Is A Vote For Hillary A Vote For Bill?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-12-18 01:35am

I know its been joked about, but does anybody think this will be a deciding factor? Is Hillary Clinton really a viable candidate for POTUS, or is this simply a way to get Bill Clinton back in the White House?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-18 01:42am

I find it unlikely. Should we worry that electing a former Vice-President is a way in for the old President?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-18 01:48am

I'd rather be voting for Bill, anyway.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-12-18 02:00am

I know some people talk about it favorably, and some unfavorably. It seems hard to avoid but I doubt it'll be the deciding factor in a vote for Hillary. Honestly, the bad press about her slinging mud at people--true or not--either makes her look mean and rove-esque with her attack politics or incapable of managing her own campaign. Obama has done a few of those digs at her too, but is so far doing better at avoiding the look of being underhanded. I think that's going to be a more likely deciding factor--if or if not her attack politics work. Personal attacks have always worked in the past but they seem to be losing traction with this race, which is unusual.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-12-18 02:19am

I think personal attacks aren't working because Obama is such an underdog it is impossible to stick something to him.

It goes like this: Osama Hussein Iraq. Plus he's black, and people think he's Muslim. Even a Dean Scream couldn't destroy him, though it would really hurt his chances. The only way he could be less of an underdog is if he did something criminal.

He is also a statesman and is a relative outsider with little real taint. He is almost bulletproof.

Attacking the underdog is supremely underhanded, and Americans hate people picking on the little guy, which is why I think Hillary is losing traction with her traditional power base of women and blacks. If she had acted high road, like Obama, it could've been a real debate about real issues.

But having Hill the Bill Frill go around screaming like a madwoman about his supposed faults is fine too, if it catapults Obama to the Presidency. America should have had a black President already with Colin Powell, but Bush took care of that ruining his reputation. Obama however, has something Powell didn't: leadership. He voted against the Iraq war to start with, when nobody else could see it (at least not in America.)

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-12-18 02:27am

It's a bit difficult to equate Hillary with Bill when Barack is the one candidate who most resembles Bill.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-12-18 02:28am

He voted against the Iraq war to start with, when nobody else could see it (at least not in America.)

Well, there were other senators and congressmen who voted against it... although not many of them are also running for the Presidency.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2007-12-18 03:23am

SirNitram wrote:I find it unlikely. Should we worry that electing a former Vice-President is a way in for the old President?

It's not really the same though. Bill will be in the White House if Hillary is President. He wouldn't have been (as often) if Gore had won.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-18 03:26am

Phantasee wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I find it unlikely. Should we worry that electing a former Vice-President is a way in for the old President?
It's not really the same though. Bill will be in the White House if Hillary is President. He wouldn't have been (as often) if Gore had won.

He wouldn't have been in the White House at all if Gores win had been upheld by SCOTUS. Gore was livid with Bill for doing more campaigning for Hillary's Senate run, than for Gore.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-12-21 12:45am

brianeyci wrote:But having Hill the Bill Frill go around screaming like a madwoman about his supposed faults is fine too, if it catapults Obama to the Presidency. America should have had a black President already with Colin Powell, but Bush took care of that ruining his reputation. Obama however, has something Powell didn't: leadership. He voted against the Iraq war to start with, when nobody else could see it (at least not in America.)

Considering that Obama wasn't in the Seante until after the '04 elections so it would have been hard for him to vote on the authorization for use of force back in '02 and '03. That aside I'm sitll voting for him if he's still in the race when Maryland's primaries come up.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-21 12:52am

CmdrWilkens wrote:
brianeyci wrote:But having Hill the Bill Frill go around screaming like a madwoman about his supposed faults is fine too, if it catapults Obama to the Presidency. America should have had a black President already with Colin Powell, but Bush took care of that ruining his reputation. Obama however, has something Powell didn't: leadership. He voted against the Iraq war to start with, when nobody else could see it (at least not in America.)
Considering that Obama wasn't in the Seante until after the '04 elections so it would have been hard for him to vote on the authorization for use of force back in '02 and '03. That aside I'm sitll voting for him if he's still in the race when Maryland's primaries come up.

He was in the Illinoise state legislature. IIRC, they held a vote on whether to support Congresses Iraq approval and he voted against it then, and spoke about how and why the Iraq war would be a failure. That would be enough to get my vote if he wasn't as big a corporate whore as Hillary.

I've voting for Edwards. He voted for the war, but is man enough to admit it was a mistake on his part and doesn't just hide being the fact that he was misled by Bush.

He also wants to work against the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for universal healthcare, rather than with them like Hillary and Obama.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-12-21 01:43am

I don't see why people are concerned about presidential spouses having input into their decision-making process. That's still a damned sight better than making decisions based on the input of a self-declared psychic like Jeane Dixon: something that only a Republican hero like Reagan would do.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-12-21 02:00am

Darth Wong wrote:I don't see why people are concerned about presidential spouses having input into their decision-making process. That's still a damned sight better than making decisions based on the input of a self-declared psychic like Jeane Dixon: something that only a Republican hero like Reagan would do.

To be fair to Reagan, wasn't it Nancy who consulted the psychics?
Though it speaks volumes about his judgment if he actually listened to second hand 'advice' from Jeanne Dixon.

Either way, I'd rather have Laura Bush whispering sweet nothings into GWB's ear about childhood literacy than Dick Cheney holding an open cabinet meeting over invading Iran.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2007-12-21 09:31pm

Yes, but only as much as a vote for Bill was a vote for Hillary all those years ago. Autobiographies stress the two of them are a team, and I've heard no decent evidence against the fact.

Disclaimer: I am fully expecting a Monica Lewinsky joke and since humour is based on surprise, it won't be funny.