A Vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton II... Does he deserve second chance?

[KoKo]

After all we have had the Bush II second chance. Doesn't Bill deserve one?

For those who think Hillary is a "stand alone." I ask: What does she do with BILL? Is she using him to get elected? Doesn't he OWE HER for his stuff with Monica? How will she deal with him? How will the American people react to how she deals with him?

Can all of us really separate Hillary from Bill? Should we be expected to just ignore Bill?

:shrug:

[xultar]

1. So you're saying Hillary can't do the big job so she'll get her husband to do it 4 her.

Buhwawawa!

[KoKo]

5. No...I'm saying that they are "attached at the hip" in most Americans

minds. What is she going to do with him? Make him Ambassador to Poland?

[xultar]

12. THey aren't attached at the hip. She's woman enough to handle things

on her own. She's handled her senate seat well and Bill hasn't been involved.

If you don't like Hillary just say so. No need to drag Bill into it.

[KoKo]

23. They are a "Partnership".....joined at the hip...

She isn't an Independent Woman from a Two Term Popular President! What do you think Bill is going to do ...sit and "twiddle his thumbs?" :shrug:

[Bryan]

2. I'm not sure Bill would be the "Co-President" in that scenario

On the one hand, it's easy to say that Bill is a gamer and would love the juice of being somewhat directly involved in policy again, but on the other hand, his eight years in office took an incredible toll on him, and might have even been a factor in his later health problems. I think a case could be made that he might just be as hands-off as could be managed, because he doesn't need the stress.

[wisteria]

3. They had their time. It is time to take our party forward. Bill needs to retire

and Senator Clinton should just do her job as a Senator.

[KoKo]

7. You think Bill will retire to Chappaqua Home and do good works

from his office in Harlem? You think Bill Clinton isn't going to try to repair his "image" in the history books so he doesn't look like a footnote to the Lewinsky Scandal and Nafta debaucle?

Hey...Hillary gives Bill the SECOND CHANCE that all Presidents wish for. And she uses him just as he uses her. It's what the Clinton's are all about. I'm not saying that's a bad thing...just that it's what the reality is of their relationship politically. :shrug:

[tecelote]

4. Why would it matter either way?

Pay attention to the issues.

This is useless crap.

[Labors of Hercules]

6. Why would I want to Ignore Bill?

He was only one of the best presidents in the history of the United States. Who gives a shit about Monica? I'd love to see him back in the White House, and what's more, he'll still be called Mr. President! Ever think of that??

[yy4me]

8. He has the brainpower, I say Secretary of State would be a

good use for his talents. Never mind the marriage, if he has the skill, use it, we need all we can get. Let us not make issues out of things that are not. We need smarts, vision and courage.

[jcrew2001]

9. Yes, bill the sequal

Yes, gore wasn't elected, clark failed, and now its Hillary's turn to carry the Clinton legacy.

i say anyone as long as its a Democrat in the WH

[liberal N proud]

10. The Clinton years were pretty good to America for the most part

Far better than the last 6 years for sure.

I would have no problem with Bill's influence and brains behind Hillary. It might be the best bet, two brilliant brains correcting the problems left behind by the bu$h regime.

[Warpy]

11. First, she's her own person. She is not an appendage

and certainly not a subordinate. I doubt her husband will be in residence much. Second, he will have his own things to attend to like the lecture circuit.

Jeez, wake up and smell the sexism.

[xultar]

13. Those pesky women. Can't do anything without a man.

[davidwparker]

14. Oh, that's right BILL Clinton. I'm so used to calling him NAFTA-signing

Clinton that I forget his first name.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. But Outsourcing Our Jobs Will Create More Jobs For Us!

At least that's what I was told.

But it makes sense, no? If we send our jobs offshore, some magic will occur and we'll suddenly have lots of new jobs. Am I crazy here? Hlp me out...

[Hippo_Tron]

18. No, but it benefits everyone not in the textile or other outsourced industries

Trade creates plenty of good paying jobs in the service sector because we export tons of financial services and other consulting work. Singapore opened up its borders to trade but was actually prepared because the government invested a huge amount of money educating its workforce to make them competitive.

Americans aren't going to pay twice as much for the same clothes just because it will save a small percentage of peoples' jobs. The problem is the multinational corporations that control the Bush administration don't have any interest in the American workforce. They aren't willing to pay the taxes needed to train an upcoming workforce, re-train the current workforce, and offer generous pensions to those who are too old to be re-trained because that would be "welfare".

The fact is that stopping trade isn't going to bring us back to the 1950's where every boy could go work at the local factory after high school for the rest of his life and support his family while his wife stayed at home with the kids. Those days are long gone and we need to create a highly skilled highly educated workforce.

[Virginia Dare]

16. My two big problems with the Clinton/Gore years...

NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

But it was a virtual Utopia compared to what we have now.

[blm]

17. We wouldn't HAVE what we have now if Clinton hadn't closed the books for Poppy Bush.

No Bush2.

No 9-11.

N0 Iraq war.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Poppy pardoned all of the Iran Contra guys on his way out of office

So what was the point of continuing the investigation?

[blm]

21. There were outstanding matters still. And Clinton inherited the further investigation of

Iraqgate matters. And the outstanding matters in BCCI. And CIA drugrunning story came out in 1996 and it was Clinton's WH that downplayed that story and targetted the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter as a liar, though two years later CIA documents were released that supported his reporting.

Watch the BET documentary on it - American Gangster Episode 2.

[KoKo]

22. I think many of us who LOVED BIG DOG..down this long hard road

shedding tears are taking a "re-look" at the Clinton years. And, if you take out his Monica Fiasco...you have to wonder why both Bill and Hillary with the POWER THEY HAD didn't use it like Chimp did to fight back at their "Enemies!"

Something was wrong with the Clintons that they were so VICTIMIZED! And that their LEGACY caused a STOLEN ELECTION for their VP (who was hardly a Cheney) and that their "tepid respons" to Christian RW and REPUG RW was allowed to GROW during their 8 Years!

NAFTA and Media De-Regulation Act of '96 put the NAILS IN DEMS! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? :shrug:

The Clinton Administration in "review" looks worse NOW than it did when all of us were DEFENDING THEM throughout the MONICA THING.

THEY HAD CONTROL... CLINTONS HAD POPULARITY EVEN DURING MONICA TROUBLES...BUT THEY LET US DOWN...THE CHIMP DIDN'T LET HIS BASE DOWN...HE STILL RUNS WITH IT EVERY DAY!!!!

Clintons look worse in restrospect than they did in 2000 when they left with so many of us sorrowful and despondent. THEY NEVER HELPED US AFTER THAT! And...they did NOTHING TO HELP AL GORE! I wish it weren't so...because there's so much to like about Bill Clinton. Most of it being "Personality" though.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Yea, I think he should've vetoed the Telecom Act

Bush would've inevitably signed it, but maybe we would've been spared Bush had the Telecom Act not been signed. I've talked to someone who used to work in the Clinton Admin and he argues that it had no real effect because Americans have so many options in getting their news now. There's the internet, the cable networks, and some people even use The Daily Show as their primary source for news.

While he makes a good point, I still contend that that most of the constituency for alternative media is already partisan. The average American swing voter most likely still gets their news from their local ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX affiliate or possibly the cable channels which are also owned by huge corporations. When Americans stop watching TV and start reading the newspapers or go online for their news, I'll be less concerned about Clear Channel and Sinclair having a huge amount of influence. Right now that is not happening, though.