Reply #38: What you're claiming has NOT been nearly as prevalent as

[cali]

you're making it out to be. Not even close. You're making stuff up left and right, providing NO links and no real rationale. Look, she sends out mixed messages about the co-prez thing. She often speaks in terms of "we" when referring to her tenure as first lady. She claims policies enacted during the Clinton years as her own. SHE is largely responsibel for the co-prez thing. She's the one that has constantly used the Clinton years as a touchstone. You don't want to recognize that, fine. But it's not something that's escaped the vast majority of observers. Nor is co-prez thing an indicator of sexism. It stems from her rhetoric.

He's the ex-POTUS. He's playing a very high profile attack dog role. He's going to get some heat for that. And it's perfectly fair to do so. He's not just another spouse. Did bush sr play this role for jr? No. Not. Even. Close. He's using his power as ex-prez. Fine. He doesn't get a free ride. He is NOT automatically due respect.

And this:

"This is why some Dem leaders have asked Bill Clinton to try and not react to the media prodding so much, but I imagine it is hard when you see your spouse maligned, by the media, and a person feels repeatedly"

False. That is not even remotely true. Kennedy and Emanuel and Clyburn and others, lit into him because they found his attacks on Obama dishonest and unseemly. It had zip to do with the media. And I don't hear either Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards whining about how the media is maligning their spouses.