016. It's how Bush was able to steal the election. Democrats cannot afford to forget that lesson learned even as some on our Left have.

[LawDeeDah]

66. that will likely dip, for many reasons, but one is because of that dip of a husband.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. a dip is not going to change it...sorry...Democrats want her!

She leads the entire field by 50 points....a "dip" ain't going to change that...

[LawDeeDah]

72. You have invested a great deal into a future event that could change from what you desperately

want on a moments notice.

I suppose if Hillary is not nominated or loses the Gen it will be someone else's fault and not hers or Bills. I can hear it now. I can actually write it out right now, word for word, but I'll hold back.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. I have invested into MY Party.....and It is my pleasure to do so...

[LawDeeDah]

81. You certainly are loyal

and I can't gripe about that, it's a bit admirable.

But I can't do that. I see people as individuals and I don't see Hillary and Obama as being the same, at all and not even close. When people say that they are the same, I hurl and laugh at the same time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. You damn skippy I am a loyal Democrat....just like my Grandparents before me...

who were life long Democrats and voted for FDR!

You cannot insult me by calling me a Loyal Democrat.

Oh by the way...my grandfather was also a Loyal Union member!

[sadoldgirl]

13. Well, yes, in a way I do see this

as a problem for her. It is one thing to run for the presidency
as a woman, but quite a different one to do so as the wife
of a former president. This will not just be used by Faux and
Friends, but by the general media. I don't see that as an
easy problem for her, because many people equate
marriage with a huge influence on both partners, especially
such a long time arrangement.

I don't believe that you can ask conservative Dems to
overlook this totally.

[MineralMan]

17. I'm not seeing it.

And very frankly, it's not conservative Democrats who are repeating right wing talking points anyhow.

[CrispyQ]

14. Do you feel the same way about the Bushes?

Jeb is not Dubya who was not Pappy so it's all cool.

[MineralMan]

15. I don't vote for Republicans.

So, no, I don't feel the same way about the Bushes. Besides nobody married to any of the Bushes is running.

[CrispyQ]

19. My point was the dynastic feel of

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Obama
Clinton or Bush

[MineralMan]

21. How come you only listed Obama once?

He is in his second term, you know.

I'm not big on dynasties, but it appears that the American voters don't mind too much, given recent history. In 2016, I'll be voting for the Democratic candidate. I always do that. The alternative is too horrible to consider.

I'm a realist.

[CrispyQ]

97. Duh. Just missed it, that's all. -nt

[madinmaryland]

132. I have to disagree with your calling the Clintons a dynasty. The Bushes have been in government

since the 1930/40's and the Walker family goes back just as far. One could probably go back much further.

I challenge you to find anything in the Clinton's family history to equal to the Bush Dynasty (also known as the Evil Empire).

[Phentex]

103. George is the dumbest of the bunch...

I never thought that GHW Bush was stupid. Ever. I didn't want him as a president but he wasn't an idiot like the son he had (W). From what I've seen of Jeb, he's not as stupid as W. It's VERY easy to see them as different people.

[JaneyVee]

16. Thank you, this is some misogynist sexist bs with...

A whiff of hetero-patriarchal entitlement. Don't like Hillary? Fine. But she is not responsible for the deeds of her husband.

[MineralMan]

18. You're welcome. The misogyny involved in opposition

to Hillary is very strong. Very obvious, too.

[JaneyVee]

20. She recently said she completely backs Obama's economic plan...

For the middle class after the SOTU. People here who liked Obama's proposals but derided him for not implementing them should take notice because she has stated her willingness to pick up the baton for this agenda.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, from what I can tell, the same people who don't want Hillary

to be the candidate also seem to dislike President Obama. Presidents have to deal with the realities of Congress. Always. It's a constant issue, because we seem to forget to vote when it comes to Congress. We often end up with mixed-party governments. That's the reality. It's a pity, too. I can imagine what Obama might have accomplished with strong majorities in both houses. We (the voters) denied him the chance to do that.

[LawDeeDah]

120. Then I am a special case because I love and respect President Obama

I think he has qualities that all of us should work toward cultivating. He is an exceptional person.

Hillary? I can't have respect for someone who flippantly voted for a war where so many died and suffered and are still suffering for and families that will hurt for years to come and get her back up if reminded and asked about it. Or someone who is delusional enough to make up that ridiculous sniper story. That's crazytrain stuff. Or the many, boundless other things she has said and done that just don't make for a good human being, let alone a good President. We came, we saw, he died!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA! so funny.

[LawDeeDah]

33. I'm afraid Bill Clinton takes the trophy for misogynist sexist bs.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Really? I'd give that to Rush or one of those 'legitimate rape' Congressmen or some of the anti gay

contingent. You think Bill Clinton is the most sexist person in politics and you bring that up as a criticism of his wife?
Twisted.

[LawDeeDah]

87. No. way to drag the meaning to some dark and twisty place you want it to be.

but no.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Excuse me? you said: " Bill Clinton takes the trophy for misogynist sexist bs." I said I do not

agree, that many Republicans take that trophy. You see Bill as taking the trophy for misogynist sexist bs, I see Rush as far worse than Bill, who I think is not what I'd call a misogynist at all.
Am I required to agree with you or be insulted? Who told you that was your right?

Did you vote for Bush over Bill Clinton as Liz Warren did? It's a fair question....

[LawDeeDah]

98. Trophies come in all sizes don't they? For all kinds of 'accomplishments'

Sorry, nothing here, move along but nice college try. Because Rush Limbaugh has one of the biggest possible trophies for being a sexist pig, means that lesser sexism should be overlooked and forgiven, becuz Clinton.

ok

[JaneyVee]

102. Nice rightwing talking point.

[LawDeeDah]

105. I took your reference to sexism towards Hillary as accusing DUers of such.

Which I see very little of here towards her but I don't see everything and I know exists because there are some extremely sexist posters here. So I replied keeping 'our' group in mind and did not include Rush or the many thousands of RW sexists pigs out there.

Now you can disagree all you like but Bill Clinton and the way he treats women, and his family is a sexist and that is not a right wing talking point. Appointing women to AG or the Courts does not discount his treatment of women as toys for a penis. Sorry if that curdles you but it is the truth that Dems don't like to talk about. He is a cheating sexist that takes every opportunity to make women into sexual objects. All the evidence over the years of good ole red blooded Bill at it again jokes confirm this. It's not funny or respectful to women, it's predator like.

Just saying it's a RW talking point is a loser argument. It's true, it's not a talking point of anyones. Of course it will be used because Bill let hmself be defined like that.

[treestar]

115. Bill Clinton may be a cheater on his wife

but he's not a misogynist. It doesn't quite track as the same thing.

[Logical]

117. Many people that don't like Hillary want Elizabeth. Is that sexist? nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. I agree with this to the extent you'd apply the same nuance to the GOP.

Yet 99.999% of DU wouldn't.

So, basically, it's "all's fair in war," which I suppose is just fine.

(Unless you're Chris Kyle, of course.)

[MineralMan]

25. What Republican presidential spouse is running?

I'm talking about this particular situation.

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. Come on, man.

If something even a tenth as salacious as this came up about anyone close to a GOP candidate, there'd be at least 100 threads about it here.

There is ONE here.

[MineralMan]

51. Today, there's just one. Other days, there are others.

Still, no republican presidential spouse is running for President at all.

[99Forever]

27. Like it or not...

... she carries all of Bill's baggage AND her own. Hollering that "it just ain't fair" isn't going to change that.

[MineralMan]

30. Does she? See, I don't think that's necessarily true at all.

In fact, if she gets the nomination, I expect to see something quite different. I'm an optimist that way.

[99Forever]

39. And I'm just keeping it real.

Righties aren't going magically start "having ethics and playing fair." They'll go for the jugular and if you don't see that coming you're living in a fantasy world. They'll get there right after they start compromising with Obama on the things he put forward in his SOTU. (beyond the fucking TPP job killer "trade deal.&quot

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. I like her just fine, better than most. If and when she seeks nomination I will give her my full

consideration. Until then, I am allowed to think, campaign and move this country forward with who I think is the

BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB OF LEADING MY COUNTRY IN THE DIRECTION I THINK IT SHOULD GO

and right now ... Bernie Sanders is looking like he fits that description better than Hillary.

I understand about Elizabeth Warren but, I truly hope she waits another 4-8 years.

I want her in the senate and Bernie for President.

Let the games begin !!

[MineralMan]

31. I'm afraid that Bernie Sanders is not going to turn out to

be even close to becoming the candidate. I don't see any movement in that direction at all.

I'd vote for him in a second. But, I don't expect to see him on my ballot, even in the primary. Truly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. I am not afraid of anything at this point. The Sky is the limit. What people are forgetting

is that Bernie is an Independent and very well could win the nomination for the Independent Party.

This could lead to a three way split along the lines of Nader.

Am I missing something here?

[MineralMan]

58. Personally, I don't vote for third party candidates for President.

I don't like the results much at all.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

137. thus the conundrum. all speculation at this point anyway.

[freshwest]

34. The paragraphs below said it all. Very well done, MM!

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

...Now, some are bringing all that up again, along with other rumors and accusations. Not accusations aimed at Hillary, but at Bill Clinton, a two-term Democratic President who hasn't been in office for a very long time. What that is is misogyny, pure and simple. It's assigning the faults of Bill Clinton, both real and imagined, to Hillary. Why? Because people who are doing that cannot possibly see the possibility of a woman in the presidency without wondering who would be telling her what to do. They don't want a woman as President. They didn't want a black man as President, either. Screw that!

...The right wing will, no doubt, continue to trot out stuff about Bill Clinton if Hillary decides to run. That's a given. Democrats, on the other hand, should not slavishly copy those accusations and that innuendo and spread them around. That's a weak argument, and an unfair one. It raises ugly questions when it happens...

[MineralMan]

37. Thanks for your kind words!

[MrMickeysMom]

44. Hillary was no Bill?

Well, well, well… Bill was no Bill, either.

After Bush I, we looked for some Hope from Arkansas, and although BC did some good things, why in the HELL did he pull policy so much to the right by taking that "hand up" he first offered to working Americans and pulling it back. After this, we have seen a steady fall in domestic policy to move our labor force anywhere. Meanwhile, Wall Street went on a rampage to screw us and help every president since then sustain this practice.

Do I even need to defend why America should be over-the-top pissed off for Clinton's repeal of financial legislation called the Glass–Steagall Act and what about signing NAFTA into law?

This opened the flood gate to change the rate of earning power, working longer and "smarter" so that we are in position to keep earning power so flat, we are earning less than we did in the 1970's?

Would you like some fries with that?

[MineralMan]

54. I said that Hillary is NOT Bill.

Spelling matters.

[MrMickeysMom]

59. Has nothing to do with spelling, MM...

And more to do with the truth, "You're getting two for the price of one", which is Billery.

Facts matter, too.

[MineralMan]

47. I'm sure she would, along with President Obama's accomplishments.

Democratic candidates almost always do that. If they don't, they usually lose.

[LawDeeDah]

46. If Margaret Thatcher's husband ran for PM after her stint

and over the years together they generally had the same political views and supported each other in those views publicly.

Would that be sexist too if some of Thatcher's history of decisions while being PM would overflow into questions during her husband's campaign?

I just don't understand the Hands Off in this at all so I am suspecting it is another special case for Hillary and the Clintons and wouldn't apply to anyone else.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. If Denis had run for office it would have been comedy gold. No one would have taken him seriously.

It's just such a hilarious thought. It's funny that you think that way.

[LawDeeDah]

92. It's funnier that you can't think of a response of any worth.

but if you don't understand it, you can put any names you like in the scenario and maybe it would be easier for you that way.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Sorry, the thought of Denis Thatcher standing for office is astonishingly amusing.

That's all the response that could possibly be offered to such a ludicrous image. Just so funny.

[LawDeeDah]

100. I know, that laughter is a good cover for a reasonable response, isn't it?

I mean how can you type when you are laughing at Denis Thatcher so hard (but can still do all these qwertys: 95. Sorry, the thought of Denis Thatcher standing for office is astonishingly amusing.
That's all the response that could possibly be offered to such a ludicrous image. Just so funny.


I get what you did there. Or try to do.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Hillary Clinton is a SCORPIO. Ever met a Scorpio woman who did as you told her? I haven't.

And I raised both a Scorpio daughter and a Scorpio son - and although they were wonderfully dutiful children, always eager to learn, the cutest kids you just can't help but want to hug ALL DAY, they are headstrong, independent, hard-working adults today who can't be led astray or have the wool pulled over their eyes once they've made up their minds.

Scorpio women are actually men in a woman's body. Their only regret is that they weren't born male because they understand the power men are afforded and have in this and other countries. However, that doesn't stop her from being the most powerful and most independent woman in the world.

I have seen NO evidence that SoS Clinton would have or has ever allowed her husband to tell her what to do. She is her own individual, her own woman, her own person. She doesn't need any man to tell her anything because long before they try, she's already been there and done that; weighing the pros and cons of any difficult issue long before anyone has even come to that point. Scorpios are known for their incredible sixth sense and insight in any given situation.

If anything, SoS Clinton would make a formidable leader in each and every way. The question is...will that be to our benefit or to our detriment? Some Democrats say to our detriment, some say to our benefit. My opinion - and it's just my opinion - she will do everything in order to further President Obama's agenda because it's one she herself shares. And that's what we need.

It would be wonderful to have a President Hillary Rodham-Clinton and a Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren. They would be perfect to ensure checks and balances and to avoid taking this country to the right. Ideally, the government I would like to see is President Hillary Rodham-Clinton, Senator Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren, and Speaker of the House Pelosi. The country would benefit greatly should those three women take the top position of power in this country.

[freshwest]

52. I would love to see all those women in power! Give it a try, USA!

[MineralMan]

53. Sorry, but I put no stock at all in astrology.

I agree that Hillary is her own person, but I know all sorts of people who are their own persons, and that doesn't seem to be attached to any astrological signs. Thanks for recognizing Hillary Clinton's uniqueness, though.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. I was just bringing a fresh perspective to the discussion. You might not put any stock in

astrological signs and such, but you'd be surprised how many actually do.

But thank you for the recognition.

[onecaliberal]

55. If there is anything republicans fear, it's women.

If you think we've witnessed it all from crazy reicht wingers, wait until Hillary is POTUS.

[meti57b]

78. We will have, "The President of the United States and First Gentleman"!

I cannot wait!!!

[MineralMan]

56. I have to leave my computer for a while.

There's work to do at my mother-in-law's old house. So, I'm not abandoning this thread, just leaving for the day.

I'll try to check in later in the evening.

[rhett o rick]

108. It wasn't so much the vote itself, but the speeches she gave where she promulgated the Bush lies.

She is very intelligent and knew they were lies but repeated them anyway. Now she claims it was a "mistake". Yes, a mistake costing hundreds of thousands of lives. How can that not matter? She has to share some of the responsibility. Lots of Democrats that didn't believe Bush, believed her. She has zero integrity. We have choices that have integrity, but she is the favorite of Wall Street so some here are on board.

[Thinkingabout]

122. And for a very similiar reason I am reluctant to consider Warren or Sanders is their

Vote recently on the ISIS Resolution, even without congressional security briefings there is enough news which indicates action needs to be happening, they both scare me and do not show they would take any action though intelligence says differently.

[Dawgs]

141. LOL!!!

Oh shit..

[TheKentuckian]

77. No, she isn't Bill she co-founded the DLC on her own because that is what she herself believes.

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

That said, the Clintons used to proudly call themselves a team. When did the team break up or if the team is still together why doesn't it make sense that there are at least substantial agreement on policy positions.

As far as the soap opera shit, I'm pretty sure no one of consequence cares with Bill about his sexual activities much less will transfer such "improprieties" to Hillary. The only people that really care weren't about to vote for any Democrat.
There are some that have crawled out of the wood work that PRETEND to care (that's right I said they are phony) about such things seemingly only and always to attack and bring down a liberal.

Point being, such nonsense is not a realistic threat to Hillary Clinton, the people spouting it have nothing else of any gravity and don't want to argue policy save in very limited areas and those wringing their hands about it just want a lame escape pod of a dodge when the Clintons are tied together on policy grounds which they largely should be or if they aren't then it on Hillary for not differentiating and separating.
Biggest differences that I can see is she is way more in the interventionist/war monger camp and Bill doesn't seem to be numbered under the friends and associates of The Family.

[still_one]

86. I look at the Supreme Court appointments of Bill Clinton, and believe if Hillary became

President she would make similar appointments

For that matter any Democratic nominee would, which is the main reason I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is

[ellennelle]

88. appreciate your perspective

but must respectfully disagree.

while there are many things i do admire about hillary, there were more reasons than barack obama for me to reject her last round.

first, i was a bit stunned with how poorly organized and directed her campaign was; frankly it stank. i figured, if she can't keep her campaign together, she sure as hell cannot run the country. she did well as a senator, sure, but as sec. of state, she did not make policy, only delivered those msgs that came from the prez. don't get me wrong; i feel she did a great job, and were it not for her being a woman trying to craft a middle east peace agreement, her skills might well have accomplished that. had she not been a woman. (so not her fault, but it's as real as obama's skin color; it will and was used against them both.)

second, she shares with her husband the DLC mentality on economics. i do not recall a genuinely progressive economic position from either of them; they simply tack to the left of the far right, which is nothing more than right of center.

third, she has taken frighteningly hawkish positions more times than i care to consider.

fourth, the thought of legacy presidents gives me the creeps. not my biggest reason, even for being aghast at jeb's run, but it is just so un-american.

and finally for now, on a more practical level, i fear she will just not be able to excite any of us true progressives. i'll vote for her, maybe even campaign for her, if she wins the nomination. but as it happened here in MA with martha coakley (twice, grrr), without that necessary unequivocal enthusiasm, a loss is at high risk.

we'll see.

[Enthusiast]

144. Well said.

[djean111]

90. "Don't like Hillary? Tell us why."

TTP. Do not dismiss this as just one issue. The TTP and the TTIP and any other "trade" agreements put the Investor State over sovereign states and make a mockery of rights and regulations and laws and environmental concerns and jobs and wages.

Also, H-1B visas. Especially when going to college puts our students heavily in debt for life, and older, displaced workers have no real place to go, except Walmart..

[A Little Weird]

130. +1

These are my main concerns too. She seems to be as pro-corporate and pro-war as any Republican and hasn't shown much concern for American workers. I'm not really sure where she stands on environmental problems - she won't even state a position on major issues like the Keystone pipeline.

I admire the work she's done to advance women's rights around the world, but I don't think that's enough to make her a good president. We need someone to challenge the increasing corporate influence on our government and tackle tough issues like fracking and climate change.

[Enthusiast]

146. +1

[Enthusiast]

145. +1 You nailed it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. But, there names rhyme and so do their politics.

I don't give a rip about their sex lives but I do care about their 3rd Way Centrist politics and, in particular, about Hillary's vote and support for Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. She may be "good" on some issues, but her hawkishness and support for fracking, the TPP and other neo-lib policies override the "good" part.

I won't vote for her. We don't have real primaries here in Washington and I won't vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination.

[Enthusiast]

147. Me too.

[hughee99]

96. Part of considering a candidate is taking into account the sort of people that will be surrounding

them and giving them advice once in office. While I don't think this should be the sort of thing that makes or breaks a candidacy, it's still relevant. If Bill would have access at the highest levels of decision making and is a prime candidate for blackmail, I'm not sure how it can be completely ignored.

[Rex]

99. Yes that is true, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. They are married to each other.

She is a woman and he is a man. Very good point. They are two separate people and not the same person. Thanks for saying so. Bill Clinton was a man that was president of America. Hillary Clinton was never president, but she might run for office.

Chelsea is not Hillary Clinton either, it is her daughter. Glad you folks understand that now. I have to go take a huge dump, but will be back later to tell you all how good it felt.

[KG]

116. thank goodness someone pointed out the obvious to us, otherwise how would we see it?

[Rex]

129. Just wanted to come back into this

thread that is on the internet, which seems to be running slow right now. And let everyone know (because you need to) I had a great bowel movement. A bowel movement it when you go and make poo in the bathroom. A bathroom is a place to take a shower and go poo. A shower uses water, which is wet in case you didn't know that.

Okay, I will leave again and maybe come back to tell you more stuff you had no idea about! DU is lucky to have me around to point these things out to everyone!

Thank goodness I am here.

[Fearless]

101. I don't like her because of her corporate connecctions and policies.

Full stop.

[YoungDemCA]

104. K&R. And just for the record-I'm not a fan of "left-wing economic populism" (whatever that means)...

...when that "left-wing economic populism" is a thinly veiled, hopelessly and painfully provincial attempt to derail the Presidencies (or potential Presidencies, in Hillary's case) of hard-working, competent, and respected Democrats like Obama or Hillary, and furthermore, when these same "left-wingers" repeat smears and lies about Obama or Hillary that are racist and misogynistic (respectively) in nature.

I expect that shit from the paranoid, conspiratorial far-Right. But not here. I guess narcissistic people come in all self-described political affiliations.

[Thinkingabout]

109. No, determining whether a candidate is qualified for the position they run for

By whom they may be kin to or married to does not always prove to be true. As in the case of George HW and George W, did not care for HW but W was a long way from being HW and though W had his father near he did not tend to want his advise but apparently to the advise of Cheney. I did not see anything good coming from Ron Paul and Rand Paul has not shown signs of uplifting the Paul name. In the case of Hillary and Bill I would think there just may be some discussions between them and Hillary may look on the information deeply when making decisions. She seemed to function well as senator and as secretary of state and I think she will be a great president. She will need to and will run on her own credentials and will serve this nation well. Believe it or not many women who lost their husbands through death functioned very on their own without using their husband as a crutch.

[Hekate]

110. Voice of sanity & reason: good luck with that here. You must have read ....

....the gawker article that was posted last night. Something about a private jet named Lolita. It was so filthy I wanted to take a shower afterward.

I don't know what kind of news source gawker is; I don't know if even a fraction of the allegations are true (mind you I said the same thing about a comedian with the initials BC at the beginning as well).

What I do know is that as I logged off it was getting a bunch of high-fives here, and the mental image that remains in my mind is of a very long fuse sparking away as it heads toward a big, big keg of gunpowder.

Will the RW use this to smear Secretary of State Clinton from here to Kingdom Come? Why, yes they will. Will the LW play along? They already are.

Usual disclaimer: I have not yet made up my mind who to vote for in 2016. My ballot is not filled in. All I know at this point is that I will vote for the most liberal candidate in the primaries, and the one with a D after his/her name in the general election.

Hang in there, MM. It's already a bumpy ride.

[joanbarnes]

112. K. Can we raise ugly questions about Jeb Bush? (and all the Bushes?)

[Hekate]

121. It would be a nice change for an allegedly Democratic site to stop smearing Dems&start oppo research

...on the GOP instead.

So please proceed, with my thanks.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

113. "...many people think she shouldn't be President, even some Democrats."

[G_j]

119. her association with Kissenger was enough to make me ill..

and her association with Bill is no plus either. But I didn't like many of her policy positions anyway. Just an all around bad choice, IMHO.

[forthemiddle]

123. Then Jeb Bush isn't his dad or brother!

I am not necessarily against Hillary, but I am so sick of political dynasties! I don't want more Clintons, more Bushs, or for that matter more Kennedys!
I agree with your premise that Hillary is accomplished in her own, but don't dare try and tell me she would have gotten where she is if her last name wasn't Clinton. Heck at this point, we all know Chelsea could win running on her name alone! This isn't against Hillary, it's against dynasties!

[Hekate]

135. That's a lot of exclamation points. I think you can relax about Chelsea and the Kennedys...

... though for different reasons.

The Clintons really don't have enough family members to constitute much of a dynasty; there's just Bill and Hillary. They had only one child, a girl, so the Clinton name isn't going forward in time; furthermore, said offspring is not interested in running for anything. Hillary, incidentally, has been into politics her whole life, and is as formidably intelligent as her wandering spouse. People can kvetch about a Clinton "dynasty," but two people in one generation and nothing afterward doesn't really constitute a dynasty.

As for the Kennedys, they are a huge clan, thanks to several crucial generations of devotion to Roman Catholic strictures. I don't know how many of them are still in politics, but it's nothing like when I was growing up, with three of the Kennedy brothers so very prominent nationally. Sadly, they already gave their best and brightest. I don't see presidential ambitions in their clan's immediate future.

Now the Bushes are somewhat different. The CIA father and the stupid son have already been president. Now the smarter son, the one who was a governor already but not a visible crook (like the two others), wants to be president too. The problem is -- they are a family of crooks. Nothing petty about them. They have been rich for generations, since before the Kennedys made their pile afaik, and they are sincerely bad news. A dynasty would suit them just fine.

Please do not confuse our imperfect Democrats and their families with the Bushes and their business empire. Really.

[outside]

126. Bill is part of the show.

If HRC gets into the White House Bill will be part of the team. I just don't see him as the first husband talking about reading programs and school lunches. Also don't look past Jerry Brown governor of California to run.

[truebluegreen]

127. "...a Senator and a Secretary of State, all on her own."

"She's not dependent on her husband in any way I've ever noticed." Really? You think Hillary not-wife-of-previous-President Rodham would have walked in and won that Senate race--her first--or been a contender in '08, or been named Secretary of State?

[Scuba]

128. Seems to me that Hillary has managed to disqualify herself without any help from Bill.

Pro-war, pro-TPP, pro-Keystone XL, pro-H1B Visas, pro-Wall Street is plenty without Bill's baggage.

[revmclaren]

131. Kick.......

Times 1,000,000 if I could.

[MineralMan]

133. Thanks.

[marions ghost]

134. Think about it

Bill and Hill are a two-headed entity and always have been. It's the nature of their symbiotic partnership. Elect Hillary, get Bill too. To think anything else is totally unrealistic.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

136. "Bill and Hill are a two-headed entity and always have been."

EXACTLY. I laughed out loud at MM claiming they're not dependent on one another.

She and Bill Clinton are married, but they are not dependent on each other.

One wouldn't exist -- to the extent that they now exist -- without the other.

[marions ghost]

149. we concur

[davidpdx]

138. I certainly don't believe she's not competent to do the job

I have brought up plenty of reasons why I dislike her in the past and will continue to do so. However, there are some very loud mouth people who support her who have been slapping labels on people because they won't support her. Sure the right-wing crap is wrong. There's no doubt about that. But so is what they do. My suggestion is to look at your own backyard and those who are making the noise to cool it. You are one of their peers and that is best left up to yourself and those who frequent the private group set aside for that cause. Just food for thought.

[hobbit709]

139. Owned by Wall St is why.

[magical thyme]

140. warmonger, TPP, wall street. nt

[Dawgs]

142. Maybe you should tell Hillary. n/t

[Enthusiast]

148. Hillary is too influenced by the banks and the military industrial complex.

She is solidly in favor of the TPP and the TTIP.

As much as I would like an easy win for the Democratic Party I think electing Hillary would be a net loss for the American working class people.

I have been watching Hillary for a long time now. I do not like what I see.

The problem, when we elect Democrats of this sort, they will inevitably embrace RW policies yet Democrats are reluctant to criticize them.

When a Republican president is elected we will at least get a full throated Democratic machine response criticizing their every act.

That is not to say I want a Republican president, God forbid.

It's just that I want a true Democratic president that adheres to traditional party principles and values. These principles and values do not include corporate designed free trade deals done in secret and deregulation of Wall Street.

The 1990s were a disaster for the Democratic Party and the American people. Much of the blame for this lies at the feet of the DLC.

[marions ghost]

150. Well said

I agree totally.

Waiting for the true Democrat...

[Nyc72dem]

152. "Don't like Hillary? Tell us why."

I wasn't wasting my time in those Iraq war marches. The woman is a vile monster.

[LawDeeDah]

157. 461,000 Iraqi's dead plus Bill Clintons 400,000 more - this looks like teamwork to me:

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/better-stab-estimating-many-died-iraq-war-68419
Writing today in the journal PLOS Medicine, the University of Washington's Amy Hagopian and 11 co-authors estimate that roughly 461,000 Iraqis died as either a direct or indirect cause of the war and subsequent military occupation.Oct 16, 2013

Hillary votes for the war and Bill supports it, until it becomes unpopular then they both change their minds, sorta.

https://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/05/31/clintons-iraq-l/
Over the past two years, former President Bill Clinton has positioned himself as a liberal critic of the Iraq War. He has objected to the manner in which the war has been conducted, but has largely refrained from criticizing the entirety of the war or providing a more comprehensive analysis of US power in the Middle East. This is not surprising given that in 2004 while promoting his autobiography My Life, President Clinton defended President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq arguing that he has “repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq.” In a Time magazine interview in 2004, Clinton said that he “supported the Iraq thing” because of Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), although he would have preferred that the United States wait for the weapons inspection process to finish.
---
When he speaks himself on the Iraq War or is interviewed and asked his thoughts on the war, Clinton is almost never challenged on his policy in Iraq, nor is there much discussion of Clinton’s Iraq policy. This is unfortunate, because much of the current policy towards Iraq had its origins in the administration of President Bill Clinton. During his eight years in the White House, President Clinton over saw an Iraq policy that killed over 350,000-500,000 children via sanctions, repeatedly bombed Iraq out of concern over WMD, and made regime change the official policy of the United States.

but the Clinton's years were ones of peace.... and prosperity... and HIllary always speaks about women's and children's human rights - I guess she excludes Iraqi women and children.

[Iggo]

156. Hillary Clinton is Not Bill Clinton