This could be in the primaries thread, so Mods feel free to move/delete.

 

After the last couple of weeks dueling words with Obama over MLK Jr. and now Reagan, it seems to me that Bill is just becoming a mockery in his attempt to campaign for Hillary. To me instead of helping her, it's got to be hurting her campaign. How do people not look at the two of them and think, "Gee, Hillary apparently can't speak for herself. She needs to have Bill do it for her."

 

What does everyone else think? And don't fall asleep in public!

Edited January 25, 200818 yr by knightni

It helps now, but maybe not later.

I think your second choice is very flawed, I could not vote.

lol, aight aight, I'll change it.

I dont know where I stand on this. I know personally I was willing to vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, but now that he is involved and really acting like a royal ass... spreading distortions and falsehoods. I will absolutely NEVER vote for Hilary now. She and her husband have lost me.

If you want to know where I stand, read my post in the DEM Primaries thread.

The other question is...should a former President carry himself with more dignity than to join in a campaign as an attack dog, regardless of whether or not one of his family members is running. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I certainly don't recall 41 going out on the campaign trail and joining in the "McCain has an illegitimate black daughter" stuff from 00.

The other question is...should a former President carry himself with more dignity than to join in a campaign as an attack dog, regardless of whether or not one of his family members is running. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I certainly don't recall 41 going out on the campaign trail and joining in the "McCain has an illegitimate black daughter" stuff from 00.

You are right. That is why many people are calling him and telling him to hush up. He is acting like a child. Lincoln mist be rolling over in his grave.

Both. There is a lot of people who love Bill and alot who hate him. No matter what everyone has a strong opinion on him. I think in the primary's it will help Hil, because most dems like Bill.

What makes me sick is that Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton, not her highness herself, for the most part. Ignorant f***ing Americans. Seriously.

The other question is...should a former President carry himself with more dignity than to join in a campaign as an attack dog, regardless of whether or not one of his family members is running. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I certainly don't recall 41 going out on the campaign trail and joining in the "McCain has an illegitimate black daughter" stuff from 00.

 

You lost me when you tried to inject Bill Clinton and dignity into the same thought.

Maybe its because I am naive, which I openly admit as I only recently turned 18 and have not truly understood/followed politics until 3 or 4 years ago. but I liked Bill, for he seemed to be a very smart man who was able to bring many foreign leaders together, while also improving the economy. Please give me insight onto the situation if I am wrong on those matters.

 

However, I feel that Bill has a right to endorse Hillary, for they still are husband and wife, but the way he is doing it is really hurting my perception of him. I wasnt goin to vote for Hillary, mainly because I have a feeling that she is very coldhearted and will only push people away (crying be damned, what a tool), and have been an Obama supporter in the past but its still just a freakin toss up for me.

Ok seriously the Bill Clinton did good with the economy stuff has to stop. It's become like Lock Ness or Big Foot in mythical size. Bill Clinton was handed, on a freakin silver platter, the Internet. He did nothing to help the Internet, he did nothing to promote the Internet. He was handed a brand spanking new billion dollar market. Of course the economy is going to flurish. And even that's not true because year 6, 7 and 8 of his presidency the economy was going downhill. I think Bush and his evil regime should be given ten times the credit for how well they've kept the economy going not only after inheriting the internet bubble bust, but also 9/11. But anyways...

 

I think Balta pointed out what I was getting at. It's not as if Bill is giving speechs saying "Hillary is great, trust me, I know because she's my wife and I've spent the last XX years from law school to now witnessing how great of a leader she is/could be a president." Instead it's "oh my God everyone look at me! Ok look at me! Are you looking at me? Ok. Obama said Reagan was the best president ever! Can you believe it?! I know right? The best? Pssh, he must be a closet Republican. boooooo! Don't vote for him!"

 

To me all it does it tell the American people that Hillary isn't good enough to run on her own and be her own person. Again, it'd be different in Bill was used correctly, but he's not. With his antics he's actually stealing headlines that should be Hillarys. That has to hurt, especially right now when she's got a tight race with Obama for the nomination.

 

Ok seriously the Bill Clinton did good with the economy stuff has to stop. It's become like Lock Ness or Big Foot in mythical size. Bill Clinton was handed, on a freakin silver platter, the Internet. He did nothing to help the Internet, he did nothing to promote the Internet. He was handed a brand spanking new billion dollar market. Of course the economy is going to flurish. And even that's not true because year 6, 7 and 8 of his presidency the economy was going downhill. I think Bush and his evil regime should be given ten times the credit for how well they've kept the economy going not only after inheriting the internet bubble bust, but also 9/11. But anyways...

Clearly I don't want to defend Clinton too much, but something has to be said for the stable fiscal environment that they generated, and even in a time of expansion, bringing the budget back into balance after all the work the previous 2 administrations did to knock it out of balance was, for a time, very impressive. Furthermore, that expansion did translate into jobs and growth in a way that the housing bubble did not, so there clearly must have been something different about it.

 

Furthermore, until the very end of his presidency, it's really, really hard to say the economy was struggling. The bubble peaked in 2000, that was year 8, and growth didn't slow down until the end of that year.

 

On the other hand, in hindsight, there are several areas where he just kind of coasted along when a lot more could have been done. For example, he wasted perhaps the last chance the U.S. had to invest real dollars to try to build an set of alternative energy generation systems before the price of fossil fuels went through the roof (with a legit investment program under that administration, the stuff we're getting now in terms of solar, wind, hybrid cars, etc., could easily have been available en masse years ago). He did, at a lot of levels, just kind of coast with what came to him, rather than getting out and actually leading the country where it needed to go.

What makes me sick is that Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton, not her highness herself, for the most part. Ignorant f***ing Americans. Seriously.

 

Do you really think she will just sit back and allow Bill to run the country again? That just seems 180 from my perspective and opinion of her.

 

As far as Bush the elder, he lost his last campaign, after running what was the worst campaign until Thompson just stole that "distinction". I do not think he was going to help his son at all.

George Bush did do some stumping for his son in 2000 but it was very limited. Then again we've never had a President in a position like Bill Clinton.

 

He did, after all, get out of the Presidency at an exceedingly young age for most Presidents and has a wife running for the same position. He's a very popular figure and is still very politically active, something that most former Presidents generally aren't after leaving office. The last Presidents to leave office in a similar popular position as Clinton were Reagan and then before that, Eisenhower.

 

The truth is, we can't really remember a situation where we've had a former President able to do the kind of campaigning that Clinton can do.

 

That being said, he cheapens his Presidency every time he attacks Barack Obama.

Despite that I don't like Bill Clinton much, he was indeed a pretty good President. More so in hindsight even. And the economy, as Bush 1 once rightly (but politically stupidly) pointed out is not something a President can do a whole lot with. That said, Clinton and Congress did manage to do a lot of good with the tools they had during that period.

 

That being said, he cheapens his Presidency every time he attacks Barack Obama.

 

But that is very true. He's starting to degrade his own legacy.

 

In answer to the poll's question, I think as others have said, it both helps and hurts. The Clintons are the old guard, as I mentioned in another thread - and they have a death grip on their slowly diminishing (but still very significant) power.

 

I hope some of you aren't thinking that Bush the elder just sat on the sidelines and said, I'm stating out of it. It's up to my son? You can bet all of his old supporters received a phone call. Like it or not, the business of politics is the same for both sides. Coke and Pepsi have to bottle their product and follow the same laws and compete in the same market. The business model stays fairly consistent between the two. What we see is the tip of the iceberg, the marketing. Lift up the hood and it's all the same.

Its amazing how polarized politics have become, and how well it seems to work. Elections haven't been about reaching out to the middle for a long time now. Its about exciting a dedicated base, and then having them carry you at the polls. It worked for Clinton, and it worked for Bush. The Clintons are just continuing that strategy. They don't care about the middle of the country, because the middle of the country has proven has dedicated to their causes as the wings of the parties have. Obama has to excite the middle of the country if he wants to have a chance. Seeing the way he is being savaged on TV, I have to agree that I don't see this happening. I do find it sad that an Ex-President has been regulated to the roll of attack-dog, instead of trying to campaign on a higher level, more honorable platform. Then again seeing how he behaved in office, it doesn't surprise me at all. I also think if GWB was in a similar situation, he'd be making just as big of an ass out of himself. I see no honor in the Presidency anymore.

I think GWB will totally be an afterthought after he leaves office. He's not going to be a stump for anyone again, IMO.

 

I see no honor in the Presidency anymore.

 

That has been said before. And once the American public truly believes it, we'll elect a "classy" candidate or two. I've said it before, of all the things that Reagan did, persona was #1 exactly when we needed it.

I think GWB will totally be an afterthought after he leaves office. He's not going to be a stump for anyone again, IMO.

 

Jeb '12

That has been said before. And once the American public truly believes it, we'll elect a "classy" candidate or two. I've said it before, of all the things that Reagan did, persona was #1 exactly when we needed it.

 

The delegate leaders are Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, neither of those are screaming "classy" to me.

The delegate leaders are Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, neither of those are screaming "classy" to me.

 

I did not mean to imply that. It may take two or three more elections. It all runs in cycles. Kind of the same old stuff, more of the same, a little more of the same, damn I'm tired of that and go 180 the other way.

I did not mean to imply that. It may take two or three more elections. It all runs in cycles. Kind of the same old stuff, more of the same, a little more of the same, damn I'm tired of that and go 180 the other way.

This election cycle has more good candidates than any I've seen in a few cycles. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be forgetting that, because Clinton and Romney (the current front-runners) are among the worst of each bunch. But the overall field is an improvement.

 

This election cycle has more good candidates than any I've seen in a few cycles. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be forgetting that, because Clinton and Romney (the current front-runners) are among the worst of each bunch. But the overall field is an improvement.

 

That, and the nature of the debate has been in the gutter. I had my hopes set much, much, higher. We have some articulate, smart, people running from a great diversity of backgrounds. And we get crap for anything meaningful coming out of any of their mouths.