I am.
This is the second time you’ve said this, and it’s just as dumb as the first time you said it. Aside from sharing a bed with the President, what can Bill do in a Hillary administration that he wouldn’t be able to do in an Obama administration?
Also, Obama does appear to be fighting back](tpmelectioncentral.com) to some extent, essentially calling him a habitual liar 
Maybe it’ll make a difference.
Drink the Klinton-Aid much?
Just about the last thing I want is a shadow presidency. If world leaders think they need to go to Bill to get the real scoop, and not Hillary, she will be an ineffective president when it comes to foreign policy.
Keep going, though. You’re making a strong case for not voting for her in the general election. I’m not going to vote for someone because I want that person’s spouse in the WH. If Bill cares about the country so much, he can schlep around for Obama once Obama is elected. If he won’t do that, then he doesn’t care about the country.
I don’t see Hispanics supporting Obama. I’m going by just plain statistical data. Obama has the support of blacks, 13% of the country but I believe less than 13% of the registered voters. That’s his only given. Clinton is going to get a lot, not all, of women- 51% of the country. And she’ll get the Bill supporters.
And oh yeah, I’m a big believer in the Bradley effect.
Read the Clinton article- he said Bush should have waited for the inspectors to finish.
So, all the non-Blacks who voted for him in the primaries so far are going to stay out of the general or vote for the Republican if he gets the nomination? That makes absolutely no sense.
If there were any reason to believe this was true, you’d be absolutely right. She’d be a shoo-in. But it’s not true. Even among democrats, Clinton’s margin over Obama among women is in single digits by most polls. But in the general election, the question is where independent women will go, and the evidence suggests Obama would do better among them. Against a Republican, Clinton would get a small bump from women (who wouldn’t otherwise vote for her as a democrat), but not a significant one–and it will probably be more than canceled out by men that won’t vote for her because she is a woman.
You can dismiss this all as bad polling (including bad exit polling). That’s fine, I don’t necessarily disagree. But that means that you have no evidence but conjecture. And your conjecture isn’t particularly persuasive.
I couldn’t have said that any better.
Wee Bairn Are you serious when you say having Bill back in the White House will make such a difference? What did he do for the country whe GW was in the white house? Aside from playing golf with his dad and other speaking engagements?
He’s not going to be in Hillary’s cabinet, he’s not going to be “dealing” with foreign leaders…
And this conversation isn’t report what you know from NPR or World News Tonight, it’s about facts, and what you are saying -no offense- is pure conjecture.
Let me say that I honestly feel that Bill Clinton is the closest thing to a god this planet has seen, so that my color my view on the subject, and since I can’t be objective, I’ll bow out of this after this, to be fair…
But if Obama can’t run with the big boys, he needs to stay off the porch. If he can’t take heat from people who are pretty much his allies, what’s he going to do if he got the nomination and the right wing Christians start circulating the UL’s about him big time? When that stuff starts getting in the heads of the mindless morons who make up most of the country, and they start to believe he’s going to give the country over to Muslim radicals if elected- I think you’ll see his numbers dwindle. What many now think is a cute and fun and novel idea to have a black Pres may not be such a good idea to them a year from now.
And as for facts, read the article on the Bradley effect. The numbers don’t lie- David Dinkins polled at 18 points over Giuliani 10 days before the 1989 election, then 14 points ahead four days before, then won by only four points. If that’s not proof I don’t know what else anyone could want. Its real, it happens- do the Dems want to gamble it won’t happen again?
I don’t think he’s going to be sitting around playing White House host. IMO he’ll be involved in things. It doesn’t have to be official, hell he can corner someone in the hall after his wife has talked to them and maybe persuade them to do whatever. Bill has pull, Bill is persuasive, people like him- simply knowing someone, liking them and respecting them can get you things, right?
John Mace, IMO there is a big difference in going vs. a white woman than there is is vs. a white man
After a statement like the above this debate could dwindle very quickly. So I’m not really goiing to entertain it.
Obama is not running with the big guys, he is a big guy in this race. Bill is begining to get anxious because he knows his wife does not have this race in the bag by even a narrow margin, she is running a fast as she can to try and get ANYTHING on Barack to sway the independants and women to her side. Barack could very seriously win this whole shabang. Is this country more prepared for a black male to be president or white female?
But he can’t walk on water, he will not be running anything no matter who he lays down next to at night. I’m sorry, I can see you idolize the man, but he’s simply not going to be that involved in anything if she gets elected. This is being debated ad infinitum on the public airways and most people think he’ll be a hood ornament, at most.
I would love to see Bill Clinton appointed to UN Ambassador under a Obama or Edwards administration. Any chances he would take it? I’m sure he would have a lot more fun and get a lot more accomplished there rather than as First-Gentleman. Otherwise it would be nice if he would just ride quietly off into the sunset, to continue doing good works through his philanthropy, and hopefully, we would see an end to our modern day Hatfields v. McCoys - the Bush/Clinton era.
I’m saying Bill is a genuinely nice caring man, who is also a poiltical genius- you really can’t beat that on earth.
And going just on the bare minimum statistical data, one can say that the only certainty is that blacks overall would not have a problem with a black pres in general, and women in general wouldn’t have a problem with a woman- which percentage is four times higher than the other? Yes many woman hate Hilary, but even if 50% hate her, that’s still 26 vs 13%.
Maybe Bill can’t do anything official, but you don’t think Hillary will go to him for guidance?
If it was so important to him that the weapons inspectors finish, you would think he would have been angry about the premature nature of the invasion. Maybe enough to speak out against it like say, Obama did. But instead, 12 days after the invasion began he told Bob Dole, in a 60 Minutes interview , “Senator, unlike some of your Republican friends during Kosovo, I support our troops in Iraq and our President.”
I really don’t see how you parse that as anything other than approval for what has turned out to be a colossal mistake. I’m sure he regrets it now, but that doesn’t mean he gets to rewrite the history of both his failures and his (wife’s) opponent’s success.
It seems to me a god, or somebody so close to being one, could stand on their own merits and win their arguments using the truth instead of lying, that they wouldn’t have got wrong what a mere mortal got right.
Obama did praise Regan. The Clintons were not the only people critical of Obama’s Reagan statement. John Edwards was also highly critical . Senators Clinton and Obama essentially have the same voting record. Obama can’t be held accountable for a war vote because he wasn’t a U.S. Senator at the time.
Don’t forget the Obama camp distorted Senator Clinton’s comments about LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement. This was a mistake by the Obama camp because it appeared as if the team was trying to exploit race. I noticed Obama back peddled the LBJ/MLK issue during the Nevada debate.
Both sides are claiming voter manipulation in Nevada, and it seems to me that both campaigns are using similar tactics. It’s politics as usual and Obama is hardly a boy scout.
Obama did praise Reagan. The Clintons were not the only people critical of Obama’s Reagan statement. John Edwards was also highly critical . Senators Clinton and Obama essentially have the same voting record. Obama can’t be held accountable for a war vote because he wasn’t a U.S. Senator at the time.
Don’t forget the Obama camp distorted Senator Clinton’s comments about LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement. This was a mistake by the Obama camp because it appeared as if the team was trying to exploit race. I noticed Obama back peddled the LBJ/MLK issue during the Nevada debate.
Both sides are claiming voter manipulation in Nevada, and it seems to me that both campaigns are using similar tactics. It’s politics as usual and Obama is hardly a boy scout.
I can be absolutely objective about this re Bill’s support of Bush and Iraq- he didn’t kick Dubya when he was down- he took the high road. Anyone with a brain can see Dubya fucked up, no need for Clinton to get in on that with a public comment calling him a moron. But nowhere did he say he in any way he supported the actions of Bush- he said if inspectors said that nuclear material was missing and not found, he would have taken action- anyone would have done that.
There’s also a good chance if Bill didn’t know how to play the game, he’d be a nobody like John Edwards- being a good guy can only take you so far.
BTW, just who are all these friends that Bill has overseas? And which ones are actually still heads of State right now? I can’t think of a single one, to tell you the truth.
unconventional: Gee, Obama’s other main rival also distorted his statement. Are you asking us to accept that Edwards is just some objective, disinterested observer?
Even though it’s a pro-Obama article, here: