Hillary is ‘polarizing’ only because of what rivals say, Bill Clinton says

Is that classic Clinton, or what.

But I’m prolly stating the obvious.

Among the many problems with the Clinton’s “restoration” approach is this: Clinton’s legacy bears a peculiar, er, stain.

Good one Bryan – I like it !!

Merry Christmas to all the hard workers who make this web site possible!

Anyone wanna bet, if she loses in 2008, she’ll be divorced by the end of 2009?

petefrt on December 22, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I would say the odds favor that.

And how on earth does such a selfabsorbed man have any real friends?

Larraby on December 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I don’t think he does. Anyone who treated his wife–and child for that matter–in the shabby way he did can’t be any more loyal to anyone else. Narcissist is right. The man doesn’t give a damn for anyone but himself.

Anyone else around here think Clinton really and consciously wants Hillary to lose, just so he won’t be personally upstaged, he’s just trying not to be too obvious about it?

It is a classic the woman is only as good as the man she marries case. If she had divorced him, she wouldn’t be viable, she wouldn’t be a senator. The only reason she stayed with him was because he was her greatest accomplishment as a woman. Without him, she would just be another Cindy Sheehan liberal.

If she divorced Bill from her campaign, Obamma and even Edwards would have far greater appeal to that most important (and completely used and abused) core constituency in the Democratic Party.

Edwards knows this, which is why I think he has returned his campaign to focusing on poverty and the “underclass.”

Obamma’s appeal remains the most dangerous for Hill. His ethnicity is a given, and he has been careful to maintain his image as a middle or upper-middle class citizen. His politics obviously are scary left-wing nutty, but he seems like a “nice” guy. And that is a key to winning over genuine, fence-sitting voters.

Limping away, holding his crotch, Bill dials a phone#…hey baby, whatchya up to.

ReubenJCogburn on December 22, 2007 at 12:07 PM

That’s more or less my point :P

Feminism has really shown its true face in the past 5-6 years.

you’d think intellectually honest feminists would be out there saying that she shouldn’t be relying on the association with her husband to be elected; but there is only silence.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Well, that statement presupposes the existence of intellectually honest feminists, which are about as easy to find as unicorns. But you knew that.

And how on earth does such a selfabsorbed man have any real friends?
Larraby on December 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Clinton has NO REAL FRIENDS, only “bought” friends with either money or promises of money or power. But don’t get too close….
CLINTONBODYCOUNT IS VERY REAL.
Look at it. There are just way, WAY too many to explain away.

Obama will neutralize a broad range of attacks and criticism, and they know it.

“Mr Obama did you know that the Democrat Party created the Klu Klux Klan?” “Mr Obama, did you know that the Republicans passed the civil rights bill, twice?” “Mr Obama did you know that Martin Luther King, his father, and now his children are a Republicans?”

“Mr Obama, if you were interested in a change, you would realize you are on the wrong side”.

“He appears to have overcome concerns within the campaign over how closely she should associate her candidacy with his time in office and over whether his appearances could draw attention away from her.”

At this point, anything that can draw attention away from Hillary can only benefit them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Clinton campaign starts bringing out someone in a chicken suit at her appearances, or possibly a clown. I mean, a different clown. Not Bill.

Hillary being an anti-feminist candidate is ironic on a lot of levels, but has there ever been anything she’s achieved that wasn’t because of who she was married to? I consider Bill Clinton to be responsible for the death of feminism anyway. It’s not scientific, just a gut feeling, but I don’t think feminists have really been a factor in American politics ever since they completely and hypocritically prostituted themselves to defend Bill Clinton and his cornucopia of sexual misconduct. After shouting to the rooftops during the Clarence Thomas hearings that no woman would ever lie about sexual harassment, it was sickening to watch the NOW gang savage Bill’s numerous accusers, including Democrats like Kathleen Willey.

Among the many problems with the Clinton’s “restoration” approach is this: Clinton’s legacy bears a peculiar, er, stain.

Bryan, you are a very bad person for writing that. Bravo.

What’s next? Will she promise to build her presidential library in New Orleans?

But doesn’t taking Bill’s legacy as if it’s her own render her as little more than a socket puppet or cut-out candidate that would put him into a shadow presidency?

.

At times, his pitch for his wife is focused so much on his own accomplishments as president that it almost sounds as if he himself is running for reelection.

It should be illegal.
Why don’t we run for 16 years next time…include the spouse and keep going. Include kids and you could see a 32 year presidency in the not too distant future just to keep one person in the oval office.
.
Hell, run the dog, kinda like what hillary is really, a well trained mutt.

The hypocrisy is so thick, you could choke on it.