2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAm I the only one freaked out by PRESIDENT Clinton campaigning for his WIFE?
It seems total banana republic to me and just reeks of political corruption.
I am going to say this plainly: the idea that a former First Lady is running for her husband's job is for me right up there with Donald Trump being taken as a serious candidate - in other words, INSANE.
Yes, I understand the "job security" that comes for their friends if she pulls this off - that is why it is called "cronyism" - and yes, the idea that she is pulling in money from the previous relationships she has established WHILE FIRST LADY from countries where human rights violations are NORMAL --
This is NOT FEMINISM. This is a married partnership trying to violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Yes, you can argue away that "Bill and Hillary are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE" and thus the rule doesn't apply and I will ROLL MY EYES at the idea that those two aren't a politically powerful TEAM who LISTEN TO EACH OTHER - that is why this type of farce is called "banana republic"!
Hillary has already been in office, and anyone who wants to pretend "First Lady" isn't a powerful bully pulpit is delusional.
Bill Clinton was a charismatic leader. He is still an influential force in our political process. He is working to get HIS WIFE his old job and if that doesn't scare you, pretend this was George campaigning for Laura or Barack for Michelle --
Politicians like power, and I get that - it isn't easy to walk away from eight years in power. But for me, the answer is NO - I will not support this level of CORRUPTION because I fear the CRAZY SIDE more.
Jury, if this merits a hide because of my strong feelings on this, I will accept it. I am a liberal progressive, I will vote for qualified Democrats down ticket, but I will not vote for tyranny (Trump) or cronyism (Clinton) in 2016.
I will not bow to a royal family or live in fear of their displeasure, and I don't care if their last name is Kennedy, Bush or Clinton.
I WON'T DO IT.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And the 22nd amendment was put in to place to block Roosevelt types... So?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Get elected for a fourth term despite his incredibly poor health which meant he died in office and thus maneuvered his own successor into office.
And yes, I am aware they are two different people but as husband and wife, they are a TEAM and inferring or implying otherwise is simply disingenuous.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)You are one of the very few people that are freaked out about someone's spouse campaigning for them. If you asked me for a word to explain that practice I would offer up either 'routine' or 'commonplace.'
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)My parents were voters in 1944 (one Dem, one GOP) both said that voting a new president into office at that point in the war was considered risky.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)the verge of a war" although Wikipedia mentions lots who wanted a third term prior - power is hard to walk away from.
Opposition congress was also voted in, and it was such a big deal they made a constitutional amendment so it couldn't happen again.
Powerful couples are historical fact. Hillary and Bill have money, power and prestige. One could almost say "too much".
braddy
(3,585 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)"Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,488 posts)Roosevelt led in all pre-election opinion polls by various margins. On Election DayNovember 5, 1940Roosevelt received 27.3 million votes to Willkie's 22.3 million, and in the Electoral College, Roosevelt defeated Willkie by a margin of 449 to 82. Willkie did get over six million more votes than the Republican nominee in 1936, Alf Landon, and he ran strong in rural areas in the American Midwest, taking over 57% of the farm vote. Roosevelt, meanwhile, carried every American city with a population of more than 400,000 except Cincinnati, Ohio. Of the 106 cities with more than 100,000 population, Roosevelt won 61 percent of the votes cast; in the South as a whole, he won 73 percent of the total vote. In the remainder of the country (the rural and small-town North), Willkie had a majority of 53 percent. In the cities, there was a class differential, with the white-collar and middle-class voters supporting Republican candidate, and working class, blue-collar voters going for FDR. In the North, Roosevelt won 87 percent of the Jewish vote, 73 percent of the Catholics, and 61 percent of the nonmembers, while all the major Protestant denominations showed majorities for Willkie.
That's in the North, but since numerous sources are mentioned at that site, I'll stipulate that the sources go into this to a greater extent. Also, I'll not bother with looking up the results for 1944.
That Internet. SMH.
Thanks.
braddy
(3,585 posts)and 1936, 1936 was also the first time that the black vote went democratic, it was the election that completely reversed the black vote from always republican, to always democratic.
The black vote in 1932 was a pretty normal 21% (Salon says 23%) black vote for the democrats, but 1936 totally flipped it forever, with blacks voting 71% democratic in 1936.
razorman
(1,644 posts)all this, as I am annoyed. It is nothing new, after all. Remember George and Lurlene Wallace. She succeeded him as governor of Alabama decades ago.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)and Sonny Bono's wife succeeded him in his seat in the House, and other wives have done the same.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)It bugs me too.
Same with kids who take over their parents' congressional seat.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)It always bugs me when the first woman something is because her husband died and she took the job.
I would much rather the first woman president was someone who rose on her own, rather than through her husband or father, etc.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)It doesn't matter.
#whatever indeed.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Last word for the oblivious: NANCY REAGAN.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)Good luck with that.
DUMBEST THREAD EVER FOR DU
Congrats!
You're on full ignore now
Thread trashed.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Someone on the Internet has a different opinion than I do - THE HORROR!!!!
And yes, I think updating the 22nd Amendment to include IMMEDIATE FAMILY is a very fine idea; thank you for suggesting it. Had it been done earlier, we might have avoided the Bush Debacle years.
Response to Agschmid (Reply #1)
Armstead This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)In eight years Chelsea can be seasoned enough to run, right? Or their son-in-law?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It's just plain tacky.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Of course, he wants Hillary to win.... But, do you have to break campaign rules in the State of MA with at bullhorn, Bill?
Well? Do you, BULLHORN BILL?
dchill
(38,502 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Not that he's aging...that's life. But how he's aging: he doesn't seem to have remotely the mental acuity I remember him having. The guy's moral compass may be badly broken, but I consider him one of our most intelligent presidents. He's hard to watch now.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)And since then has undertaken a strict vegan diet and exercises regularly. Perhaps that might explain a more gaunt appearance? If not for positive lifestyle change she would have been a goner long ago. We all get older, slow down a bit in the process, and look the part as we do. Tabloid considerations aside, why would Clinton be perceived any differently?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That diet should drop his body fat percentage, resulting in a more gaunt appearance.
But it's not just his appearance that's making me fear for his acuity. There's just something"off" about his speech and body language.
Goldfish
(71 posts)Videos and TV appearances of him show him with his mouth half-open when he is not talking. Is he breathing through his mouth? Looks very odd!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)It's disgusting.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Why shouldn't Hillary's family help...so sick of the double standard for women. This post would fit right in at FR.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Yes, especially with the way you spell "mail"!
JudyM
(29,251 posts)then your moral compass isn't properly set. And this is how it shows.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)So, it's all good. A past President going on the stump campaign is always a positive for the candidate and the Party.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Not stumping for the party.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Maybe your digging too hard to find negatives that just are not there. Both Clinton's have campaigned for hundreds of Democratic Campaigns over the past 20 years...
Are you thinking along the lines of nepotism? ...It won't hold water...Kennedy family/ Congressional members campaign for brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts,..Bob Dole had his wife stump for him....Oh, GW Bush for Jeb....HW Bush for George.....more examples are out there that make this thought moot.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)job on earth.
Historically, he will share in her power.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Bill Clinton stumped for over half of our Democratic Congress members, President Obama.... All DNC members ...Hillary had done the same in turn. Michele Obama stumped for Barack. There is no smoking gun....it's all perfectly normal.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)It's all a tempest in a teapot. Think about it. It's quite normal for Dems to campaign for other Dems.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)FarPoint
(12,409 posts)I wish you good thoughts and peace.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Just the one with the most funded military. Period. Reading that always bugs the shit out of me.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)that Slick Willie is not going to concern himself with vegetable gardening or roadside wildflowers as First Gentelman. We had EIGHT years of his screwing over American labor - you don't suppose he was part of the validation as to the TPP "Gold Standard" , do you? Nah! Surely - when the lights are out for the night - the pillow talk is all about their parenting prowess and the grandkiddies they're going to get to spoil. Spoil from their multi-million dollar estate. Aawww.... the vision is SO common citizen!
treestar
(82,383 posts)and can campaign for anyone he wants who is running. Not a big surprise who he picked - he was never likely to campaign for Bernie. Yet is Hillary were not running and he did that, he'd be just great!
Is there no doubt that he would be influencing her? A former president living in the White House?
And there is the question of the Clinton foundation and the quid pro quo expectation of donations.
An example of what they are doing would be the disgraced Texas Governor James Ferguson's wife 'Ma' Ferguson running and being elected Governor of Texas since he was prohibited by court order from ever holding the office.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)in this case right wing dynasty
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Companies do it too.
Husband dies and wife is new CEO.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)On edit: Oh wait, I just remembered you defended your pal who referred to Hillary as a c*nt. So yeah, you're not someone I would consider credible on the subject of feminism.
On edit again: This really pisses me off. Your post is the opposite of feminism. A married woman is subsumed into her husband? FFS this is a sickening post.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)certainly explains your understanding of my feminist credentials.
ON EDIT: Quit pretending that the position of FIRST LADY isn't a powerful one. And quit pretending that CRONYISM and TRANSFERRING POWER BETWEEN SPOUSES is FEMINISM.
Go read some history. Quit playing that Hillary Clinton and her husband aren't ALREADY politically powerful - you think people are donating millions to their charity because it is a good cause?
They are donating because it is a GOOD INVESTMENT.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Beacool
(30,250 posts)That is one word I despise and refuse to use against any woman.
mcar
(42,334 posts)This OP is ridiculous.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Thanks for the reminder.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)yeah Billary is the candidate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Billary is a right wing frame.
Your suggestion that a woman who was a National Honor Society member, a Merit Scholar finalist, a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate, a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state, and Secretary Of State is an appendage of her husband is patently absurd.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And they are no more of a team than other prominent political families like the Kennedys and the Adams. I don't see anybody here complaining about the former's presidential runs and rightfully so.
How about we just allow the voters to choose their leaders and stop acting like wannabe autocrats and philosopher kings and queens?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)uh...sorry. At least the Kennedys were consecutive, not a two-fer every time.
Next argument in favor of this kind of thing?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)uh...sorry. At least the Kennedys were consecutive, not a two-fer every time.
Next argument in favor of this kind of thing?
Last I checked there was one name on the ballot, your obscurantism notwithstanding. Maybe your sophistry carries the day when you debate at Nickelodian but not here.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"One name on the ballot" -- so that bit of information negates everything I'm saying?
Bill and Hill have proven they are a two-fer. As one might logically expect them to be. They are as joined at the hip as any power couple you'd like to name.
And I don't like it. They have done their thing. Now it's time for somebody else to have a turn.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Why do you want to take that decision out of the hands of the voters?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Dietary changes can accomplish that, and if they fail there is always over the count relief available.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Fiber!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)And not swallowing crap.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Signed
DSB, MD
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I give Hillary her due as an equal partner of Billary.
But they are BOTH going to be in the White House if she wins.
Candidate Billary is not derogatory in my book--it is realistic. Probably the only thing I agree with the right wing on.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)They both rise and fall on their own merits like John, Robert and Edward Kennedy; like John and John Quincy Adams; like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt; like Nelson and Jay Rockefeller.
Folks shouldn't be included nor precluded from running for political office because of their last name.
BTW, John Kennedy made his little brother Attorney General. How did you feel about that?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Seems counterintuitive to think otherwise, in fact...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Seems like a flimsy reason to prohibit members of the clan to run for higher office. How about we let the voters decide who they want to represent them?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm not actually a fan of term limits at all. Want a politician's term limited? Vote them out of office.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Not a fan of cronyism in either party. (You don't mention the Bushites...one of the best examples of the abuse of it).
The Clintons have BEEN in the White House before AS A TEAM. You don't see that that makes this very different?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Why do you think she's stayed with him through all his years of screwing around on her?
You think she just loves him so much that she can look past all his other women? You may see her as a victim, I don't.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And unfortunately there are men who are only as loyal as their opportunities, and many women stay with these men, and in some cases encourage it...
Why are you so eager to impose your bourgeoisie notions of morality on others?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Women don't stay with men who cheat unless they are heavily invested in the partnership or are abused and feel there is no escape. Hillary has never been a victim of spousal abuse and has always had the ability to escape.
So don't attempt to shame me for moralizing while engaging in it yourself.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I have friends in open marriages and open relationships. It's not my cup of tea but I don't arrogate to myself the right to tell others how to live... And betrayal can be emotional or physical. Some folks are more offended by the former.
For what it is worth I see real affection when they are together and he seems genuinely invested in her success and proud of her achievements.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)But you did try to shame me- and that is a form of moralizing.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)went through after the scandal, while in the White House to explore why he was unfaithful? apparently it was quite intensive and it worked. Have you heard of any affairs since? He really loves Hillary and supports her in the way most wives would like to be supported by their husbands.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But I can see how others slip...
And as I said when I see them together I see genuine affection and respect for one another.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)I doubt that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I can't peer into their marriage but if I had to I would vouch for her fidelity. And she's not the first wife to look past her husband's dalliances.
We don't ask why Eleanor stayed with Franklin, why Joan stayed with Ted, why Jacqueline stayed with John; why Lady Bird stayed with Lyndon, et cetera.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Just sayin'....
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--witty, kinda naughty--but nevertheless, TRUE.
Doesn't bother me if your rightwinger FIL calls them that. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on much else. As for his being crazy--I'm sympathetic to an extent. These are crazy times.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Folks on the far ends of the political spectrum have more in common than they wish to admit to.
There are certainly two candidates in this race, on ostensibly different ends of the political spectrum, who are infinitely closer to one another than either would admit.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...with their fingers in their ears going "La la la la, I can't heeeeeear you." I understand these are angry times, but I think a lot of the anger is misplaced and non rational.
I wonder what your old prof would say about my observations regarding the Cultural Revolution?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Free speech was supposed to be like flowers and allowed to bloom... Then the people who exercised their free speech and criticized the regime outed themselves and were imprisoned or killed...
Moral certainty is only as moral as the person that wields it.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...who survived the Long March, literally bled and were scarred for the cause (like Lewis and Huerta, just to name two) -- just consign them to the trash heap of history.
I find it infuriating and chilling.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--but it does describe the truth of this candidacy. It's a two-fer.
I don't believe the same couple should be in the White House twice. Especially when we have an excellent candidate who represents the progressive future much more closely. The Clintons are piggie. And their corporate sponsors are hogs.
RW terminology--actually I was calling them this long before I heard any RW use of it. Sometimes terms and nicknames just stick regardless of origin. I assure you I am a card-carrying Bernie-type populist socialist liberal leftist (whatever other term describes the group that has been left out of the Democratic party since Jimmy Carter).
mcar
(42,334 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)We're Americans - we don't have fraudulent elections. That only happens in *other* countries.
We're Americans - we don't have totally corrupt politicians. Slightly corrupt, sure, but never *totally* corrupt ones - that only happens in those *other* countries.
We're Americans - we're not some basket-case banana republic where wives run to replace their husbands, like Argentina or the Philippines! That only happens in those *other* countries.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Americans are so brainwashed.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)so as to rewrite history by inserting themselves as two wrongs, do make a Right.
for his Presidential Administration. Bill and Hill would like to rewrite history for their campaign of two wrongs do make a Right.
http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/8-policy-decisions-bill-clinton-now-regrets-150721?news=857012
snip
Its not often that a president, after leaving the Oval Office, will own his mistakes. But Bill Clinton has done just thatat least eight times.
During the 15 years since he left the presidency, Clinton has expressed regrets over eight policy decisions he made as the nations 42nd Commander in Chief, according to a report by Marina Fang and Amber Ferguson at the Huffington Post.
The eight regrets cover mandatory minimum sentences, deregulation of Wall Street, the war on drugs, banning gay marriage and Dont Ask, Dont Tell, the Rwandan genocide, Haitian rice tariffs, and HIV/AIDS drug prices.
more at link
Problem is that they were still holding Right of, their regrets, as of her announcement to run, April 2015. They have been flip-flopping Left and Left and Left again, to express their wrongs. Their goal is to win the office of the Presidency and if regretting, from Right to Left is necessary, they will do it. They have kept making giant leaps Left as the campaign time has flown along. The more jumps/flip-flops, the more the Clinton's are seen as phony Progressives. Republicans say they are liars. Who do Progressive Democrats say they are? Who do New Democrats say they are?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--they say whatever is necessary. And people want to believe them.
Phony progressives -- yeah, digging up bones to throw to those penned up dogs on the left.
"The Carter Center is a trusted pioneer of election observation, sending teams of observers to determine the legitimacy of 98 elections in 38 countries since 1989."
Maybe we need Carter to stop running around wiping out disease around the globe and watch one of our election?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)or could it be this is Hillary's 2nd try for her Third Term?
Bill should have been arrested in Mass...........................
onenote
(42,714 posts)While Clinton's conduct in Massachusetts was arrogant and inappropriate, it did not constitute behavior for which there is a criminal penalty under Massachusetts law. Even if what he did constituted "campaigning" within 150 feet of a polling place, which is prohibited under Mass. law, there is no penalty for that behavior specified in the Massachusetts criminal code. Rather, such behavior effectively subsumed within the penalty for disorderly conduct at a polling place, which requires the offender to persist in the prohibited behavior after being told to stop. That penalty is a fine of $100 or one month in jail.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--regardless of the law it was arrogant and ethically unacceptable to many people.
Disgusting behavior's OK to some also.
onenote
(42,714 posts)And what I find disgusting behavior that apparently is okay to some (not necessarily you specifically) is making up a non-existent felony and soliciting signatures on a petition saying Clinton committed a violation of it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)even if you think the way they did it was wrong.
At least they are objecting. And that is what has to happen or nothing changes.
onenote
(42,714 posts)One of the things I like about Bernie is his ethical standards.
One of the things I don't like about some of my fellow Sanders supporters is their lack thereof.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)it's about the principle. The Clintons have NO scruples.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Two wrongs and all that...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)about is that he would be back in the WH. Does anyone think that he would be keeping his head out of the business that Hillary would be responsible for? I do not like the idea of "two for the price of one".
One of the biggest problems with raygun is that once elected he became senile but was elected again. The country was then run by others as undeclared presidents.
I do not want that again.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)Sanders fans look over the top with the petition and all.
onenote
(42,714 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)Hillary Clinton is just an extension of her husband? Really? This is what we find on a progressive Democratic board in 2016.
Amazing.
By the way, this isn't a banana republic leader appointing (or being followed) by his spouse as leader.
Clinton isn't just a former first lady. She's a twice elected United States Senator and a former Secretary of State.
And yet neither of those facts were mentioned in your analysis.
Also amazing.
And I say this as a Bernie supporter. One who will vote for Clinton if she is the party's nominee.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)and Secretary of State should be disqualified from seeking the presidency because of her marital status, according to some.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Senator of New York, no less... she isn't even from there.
It's all about his Presidency. If you don't recognize that, you are deluding yourself.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Senator or Secretary of State if she had DIVORCED Bill after he was caught getting blowjobs from (at least one) other woman?
I am not questioning WHY she stayed married - that is their business - but I am asking you if you HONESTLY BELIEVE being the "wife of" as opposed to the "ex-wife of" impacted her career path?
Or do you want to pretend being the spouse of the person who is known as "the leader of the free world" doesn't really impact anyone else?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But she didn't, and it's not really my business.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)in the first place. Many in 1992 thought that SHE would have been the better choice. http://time.com/3815663/1992-hillary-supporters/
But yes, let's ignore history and facts and imply that Hillary is only where she is because she is Bill's wife.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)so let's excerpt it - you can follow links to see I am not making up the whole "POWER COUPLE" concept.
http://time.com/3815663/1992-hillary-supporters/
These People Have Been Ready for Hillary Since 1992
These People Have Been Ready for Hillary Since 1992
With Hillary Clintons expected announcement Sunday that she will run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, her supporters who have declared themselves Ready for Hillary will finally have the chance to see whether the rest of the country is ready and willing too.
But, though that Super PAC is only about two years old, some people were ready for her to run since more than two decades ago.
When her husband Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, Hillarys smartsand her divisive comments about how she didnt want her political-wife role to mean just sitting at homedrew frequent questions about whether she had the aspiration to run for office herself, perhaps as her husbands Vice President. As the election approached, the idea of her political prospects didnt go away. In fact, TIMEs September 1992 cover story about The Hillary Factor began thusly: You might think Hillary Clinton was running for President.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)selectively choosing excerpts to reinforce your POV rather than reading the whole article. Its gist was that Hillary should have been the one running for President instead of Bill in 1992. In fact, there were plenty of articles about that at the time.
But if you are determined to keep your bias, I doubt whether anything I can say will persuade you otherwise.
You will certainly not persuade me in any way whatsoever that
a) there is anything wrong in Bill campaigning for Hillary, as most, if not all, spouses - including Jane Sanders - are doing when their "other" is running for political office OR
b) Hillary would never have been elected NY Senator or appointed as Secretary of State on her own.
The very fact that you insist on doing so proves that women can be every bit as misogynistic as men.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)Hillary haters have become completely unmoored from reality.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Factually, your "yes" is wrong. Is it possible you may be ignoring other realities you do not wish to acknowledge in order to support Hillary?
You don't have to answer in this thread; my guess is that you it will not satisfy either one of us as to your credibility.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I'm not kidding-- your posts supporting Hillary always read like a proclamation of faith. It's bizarre.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)There is another thread talking about how great Jane Sanders is, and what an asset she is to the campaign. Do you plan to go there and tell them she is freaking you out?
I know you want to be consistent.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And Bernie wasn't the other half of the First Couple sharing a bed in the White House. I have explained the ACTUAL issue - power, prestige and influence - at length. I remain consistent.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 6, 2016, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Especially when it looked like it would be Clinton v Bush.
She has every right to try like any other US citizen.
nruthie
(466 posts)Hadn't thought of that aspect before, but now I can't get the idea of Barbara Bush running for president out of my mind. Thank God she's too old to try.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Yes because Barbara Bush was a Merit Scholar finalist, a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate, a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state, and Secretary Of State.
mythology
(9,527 posts)In addition to having been First Lady, she's also done some other things. Discounting her simply because her husband used to be President is basically saying that as a woman, she's simply his puppet. As another poster said, it's hardly a feminist position.
And really, given the example cited of the Kennedys or even another example like the Roosevelts, or Ann and Cecile Richards, it's not inherently bad to have multiple people in a family have an out-sized impact on politics.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)I've often wondered how much of this is about him wanting to get back into the White House.
I wonder how people would feel if Laura Bush was running for President?
lostnfound
(16,180 posts)Proof that America is more of an aristocracy than a meritocracy, no big deal.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Democrats love the Clintons. Why do you want to take the election out of their hands?
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)lostnfound
(16,180 posts)I think it would be better than four more years of the Clintons.
Michelle doesn't seem likely to seek that, though, and we'd have to wait through senate and Secretary of State terms to make the comparison fair to Hillary.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)does not see to be same type of first lady ,one that loves power. Her thing is going around telling kids eat healthy and the First Lady under Clinton was going around pushing NAFTA.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Vinca
(50,276 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)As a self-proclaimed Royalty.
Just like the Bushes.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)unleash Bill. See the hypocrisy.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)Whether or not one likes her politics or supports her candidacy, Hillary's experience as U.S. Senator and SOS qualifies her for the job. Being First Lady prior to that would have no bearing, since (surprise!) Bill and Hillary are actually two different people.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)tritsofme
(17,379 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)tblue37
(65,399 posts)when they get term limited out of power in corrupt countries. In fact, George Wallace did the same thing when he had his wife Lurleen run for governor.
But OTOH, do you really want to have a rule that prevents talented women from seeking to achieve their own goals just because their husband got there first? That would be unfair to women, especially when it is so much easier for men to reach the top in virtually any profession where people at the top wield real power. Hillary has always wanted to be president, and even Bill says she should have been elected instead of him. But in our backward society, no woman had any chance at all until quite recently, so all she could do was to accept the "litle woman helpmeet" role and help her husband win the office she wanted to run for herself.
I also dislike the idea of political dynasties, and I wish US voters were not such celebrity worshippers, because any celebrity, including a member of a famous political family, easily turns the voters' heads and also drives the media narrative because ratings/$.
Those who already have political power (and the wealth that it is inevitably used to amass) can all too easily install their own relatives into powerful political positions, which is how a country ends up with a strongman's family members feeding off the body politic and its treasury like parasites. It is how we ended up with the BFEE and both of GHW Bush's sons as governors and one as president, even though he was clearly incompetent and only a figurehead. It is how North Korea ends up with the insane descendants of one dictator in a position to execute people in such creative ways.
The Clintons are new on the scene, so they are barely getting started as a dynasty, but any person or family that amasses too much political power and wealth become a danger to any chance of restoring and maintaining a democracy. The BFEE has already done probably irretrievable damage to our political institutions with their nepotism and cronyism. Cheney is always working to get his daughter into office. It is a danger that besets us at all times from all sides, so we need to be vigilant against it.
We lucked out that the Kennedys actually did have concern for the people they served while in office, because their family patriarch was an old crook. But political dynasties are inherently antidemocratic.
But it still isn't fair for a woman to be expected, or required, to abandon her own goals and ambitions just because her husband got his turn first.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I like every part of your post. My discomfort with political dynasties underlies my position.
That said, I do fully support her run and admire her tenacity and patience to get to this point
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)He's a former President. He can't change that now, and that in itself does not disqualify her from running. If Sanders wife were a former President I suspect you wouldn't have an issue with her campaigning for him, because you prefer Sanders. I certainly hope Bill will also campaign for her in the General Election too. It would send a bad message if he didn't.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)running for the same office.
Immediate = spouses, children and parents.
It wasn't an issue for me with Junior because I didn't support him on that and multiple other grounds of his being unqualified. It disheartens me that the Clintons are doing it.
I respected President Clinton. I still don't want him back in the White House.
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Freedom of speech, freedom of association. None of these are qualified by any office you have held or how you may be related to someone.
Chalco
(1,308 posts)I like the idea of having Bill Clinton as First Dude. I liked him as president and I
like the fact of him being available 24/7 for advice. It will help the President,
who has already been a Senator and Secretary of State be even better.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)But she is a woman so......you just fixate on the wife thing
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)As with racism, people do not recognize their own misogyny.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)she was politically active back in the college years, but because she is a woman and a wife she has to give up her ambitions once her husband achieved his.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)We can't afford new candidates in our declining democracy so we are stuck with re-runs.
Darb
(2,807 posts)but you know that, or you should.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)But you knew that too. Derrrrrrrrr.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)This one is rated 'G'. The whole family will be able to enjoy it!
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)neither have a problem with dynastic politics.
Nitram
(22,813 posts)Confusing the presence of one similarity with proof of correlation is a common mistake.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)are nuclear family members of three of the four presidents who have held office since 1989. That correlates nicely with the idea of dynastic politics. Try and get your Oooh! around that.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)despite his being a part of a "dynasty." I think FDR was a great president, despite being closely related to a former president. I can even find nice things to say about John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams).
A dynasty, by the way, generally doesn't rely on elections to perpetuate power. When I hear "dynasty" I think Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XI...I think Tsar Nicholas I, Tsar Alexander I, Tsar Alexander II, Tsar Nicholas II, etc. etc.
Really, there are lots of substantive issues to dispute Sec. Clinton's candidacy. Who she is married to, to me, is pretty far down the list of my problems with her.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)It wasn't until the Bush and Clinton families got into the game that public service became the family business. I am unaware that any of the other families you mention made money from government contracts or donations to their foundations while serving the public.
Dynasties are not just hereditary ruling families. They are also people in a line of succession from the same family who play prominent roles in business, politics or other endeavors.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)and recognize the distinction.
Still, I think the dynasty issue is among the least worrisome.
What DOES worry me is that President Clinton can be a pretty loose cannon, and no matter how many times people try to distance Hillary from Bill, pretty much everything he does or says will inevitably reflect on her. Fair or not, that's how it has and will play out. I was surprised, back in 2008, at how many cringe-worthy things President Clinton said which had to be dealt with by Hillary's campaign. People have always said that President Clinton is a master at politics, but 2008 made me wonder if he hasn't lost his touch. Or maybe he's just too close to the campaign, it's just too personal for him, and this is clouding his political judgment.
Whatever the reason (and I know I'm just indulging in useless speculation) for me this is another reason to worry about Clinton as our national candidate.
Nitram
(22,813 posts)The Kennedys were the first family that considered public service an obligation.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)There are a lot of reasons not to support Hillary Clinton--hell, I'm a Bernie man myself--but doing it JUST BECAUSE she's married to an ex-President?
That's just...well, that's just dumb.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Which established name recognition for Senator and relationships for Secretary of State.
This is an political TEAM.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Why do casually dismiss the fact she was a Merit Scholar finalist and a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate before she married Bill Clinton?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)The two are a POWER COUPLE. Do you deny her power and influence during the eight years they lived in the White House? Or do you think all she did was put on pretty dresses and smile nicely at people who came to visit?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But so is having a last name like Kennedy, Adams, Bush*, and Rockefeller for starters...
And there are lots of other pols who have benefited from familial connections.
*maybe not, but George P. is lurking.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Secretary Clinton her last appointment as Secretary of State gives her that title
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)But this DU OP wow
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-host-democratic-town-872639
Mike Nelson
(9,959 posts)...I expect him to campaign for his wife. Jane Sanders often appears for her husband. She's a fine woman and advocate. In my opinion, one's spouse is no "dynasty". Hillary has a right to run for President - and be the first Rodham elected!
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Presidential candidates? NEVER EVER?
Please show me one example where this has NOT happened.
If I wanted to be nasty, I could imply something about how Bernie's spouse got to be where she is, which is exactly what you are outright stating about Hillary. But I will not because I would like to believe that Jane - who is also a strong and beautiful women - got to where she is on her own merits.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Geezus Chreeeest.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You should be ashamed of yourself.
Metatron
(1,258 posts)Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Here is a post that would take top prize.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)But I'm not sure these are paramount.
I wish, for instance Michelle Obama would run for something.... and I'm hardly a big fan of this president.
But K and R for your artful and powerful argumentation.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)That's all I can say about this post.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)But frankly this is one of the most outlandish reasons to bash Clinton that's been offered on this forum. The 22nd amendment does not apply in any sense. How a husband campaigning for his wife is corruption is nonsensical.
But if you believe that Bill and Hillary violate the Bill of Rights, file a lawsuit.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And they are Different People so TECHNICALLY no violation but I am pointing out that they are a TEAM (as married couples are) and transferring the job title from one spouse to another does not mean BOTH don't have influence.
The spirit of the amendment was intended to avoid concentrating power in the hands of one figurehead. When this happens in the rest of the world, the term is "banana republic" because of a ruling plutocracy.
Husband to wife transfer fits the whole plutocracy theme.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)40RatRod
(532 posts)Let the big dog bark.
Docreed2003
(16,862 posts)What disturbes me the most is the willingness of the people to accept political dynasty. When Bill ran the first time, they were billed as the power couple and "two for the price of one". I felt this way in 00 and 08 and I feel this way now, this country should not be controlled by political dynasties. It speaks to the level of corruption in this country that since prior to the New Deal, the repukes haven't had a successful campaign without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket. I cannot acquiesce to another Clinton presidency just because "it's her turn".
quickesst
(6,280 posts)No, you're not the only one.... and it's a little weird.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Bill Clinton has every right to campaign for anyone he chooses. It happens to be his wife, Hillary, this year. You can always just ignore him, though, I suppose.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)Do you have some fantasy that he'd campaign for Sanders instead? Or maybe that the First Amendment should not apply to President Clinton?
Grow up!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It is Not sexism to point that out. He even campaigns on his own for her in states she's too busy fund raising to devote full time to. If she can't win on her own without having her hubby do dirty tricks (like impeding voters) then she shouldn't be running at all.
Bill and Hillary are running for a Third Term. This is their Second try at it. We all need to be concerned.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And I think he'll still try but I doubt that anybody will pay much attention to him. He doesn't look well and he appears very slow to respond.
Their biggest problem may be keeping him from wandering aimlessly around the west wing with his bathrobe hanging open.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Unusual, but she could have had her own career had she never married him and might still be running.
Also the husband has been thoroughly vetted. And in this case, thoroughly.
spooky3
(34,457 posts)This OP is offensive on many levels. Back to the 50s...
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and that is worthy of note. That you seem to think that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President, a necessary implication of your line of thought, is a lot of crap and also worthy of note.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Heaven forbid Barack would campaign with her....btw - the 22nd amendment? - violate the SPIRIT? - now that is a CRUZ move!!!
Come on, everyone has their passion for their candidate, so be it..but to question Prez Clintons involvement in Hillarys campaign byway of the 22nd amendment...well, me thinks that is a wrong turn.....(byway of) (via)
I am not beholding to anyone - just the issues - facts - then I will vote..I have always resisted others making plans for me...
Bernie or Hillary - As an Indy, I will vote DEM! - Our country depends on it ....
Quick note - I am surrounded by snowbirds from all the republican states here in AZ, as one fellow said last night, a republican from ND, "out of 300 Million people you would think the republican party could come up with at least two viable candidates...I'll take eight more years of Obama over any of the candidates running in the republican party" - (I eliminated the swear words that were sprinkled in his comment) -
IdahoGoBlue
(15 posts)I don't want them in for a third term. How incredibly messed up are we to even think it would be right?
Loki
(3,825 posts)I've seen your name on this board for years, and this is beneath you. Does it matter, I guess only if you are a Bernie supporter, other than that I don't have a problem with any wife or husband stumping for their candidate. Bill Clinton can't undo the fact that he was President, and a damn good one. Next thing we will see is Michelle Obama bashing on this board.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)it really does seem wrong and it does give off this "royal family" vibe.
That said, I'll certainly vote against the next Hitler if it comes to the that. but I won't campaign for her.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The issue you bring up is comparatively minor in my own estimation.
I don't like it, put it pales in comparison to her warmongering, Wall Street loving, weathervaning ways.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)What did you expect? He's her husband. Of course he's gonna campaign for her. C'mon guys this is just silly.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)rury
(1,021 posts)that it gags me to think that I have to vote them back into the White House in order to keep a Rethuglikkkan from becoming president.
Well, of course, I could vote for the Green Party or write someone in...
That said, there is nothing wrong with campaigning for a spouse running for public office.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)I don't know if it's overprotectiveness or trying to make up for past sins.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I want our first woman president to be elected in her own right.
I don't want to send this message to young girls: Any girl in American can grow up to be president. All you have to do is find and marry a man who will be president first!
As a feminist, I am strongly opposed to the Sexual Harasser in Chief returning to the White House in any capacity, even as First Gentleman
Bill's 'rules are for little people' attitude, as shown in Massachusetts on voting day, also causes me to want him to go far, far away and be quiet. Fat chance, I know. It's unseemly for a former president to be slugging it out in party primary politics.
I so much wish the Clintons would take their $200 million haul from cashing in on their public service and go away. I want the Democrats to move on from the Clintons.
HRC isnot prgrsv
(13 posts)I was at one time a pretty big fan of hers until I realized how conservative she really is. Arguably her time has passed. She is toxic for the health of the Democratic Party, and for the country.
I heard a caller on a Progressive radio show call in recently saying that since women make up the majority of people in the country we should vote for her; I almost threw up my lunch.
I am a middle aged women and I would love nothing more than to see a women in the White House...but not just for the sake of it....not her, that would be irresponsible.
HRC isnot prgrsv
(13 posts)I agree that it is creepy. Prez Clinton had no right to go into a polling place in Mass to meet and greet voters....see that is the kind of distrust and manipulation that both of them bring into the the mix.
If dems and progressives want to beat the Republican nominee there is strong evidence that the only way to do that is to vote Sanders in; Cenk Uygur host of the Young Turks, wrote a piece that I found on the Huf Po and you can also hear on his podcast from either March 1st or 2nd about how the numbers do not add up if HRC is the nominee... she will lose the general, contrary to what the corporate media says.
Her unfavorable ratings are second highest to Trump and the person that is liked the most regardless of party is Sanders, he is the most electable.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)In any party.
greymouse
(872 posts)I have a big big problem with his interfering with people's ability to vote.
The country has numerous instances of a spouse holding the same office that their spouse previously held. That's up to the voters.
I would have loved to vote for Eleanor Roosevelt.
I don't think Bill would be doing much interfering if Hillary gets elected. I don't think he's mentally up to it. This is just my opinion, but I think he is going to need a health aide.
HRC isnot prgrsv
(13 posts)......even if it is done illegally or even if it has the appearance of it? It allows for a lack of trust. But then again I think it is power they are both after not trust; which goes to your second point about Bill interfering with her presidency...ah are you kidding? He has a lust for power like no other and will immerse his expertise in all sorts of issues.
Can you imagine the non-stop frenzy with the media, especially Faux news with the Clinton's back in the White House? If you thought the frenzy with the Black Kenyon in the White House was distracting imagine what it will be like if the Clinton's are there...WOW!!!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I was #1
Am I the only one freaked out by PRESIDENT Clinton campaigning for his WIFE?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511424373
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
> He is working to get HIS WIFE his old job
> and if that doesn't scare you, pretend this
> was George campaigning for Laura or
> Barack for Michelle --
How would Barack campaigning for Michelle violate the 23rd amendment?
Please hide this bullshit.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 6, 2016, 06:33 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a little odd of an argument but I don't see anything over the top
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think it's a bit banana republic, too, just like Bush plus Bush plus almost! Bush, and yet I know they are two different people. This post isn't hide-worthy, it's just someone's opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is tame compared to the race and gender based posts I've seen here lately.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post sucks on so many levels, but not a reason to hide or alert.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I WON'T DO IT.
I won't vote to hide a post in Gosh Darn - Primaries unless it is really vile. This post is lightweight compared to a lot of what is left here.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)So glad to know I am allowed to share what I think matters on this forum!
People can disagree, but at least we are talking about it.
I am a fan of history. I am currently focusing my appetite on Korea/Japan/China during the up through the Josean dynasty fueled by an unexpected interest in Korean dramas.
The personal politics of power in dynastic succession is really on my mind.
Thank you for not hiding.
johnp3907
(3,731 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)That dynasties suck is just one of them. America cast off one royal family in order to generate its own, and we keep doing that.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)As for your vote, do whatever you want with it.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)KauaiK
(544 posts)Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Nitram
(22,813 posts)Just lie down on a couch and inhale some smelling salts. You'll be fine in an hour or two. We thought hysteria went out with corsets and the victorian age, but it seems to have re-surfaced.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)but when that 3:00 a.m. call comes, who will roll over and answer it or who will she FIRST confer with? Hmmm...
moondust
(19,991 posts)I suspect some who favored the IWR may have followed HRC's lead assuming she had discussed it thoroughly with her co-President husband who knew everything because he got all the top level briefings only a year or two before.
And one can only assume that it would be the same "two for the price of one" deal if Hillary were to be elected: more NAFTA, welfare reform, media consolidation, deregulation of Wall Street, that kind of thing.
Does anybody really think she would do much of anything to seriously challenge or reverse her co-President husband's legacy?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Oh okay, you just stamp your feet and yell "I won't do it" in all caps. Nobody is making you, and they will not show their "royal displeasure" at your disobedience.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)but that is not what is being reported about the "strong" support she is getting from the "powers that be" and what happens to those who DON'T fall into line.
Ask Nina Turner....http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511421681
Hekate
(90,714 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)All told themselves, "Wow, Hillary would be so much better than me - I must support her for the good of the country because she is just so AWESOME?"
For myself I find it beyond odd must that a man who has spent THIRTY YEARS AS AN INDEPENDENT and never expressed an interest in the Executive Branch of the government who is beholden to NONE of the Clinton benefactors is COINCIDENTALLY the only ACTUAL CHALLENGER (not including the young "pick me as VP to show party unity" fellow) despite a beyond insane "come from behind" zero funding to start campaign is actually running.
I think Bernie Sanders is a man of principle and the rest of the DNC sponsored Dems have more fear than admiration of what can happen to their political careers if they oppose the Annoited One.
I am suspicious and cynical by nature. A generation of up-and-comers refusing to throw their hat into the ring against a dynasty says there is stuff going on behind the scenes I am not privy to. And the fact this husband-and-wife team is friendly with scum like the Bush folk raises this liberal's hackles.
Thank the powers that be for President Barack Obama and Chicago politics. I am not sure if Vermont Grit can do the same job, but I am hoping....
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)two presidents, essentially. No one can tell me Bill Clinton is going to just go to prayer breakfasts and stand on the sidelines. Impossible.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)were past the Nellie Ross/Ma Ferguson/Lurleen Wallace phase of US history, but we'll see.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)attempt to negate Secretary Clinton's achievements and "put the little woman in her place" says a lot about you. Have you run out of right wing websites to link here?
onenote
(42,714 posts)for equating the wives of three governors who immediately succeed their husbands with the Clinton, who ran for and won election as Senator from one the country's most populous states, twice, then was appointed to serve as Secretary of State by a President who wasn't her husband, and now, 16 years after her husband left office, is running for President.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)But they're not, and it's not.
Hillary - if elected - will do her job her way, just as Bill did it his way. I'm sure she will value his advice, just as he valued hers during his presidency, but she is an independent person, and will act accordingly.
It's actually a pretty sexist meme that you are sharing here.
Marr
(20,317 posts)it is is owned by a tiny handful of people. I thought GW Bush was a pretty clear statement to that effect, but somehow this is worse. Possibly because it's the Democratic Party and not the openly corporate Republican Party.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Bill just happens to be a very popular one.
And it isn't a Bill third term. It is a Hillary first. They are two different people.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Sheeesssshhhh!
It's the best of all worlds for Bill.
He can be Cheney/Haliburton - and get to the billionaire oligarch class
Swiftly...........
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)It is an Oligarch Civil War - upon U.S.!