Which Clinton is running for President exactly

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
With every passing day, it seems that Bill Clinton is taking a more prominent role in his wife's campaign...he is doing the radio and interview circuit, taking on the attack dog role while his wife focuses on talking "the issues."

Here is the latest news headline of Bill Clinton going on the offensive:
Bill Clinton cites 'list of 80 attacks' from Obama camp

It is not uncommon for prominent politicans of a particular party to support a given candidate...once the primaries are over, and the VP candidates come into play, it is almost expected that the VP candidate will assume one role in communicating a message, with the Presidential candidate assuming another role. Hell, the Bush campaign revolved around Cheney playing attack dog, saving Bush from having to engage in issue driven debate.

But the Clinton campaign is a bit unprecedented in that you have a former President, who still holds a lot of respect and political influence, taking on a very prominent role in Hillary's campaign...granted, she is his wife, so I wouldn't expect him to sit on the sidelines...but there is a delicate balance here, especially considering that many from Clinton's Administration are similarly stepping forward to help Hillary.

I am curious if there will be a political backlash if Bill takes on too assertive a role...Hillary needs to stand on her own two feet as a candidate, and I find it a bit unfair that she has a former President going to bat for her...even if he is her husband, it does create a perception that she is unable to run her own campaign...or stand on her own as a candidate.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Non-issue as far as I'm concerned. If Gore wanted Bill's public support he'd likely have had it. He chose to distance himself. And look at what that support has gotten Hillary. Essentially a dead heat. People don't vote for who Bill, or anyone else, tells them to. If anything, the fact that it's his wife diminishes the worth of his support because of the perceived bias.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Should former Presidents be allowed to hold such a prominent role in a campaign

I can't believe you asked that question. This is still America, right?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
It is a free country. If corporations and attack groups are free to campaign how can you censor Bill Clinton?
 

GDaddy

Senior member
Mar 30, 2006
331
0
0
Actually i think his support has alot of people thinking, because he is taking such a forward role, that he will be "president" again. People will vote for Hill because they think Bill will be pulling the strings.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,384
6,065
126
How bad can it be to have a guy campaigning for you who was unfaithful as a husband with a woman barely an adult and then lying about it under oath. That big lying turd cost the Democratic party a massive victory and lead to the election of Disaster Pres Bush. The sooner he becomes a bad smell in history the better. Vote Obama and send a message.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is a normal (unwritten) policy that once a president leaves office that he will not interfere with the next president's policies. There are some exceptions to this. Carter interfered and has continued to interfere in Foreign Affairs on occassions. He has also been involved in monitoring Electorial processes in other countries. Mostly he has not interfered too much.

Bill Clinton may have resisted the unwritten rule a bit, but he was a president that was a bit of a media hog. The unwritten rule does not really apply to the spouse of the person running. In the past the wives and sometimes the children of some of the presidents have been more active in the campaigns. Laura Bush participated quite a bit in Bush's Campaigns.

We have not ever had the Spouse of an ex-president running for office so you have to expect some odd events. Bill seems rather clumsy in the support of his wife. I dont think Bill is doing Hillary much good in her campaign.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Bill's ass imprint is probably still on the cushions in the White House.

He very much would like to be reseated in his old groobe
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Bill and Hillary are a team they will be running it together, she will just be in front of the camera.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: GDaddy
Actually i think his support has alot of people thinking, because he is taking such a forward role, that he will be "president" again. People will vote for Hill because they think Bill will be pulling the strings.

So Hillary strikes you as a puppet does she? I don't get that impression. I'd have no problem with Bill being back in the WH as First Dude.
 

GDaddy

Senior member
Mar 30, 2006
331
0
0
She appears as a puppet to me, sometimes Bill pulls the strings, sometimes the polls do. She never seems sure about anything, so yes i think she is a puppet.

And you proved my point.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
It is a free country. If corporations and attack groups are free to campaign how can you censor Bill Clinton?
Yes it is a free country, and I wasn't suggesting that there should be rules in place to censor a former President from taking such an active role in a political campaign.

It is more a question of perception and implications of Hillary as a candidate.

Corporations and attack groups do not have a recognizeable face...they are political entities, working behind the scenes...similarly, such groups don't always create a correlation to a particular candidate.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign is a perfect example...they attacked Kerry's credentials, to Bush's benefit, but there was never a direct link between Bush's campaign and this attack group...sure, most people recognized that this attack group worked as an extension to the Bush campaign, but you never saw the organization and the candidate share the stage as a solidary entity.

Bill Clinton is a political figure...almost a brand...working in direct support of a particular campaign...while the end result may be the same as an attack group or corporation, the dynamics are quite different...and as a former President, Bill's prominance and role is a bit different than a corporation, special interest or attack group.

My personal preference? Candidates should have to stand on the merits of their ideas...not the financial or political big guns they can bring to the table through which they can undermine their opponents.

Regardless, I know some people see Hillary's campaign as simply a conduit through which we can get Bill back into the White House...not all of us necessarily agree that this would be a good thing, and I think it only further detracts from Hillary as a candidate that she cannot stand independent of her husband.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


My personal preference? Candidates should have to stand on the merits of their ideas...not the financial or political big guns they can bring to the table through which they can undermine their opponents.

I completely agree and support this. For this to become a reality though, I think that you need total campaign reform and public financing of elections.

As it is now, you have three choices if you would like to run for any public office on a federal or state level:

1. Be wealthy enough to finance your own bid
2. Be willing to do the bidding of whomever is wealthy enough to finance your bid
3. Bitch and moan about how those pricks in office are either 1 or 2
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,138
35,996
136
I've heard this question before, and to be honest, I'm having a little trouble with it.
This is due, I think, to the fact that the folks voicing this tend to be current-admin fans - which begs the questions, Where was this sense of ethics while this admin became the near perfect poster-child for the term "conflict of interest" ?

In a day where we have an ignorant failure of a president continually delegating power and responsibility to others (often, qualifications be damned), now all of a sudden people are in a tizzy over an effective ex-president maybe coming too close to a presidency that hasn't been won yet?

If President Cheney can employ the slimy likes of Karl Rove in a political bid, then I see no problem with a politically savvy and accomplished spouse lending help to a significant other. Shit, Nancy Reagan and Eleanor Roosevelt were hardly politicians, yet look at the influence they wielded in their respective times... Are either of them held in scorn for what they did?


I don't agree with the "Bill will bring political backlash" angle either. Years after Monica-gate, and with the vastly more noteworthy and disgraceful behavior from this admin still fresh in the minds of most Americans (with the exception of hard right religious types with sexual hangups). Practically every person I know who is interested in politics prefers the lies about hummers to the manipulation and dishonesty which led to the war that consumes American lives and limbs.
I think Hillary is her own backlash. One need only look at the fervor with which conservatives have maligned her with, hell - even when bashing Bill for his carnal appetite they find a way to illustrate Hillary as the witch to their witch hunt (e.g, that tendency for political debate to be condensed to Hillary not being pretty enough, or not servicing her man adequately.) The likes of Jerry Falwell haven't invoked the name of Satan in speaking out against Bill Clinton, to the best of my knowledge...




Having said all that, I sincerely hope Hillary, regardless of who assists with her campaign, does not get the White House. It's almost as scary a notion as a Baptist minister or 9/11 whore heading the Executive... ;)


 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
If you are not a Bill Clinton hater, this comes down to a spouse supporting his wife's campaign. Except for that the spouse is a woman, this is nothing new.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
I would also have to call this a huge non issue!
Bill Clinton holds no office and as much as I really have no opinion on the nmans presidency, he still has a right to stand up and support his wife`s presidential run!!

Peace!!
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,946
128
106
..shh. it's easier to fool the kooks into thinking they are re-electing bozo bill rather then elect his bed buddy.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
it's easier to fool the kooks into thinking they are re-electing bozo bill rather then elect his bed buddy.
Unfortunately, I know many people willing to vote for Hillary because of their sheeple idolization of her husband...thinking a Hillary Presidency is simply another Bill Presidency by proxy...because the economy was good under Bill, and he is like a good luck charm against recession or something along those lines.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,797
11,185
136
That'd work for me if I could ONLY stand Hillary...IMO, the only good thing about Hillary getting elected would be having Bill back in the White House...in spite of his fuck-ups, he was still a FAR better President on his worst day than Bush has been on his BEST day...

However, I can't stand Hillary and will only vote for her if I don't have any options. IMO, even Hillary would be better than another four years of Republican rule...