Am I the only one freaked out by PRESIDENT Clinton campaigning for his WIFE?

[IdaBriggs]

It seems total banana republic to me and just reeks of political corruption.

I am going to say this plainly: the idea that a former First Lady is running for her husband's job is for me right up there with Donald Trump being taken as a serious candidate - in other words, INSANE.

Yes, I understand the "job security" that comes for their friends if she pulls this off - that is why it is called "cronyism" - and yes, the idea that she is pulling in money from the previous relationships she has established WHILE FIRST LADY from countries where human rights violations are NORMAL --



This is NOT FEMINISM. This is a married partnership trying to violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Yes, you can argue away that "Bill and Hillary are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE" and thus the rule doesn't apply and I will ROLL MY EYES at the idea that those two aren't a politically powerful TEAM who LISTEN TO EACH OTHER - that is why this type of farce is called "banana republic"!

Hillary has already been in office, and anyone who wants to pretend "First Lady" isn't a powerful bully pulpit is delusional.

Bill Clinton was a charismatic leader. He is still an influential force in our political process. He is working to get HIS WIFE his old job and if that doesn't scare you, pretend this was George campaigning for Laura or Barack for Michelle --



Politicians like power, and I get that - it isn't easy to walk away from eight years in power. But for me, the answer is NO - I will not support this level of CORRUPTION because I fear the CRAZY SIDE more.

Jury, if this merits a hide because of my strong feelings on this, I will accept it. I am a liberal progressive, I will vote for qualified Democrats down ticket, but I will not vote for tyranny (Trump) or cronyism (Clinton) in 2016.

I will not bow to a royal family or live in fear of their displeasure, and I don't care if their last name is Kennedy, Bush or Clinton.

I WON'T DO IT.

[Agschmid]

1. ... They are two different people.

And the 22nd amendment was put in to place to block Roosevelt types... So?

[IdaBriggs]

8. Roosevelt had amassed so much power and influence he was able to

Get elected for a fourth term despite his incredibly poor health which meant he died in office and thus maneuvered his own successor into office.

And yes, I am aware they are two different people but as husband and wife, they are a TEAM and inferring or implying otherwise is simply disingenuous.

[SCantiGOP]

39. The answer is Yes

You are one of the very few people that are freaked out about someone's spouse campaigning for them. If you asked me for a word to explain that practice I would offer up either 'routine' or 'commonplace.'

[MgtPA]

67. World War II was also a factor.

My parents were voters in 1944 (one Dem, one GOP) both said that voting a new president into office at that point in the war was considered risky.

[IdaBriggs]

121. Which was the argument used for him to go for Term 3: "on

the verge of a war" although Wikipedia mentions lots who wanted a third term prior - power is hard to walk away from.

Opposition congress was also voted in, and it was such a big deal they made a constitutional amendment so it couldn't happen again.

Powerful couples are historical fact. Hillary and Bill have money, power and prestige. One could almost say "too much".

[braddy]

203. FDR did lose the Protestant vote in 1940 and 1944.

[braddy]

207. The Washington Post says that Bill called Trump

"Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

262. I was going to ask "who in the world has that sort of information"? Of course it's on the Internet.

United States presidential election, 1940

Results

Roosevelt led in all pre-election opinion polls by various margins. On Election Day—November 5, 1940—Roosevelt received 27.3 million votes to Willkie's 22.3 million, and in the Electoral College, Roosevelt defeated Willkie by a margin of 449 to 82. Willkie did get over six million more votes than the Republican nominee in 1936, Alf Landon, and he ran strong in rural areas in the American Midwest, taking over 57% of the farm vote. Roosevelt, meanwhile, carried every American city with a population of more than 400,000 except Cincinnati, Ohio. Of the 106 cities with more than 100,000 population, Roosevelt won 61 percent of the votes cast; in the South as a whole, he won 73 percent of the total vote. In the remainder of the country (the rural and small-town North), Willkie had a majority of 53 percent. In the cities, there was a class differential, with the white-collar and middle-class voters supporting Republican candidate, and working class, blue-collar voters going for FDR. In the North, Roosevelt won 87 percent of the Jewish vote, 73 percent of the Catholics, and 61 percent of the nonmembers, while all the major Protestant denominations showed majorities for Willkie.

That's in the North, but since numerous sources are mentioned at that site, I'll stipulate that the sources go into this to a greater extent. Also, I'll not bother with looking up the results for 1944.

That Internet. SMH.

Thanks.

[braddy]

268. The only elections where the Protestant vote has gone democratic was in 1932

and 1936, 1936 was also the first time that the black vote went democratic, it was the election that completely reversed the black vote from always republican, to always democratic.

The black vote in 1932 was a pretty normal 21% (Salon says 23%) black vote for the democrats, but 1936 totally flipped it forever, with blacks voting 71% democratic in 1936.

[razorman]

137. You certainly have a point. I am not so much "freaked out" by

all this, as I am annoyed. It is nothing new, after all. Remember George and Lurlene Wallace. She succeeded him as governor of Alabama decades ago.

[demigoddess]

193. how about Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole

and Sonny Bono's wife succeeded him in his seat in the House, and other wives have done the same.

[Yupster]

218. Exactly

It bugs me too.

Same with kids who take over their parents' congressional seat.

[Yupster]

217. You're not alone

It always bugs me when the first woman something is because her husband died and she took the job.

I would much rather the first woman president was someone who rose on her own, rather than through her husband or father, etc.

[TeamPooka]

228. You're aware they are two different people, just unwilling to acknowledge it. #whatever

[IdaBriggs]

249. You are aware they are a Power Couple and pretend

It doesn't matter.

#whatever indeed.

[TeamPooka]

263. You're so deep in denial about individuals and personship you should be in Egypt.

[IdaBriggs]

264. Been there, actually. Beautiful country!

Last word for the oblivious: NANCY REAGAN.

[TeamPooka]

265. If you have a problem you need to go change the Constitution to discriminate against married people

Good luck with that.
DUMBEST THREAD EVER FOR DU
Congrats!
You're on full ignore now
Thread trashed.

[IdaBriggs]

267. Are my feelings supposed to be hurt?

Someone on the Internet has a different opinion than I do - THE HORROR!!!!



And yes, I think updating the 22nd Amendment to include IMMEDIATE FAMILY is a very fine idea; thank you for suggesting it. Had it been done earlier, we might have avoided the Bush Debacle years.

[boston bean]

2. bring a lawsuit, file it in federal court.

[IdaBriggs]

10. On what grounds? It is the SPIRIT of the law they break.

In eight years Chelsea can be seasoned enough to run, right? Or their son-in-law?

[pangaia]

79. 'They' don't do 'spirit.'

[AlbertCat]

147. It is the SPIRIT of the law they break.

It's just plain tacky.

[SusanCalvin]

153. Tacky! Bingo!

[MrMickeysMom]

3. I'm more freaked out by the way he cheats while doing it...

Of course, he wants Hillary to win.... But, do you have to break campaign rules in the State of MA with at bullhorn, Bill?

Well? Do you, BULLHORN BILL?

[dchill]

9. Indeed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Same here. And by how he's aging.

Not that he's aging...that's life. But how he's aging: he doesn't seem to have remotely the mental acuity I remember him having. The guy's moral compass may be badly broken, but I consider him one of our most intelligent presidents. He's hard to watch now.

[Zambero]

69. He almost died from heart disease

And since then has undertaken a strict vegan diet and exercises regularly. Perhaps that might explain a more gaunt appearance? If not for positive lifestyle change she would have been a goner long ago. We all get older, slow down a bit in the process, and look the part as we do. Tabloid considerations aside, why would Clinton be perceived any differently?

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. Okay, that's a fair point.

That diet should drop his body fat percentage, resulting in a more gaunt appearance.

But it's not just his appearance that's making me fear for his acuity. There's just something"off" about his speech and body language.

[Goldfish]

248. Interesting observation!

Videos and TV appearances of him show him with his mouth half-open when he is not talking. Is he breathing through his mouth? Looks very odd!

[MissDeeds]

83. Agreed

It's disgusting.

[sarge43]

159. Yes. That's what is wrong. n/t

[Demsrule86]

206. Every mail candidate has a wife that campaigns for him including Obama and Romney and McCain

Why shouldn't Hillary's family help...so sick of the double standard for women. This post would fit right in at FR.

[MrMickeysMom]

260. "This post would fit right in at FR"...

Yes, especially with the way you spell "mail"!

[JudyM]

258. If fair play isn't the way you conduct business, and you're more about 'all's fair in love & war'...

then your moral compass isn't properly set. And this is how it shows.

[FarPoint]

4. Party members, Congressional, Presidential and such DNC members always campaign for peers.

So, it's all good. A past President going on the stump campaign is always a positive for the candidate and the Party.

[IdaBriggs]

11. Husbands trying to transfer power to wives is the issue.

Not stumping for the party.

[FarPoint]

20. It is not a husband/ wife issue.

Maybe your digging too hard to find negatives that just are not there. Both Clinton's have campaigned for hundreds of Democratic Campaigns over the past 20 years...
Are you thinking along the lines of nepotism? ...It won't hold water...Kennedy family/ Congressional members campaign for brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts,..Bob Dole had his wife stump for him....Oh, GW Bush for Jeb....HW Bush for George.....more examples are out there that make this thought moot.

[IdaBriggs]

25. PRESIDENT Clinton is campaigning for HIS WIFE for the Most Powerful

job on earth.

Historically, he will share in her power.

[FarPoint]

28. So what.....????

Bill Clinton stumped for over half of our Democratic Congress members, President Obama.... All DNC members ...Hillary had done the same in turn. Michele Obama stumped for Barack. There is no smoking gun....it's all perfectly normal.

[DemonGoddess]

56. ^^^This!!!

It's all a tempest in a teapot. Think about it. It's quite normal for Dems to campaign for other Dems.

[Agschmid]

62. Yup.

[FarPoint]

63. Well...I have shared my rational explanation.

I wish you good thoughts and peace.

[polly7]

33. No, not the most powerful job on earth.

Just the one with the most funded military. Period. Reading that always bugs the shit out of me.

[Plucketeer]

117. One can DAMNED SURE BET

that Slick Willie is not going to concern himself with vegetable gardening or roadside wildflowers as First Gentelman. We had EIGHT years of his screwing over American labor - you don't suppose he was part of the validation as to the TPP "Gold Standard" , do you? Nah! Surely - when the lights are out for the night - the pillow talk is all about their parenting prowess and the grandkiddies they're going to get to spoil. Spoil from their multi-million dollar estate. Aawww.... the vision is SO common citizen!

[treestar]

144. He has first amendment rights to free speech

and can campaign for anyone he wants who is running. Not a big surprise who he picked - he was never likely to campaign for Bernie. Yet is Hillary were not running and he did that, he'd be just great!

[TxGrandpa]

122. Agree.

Is there no doubt that he would be influencing her? A former president living in the White House?

And there is the question of the Clinton foundation and the quid pro quo expectation of donations.

An example of what they are doing would be the disgraced Texas Governor James Ferguson's wife 'Ma' Ferguson running and being elected Governor of Texas since he was prohibited by court order from ever holding the office.

[Ferd Berfel]

155. correct. it's about Dynasty

in this case right wing dynasty

[Yupster]

220. It's not just politics either

Companies do it too.

Husband dies and wife is new CEO.

[seaglass]

5. Lol.

On edit: Oh wait, I just remembered you defended your pal who referred to Hillary as a c*nt. So yeah, you're not someone I would consider credible on the subject of feminism.

On edit again: This really pisses me off. Your post is the opposite of feminism. A married woman is subsumed into her husband? FFS this is a sickening post.

[IdaBriggs]

13. I am good with that. Your inability to understand how he was tweaking a troll

certainly explains your understanding of my feminist credentials.

ON EDIT: Quit pretending that the position of FIRST LADY isn't a powerful one. And quit pretending that CRONYISM and TRANSFERRING POWER BETWEEN SPOUSES is FEMINISM.

Go read some history. Quit playing that Hillary Clinton and her husband aren't ALREADY politically powerful - you think people are donating millions to their charity because it is a good cause?

They are donating because it is a GOOD INVESTMENT.

[zappaman]

118. "Tweaking a troll"

[bettyellen]

152. or just tweaking, would explain

[boston bean]

59. + a million.

[Agschmid]

65. Yup.

[SidDithers]

128. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[Beacool]

187. Seriously?????

That is one word I despise and refuse to use against any woman.

[mcar]

225. Interesting points, thanks

This OP is ridiculous.

[okasha]

245. So that's why the handle seemed familiar.

Thanks for the reminder.

[obamanut2012]

6. Good lord

[marions ghost]

7. It really shouldn't be allowed

yeah Billary is the candidate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Billary is a right wing frame.

It really shouldn't be allowed
yeah Billary is the candidate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Billary is a right wing frame.


Your suggestion that a woman who was a National Honor Society member, a Merit Scholar finalist, a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate, a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state, and Secretary Of State is an appendage of her husband is patently absurd.

[IdaBriggs]

26. Appendage is a insult. TEAM is accurate. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Your associate suggested she was an appendage.

And they are no more of a team than other prominent political families like the Kennedys and the Adams. I don't see anybody here complaining about the former's presidential runs and rightfully so.


How about we just allow the voters to choose their leaders and stop acting like wannabe autocrats and philosopher kings and queens?

[marions ghost]

45. "No more of a team than the Kennedys..."

uh...sorry. At least the Kennedys were consecutive, not a two-fer every time.

Next argument in favor of this kind of thing?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. That's a difference without a distinction...

No more of a team than the Kennedys..."
uh...sorry. At least the Kennedys were consecutive, not a two-fer every time.

Next argument in favor of this kind of thing?

Last I checked there was one name on the ballot, your obscurantism notwithstanding. Maybe your sophistry carries the day when you debate at Nickelodian but not here.

[marions ghost]

72. Ha ha

"One name on the ballot" -- so that bit of information negates everything I'm saying?

Bill and Hill have proven they are a two-fer. As one might logically expect them to be. They are as joined at the hip as any power couple you'd like to name.

And I don't like it. They have done their thing. Now it's time for somebody else to have a turn.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Why do you want to take that decision out of the hands of the voters?

And I don't like it. They have done their thing. Now it's time for somebody else to have a turn.

Why do you want to take that decision out of the hands of the voters?

[marions ghost]

104. What are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure nothing I have said takes any decisions out of the hands of the voters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Then we are on the same page and the seminal post was cathartic.

Dietary changes can accomplish that, and if they fail there is always over the count relief available.

[marions ghost]

114. Absolutely

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. That was quick.

Fiber!

[marions ghost]

125. Yep it's all about fiber

And not swallowing crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. No. That will give you Hep C. I recommend against it.

Signed

DSB, MD

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. double post.

[marions ghost]

37. Not suggesting she is an appendage at all

I give Hillary her due as an equal partner of Billary.

But they are BOTH going to be in the White House if she wins.

Candidate Billary is not derogatory in my book--it is realistic. Probably the only thing I agree with the right wing on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. They both rise and fall on their own merits

They both rise and fall on their own merits like John, Robert and Edward Kennedy; like John and John Quincy Adams; like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt; like Nelson and Jay Rockefeller.

Folks shouldn't be included nor precluded from running for political office because of their last name.

BTW, John Kennedy made his little brother Attorney General. How did you feel about that?

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. I'd argue that Bill is a big component of Hillary's popularity with some.

Seems counterintuitive to think otherwise, in fact...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I am sure that the Kennedy mystique is transferable.

Seems like a flimsy reason to prohibit members of the clan to run for higher office. How about we let the voters decide who they want to represent them?

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. Oh, I agree.

I'm not actually a fan of term limits at all. Want a politician's term limited? Vote them out of office.

[marions ghost]

58. I don't like it obviously

Not a fan of cronyism in either party. (You don't mention the Bushites...one of the best examples of the abuse of it).

The Clintons have BEEN in the White House before AS A TEAM. You don't see that that makes this very different?

[notadmblnd]

98. I disagree, they've always been a political team

Why do you think she's stayed with him through all his years of screwing around on her?

You think she just loves him so much that she can look past all his other women? You may see her as a victim, I don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. I can't peer into their marriage...

And unfortunately there are men who are only as loyal as their opportunities, and many women stay with these men, and in some cases encourage it...

Why are you so eager to impose your bourgeoisie notions of morality on others?

[notadmblnd]

123. It's damn human nature

Women don't stay with men who cheat unless they are heavily invested in the partnership or are abused and feel there is no escape. Hillary has never been a victim of spousal abuse and has always had the ability to escape.

So don't attempt to shame me for moralizing while engaging in it yourself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

170. I am not moralizing...

I have friends in open marriages and open relationships. It's not my cup of tea but I don't arrogate to myself the right to tell others how to live... And betrayal can be emotional or physical. Some folks are more offended by the former.


For what it is worth I see real affection when they are together and he seems genuinely invested in her success and proud of her achievements.

[notadmblnd]

171. Nor did I attempt to tell others how to live

But you did try to shame me- and that is a form of moralizing.

[demigoddess]

195. didn't you hear about the intensive therapy that Bill Clinton

went through after the scandal, while in the White House to explore why he was unfaithful? apparently it was quite intensive and it worked. Have you heard of any affairs since? He really loves Hillary and supports her in the way most wives would like to be supported by their husbands.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

209. I would never cheat on my girlfriend or wife.

But I can see how others slip...

And as I said when I see them together I see genuine affection and respect for one another.

[demigoddess]

251. but you seem to believe they had/have an open relationship.

I doubt that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

259. I can't peer into their marriage...

I can't peer into their marriage but if I had to I would vouch for her fidelity. And she's not the first wife to look past her husband's dalliances.

We don't ask why Eleanor stayed with Franklin, why Joan stayed with Ted, why Jacqueline stayed with John; why Lady Bird stayed with Lyndon, et cetera.

[Adrahil]

40. My crazy right wing father in law calls then both Billary.

Just sayin'....

[marions ghost]

50. Yep it's an obvious mash-up nickname for the Clintons

--witty, kinda naughty--but nevertheless, TRUE.

Doesn't bother me if your rightwinger FIL calls them that. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on much else. As for his being crazy--I'm sympathetic to an extent. These are crazy times.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. I once had a professor who said it's best to plot political views on a circle and not a plane.

Folks on the far ends of the political spectrum have more in common than they wish to admit to.

There are certainly two candidates in this race, on ostensibly different ends of the political spectrum, who are infinitely closer to one another than either would admit.

[Hekate]

215. In the distance I see people...

...with their fingers in their ears going "La la la la, I can't heeeeeear you." I understand these are angry times, but I think a lot of the anger is misplaced and non rational.

I wonder what your old prof would say about my observations regarding the Cultural Revolution?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

219. The cynicism of the One Hundred Flowers campaign.

Free speech was supposed to be like flowers and allowed to bloom... Then the people who exercised their free speech and criticized the regime outed themselves and were imprisoned or killed...

Moral certainty is only as moral as the person that wields it.

[Hekate]

221. To me it's the desire to trash the old, tear all of it down, send old warriors....

...who survived the Long March, literally bled and were scarred for the cause (like Lewis and Huerta, just to name two) -- just consign them to the trash heap of history.

I find it infuriating and chilling.

[Hekate]

208. "Billary"? Oh how the RW terminology proliferates at DEMOCRATIC Underground. nt

[marions ghost]

223. Sorry if it offends you

--but it does describe the truth of this candidacy. It's a two-fer.

I don't believe the same couple should be in the White House twice. Especially when we have an excellent candidate who represents the progressive future much more closely. The Clintons are piggie. And their corporate sponsors are hogs.

RW terminology--actually I was calling them this long before I heard any RW use of it. Sometimes terms and nicknames just stick regardless of origin. I assure you I am a card-carrying Bernie-type populist socialist liberal leftist (whatever other term describes the group that has been left out of the Democratic party since Jimmy Carter).

[mcar]

226. It is shameful that RW tropes are permitted here

[Dustlawyer]

12. Hillary = Imelda Marcos without the shoes!

[LibDemAlways]

31. Evita Peron -- with the foundation.

[reformist2]

14. You're absolutely right. But Americans don't see this because we think we're different.

We're Americans - we don't have fraudulent elections. That only happens in *other* countries.

We're Americans - we don't have totally corrupt politicians. Slightly corrupt, sure, but never *totally* corrupt ones - that only happens in those *other* countries.

We're Americans - we're not some basket-case banana republic where wives run to replace their husbands, like Argentina or the Philippines! That only happens in those *other* countries.

[marions ghost]

38. Sad but true

Americans are so brainwashed.

[DhhD]

103. And the Clinton's are playing on progressive acceptance by having Bill apologize

so as to rewrite history by inserting themselves as two wrongs, do make a Right.

for his Presidential Administration. Bill and Hill would like to rewrite history for their campaign of two wrongs do make a Right.
http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/8-policy-decisions-bill-clinton-now-regrets-150721?news=857012
snip
It’s not often that a president, after leaving the Oval Office, will own his mistakes. But Bill Clinton has done just that—at least eight times.

During the 15 years since he left the presidency, Clinton has expressed regrets over eight policy decisions he made as the nation’s 42nd Commander in Chief, according to a report by Marina Fang and Amber Ferguson at the Huffington Post.

The eight regrets cover mandatory minimum sentences, deregulation of Wall Street, the war on drugs, banning gay marriage and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Rwandan genocide, Haitian rice tariffs, and HIV/AIDS drug prices.
more at link


Problem is that they were still holding Right of, their regrets, as of her announcement to run, April 2015. They have been flip-flopping Left and Left and Left again, to express their wrongs. Their goal is to win the office of the Presidency and if regretting, from Right to Left is necessary, they will do it. They have kept making giant leaps Left as the campaign time has flown along. The more jumps/flip-flops, the more the Clinton's are seen as phony Progressives. Republicans say they are liars. Who do Progressive Democrats say they are? Who do New Democrats say they are?

[marions ghost]

112. I can think of more policy "regrets" Bill Clinton should have...

--they say whatever is necessary. And people want to believe them.

Phony progressives -- yeah, digging up bones to throw to those penned up dogs on the left.

[Gwhittey]

136. Yea

"The Carter Center is a trusted pioneer of election observation, sending teams of observers to determine the legitimacy of 98 elections in 38 countries since 1989."

Maybe we need Carter to stop running around wiping out disease around the globe and watch one of our election?

[onehandle]

15. IT'S A CONSPIRACY! nt

[INdemo]

16. Bill thinks he running for his Third Term

or could it be this is Hillary's 2nd try for her Third Term?

Bill should have been arrested in Mass...........................

[onenote]

21. For what exactly?

While Clinton's conduct in Massachusetts was arrogant and inappropriate, it did not constitute behavior for which there is a criminal penalty under Massachusetts law. Even if what he did constituted "campaigning" within 150 feet of a polling place, which is prohibited under Mass. law, there is no penalty for that behavior specified in the Massachusetts criminal code. Rather, such behavior effectively subsumed within the penalty for disorderly conduct at a polling place, which requires the offender to persist in the prohibited behavior after being told to stop. That penalty is a fine of $100 or one month in jail.

[marions ghost]

42. This does not jive with the law in other states

--regardless of the law it was arrogant and ethically unacceptable to many people.

Disgusting behavior's OK to some also.

[onenote]

238. To be clear, I didn't say what he did was OK. I said it wasn't subject to criminal penalties

And what I find disgusting behavior that apparently is okay to some (not necessarily you specifically) is making up a non-existent felony and soliciting signatures on a petition saying Clinton committed a violation of it.

[marions ghost]

250. OK but I have to side with those who have raised objection

even if you think the way they did it was wrong.

At least they are objecting. And that is what has to happen or nothing changes.

[onenote]

252. Making up a non-existent law is not an okay way to change things

One of the things I like about Bernie is his ethical standards.

One of the things I don't like about some of my fellow Sanders supporters is their lack thereof.

[marions ghost]

254. It's not really about the deficient MA laws

it's about the principle. The Clintons have NO scruples.

[onenote]

255. Neither do those who accuse someone of violating a non-existent "third degree voter violation felony

Two wrongs and all that...

[jwirr]

115. For obstructing voters. One of the things I am most worried

about is that he would be back in the WH. Does anyone think that he would be keeping his head out of the business that Hillary would be responsible for? I do not like the idea of "two for the price of one".

One of the biggest problems with raygun is that once elected he became senile but was elected again. The country was then run by others as undeclared presidents.

I do not want that again.

[riversedge]

176. Oh the drama. Personally, I think it made

Sanders fans look over the top with the petition and all.

[onenote]

253. I agree.

[onenote]

17. Paternalism.

Hillary Clinton is just an extension of her husband? Really? This is what we find on a progressive Democratic board in 2016.

Amazing.

By the way, this isn't a banana republic leader appointing (or being followed) by his spouse as leader.
Clinton isn't just a former first lady. She's a twice elected United States Senator and a former Secretary of State.

And yet neither of those facts were mentioned in your analysis.

Also amazing.

And I say this as a Bernie supporter. One who will vote for Clinton if she is the party's nominee.

[Tanuki]

24. Thanks for this. It is beyond offensive that a former US Senator

and Secretary of State should be disqualified from seeking the presidency because of her marital status, according to some.

[Bread and Circus]

97. Right but how do you think she got to the "head of the line" to become a Senator and then SoS....

Senator of New York, no less... she isn't even from there.

It's all about his Presidency. If you don't recognize that, you are deluding yourself.

[Agschmid]

27. Yup.

[IdaBriggs]

46. Be truthful: Do you honestly believe she would have gotten either

Senator or Secretary of State if she had DIVORCED Bill after he was caught getting blowjobs from (at least one) other woman?

I am not questioning WHY she stayed married - that is their business - but I am asking you if you HONESTLY BELIEVE being the "wife of" as opposed to the "ex-wife of" impacted her career path?

Or do you want to pretend being the spouse of the person who is known as "the leader of the free world" doesn't really impact anyone else?

[Agschmid]

68. I think she would have been a even stronger candidate had she divorced him.

But she didn't, and it's not really my business.

[BlueMTexpat]

81. She was actually the one that many had hoped would run

in the first place. Many in 1992 thought that SHE would have been the better choice. http://time.com/3815663/1992-hillary-supporters/

But yes, let's ignore history and facts and imply that Hillary is only where she is because she is Bill's wife.

[SunSeeker]

161. Great point. nt

[IdaBriggs]

177. You found a good article with some excellent links detailing Hillary's role

so let's excerpt it - you can follow links to see I am not making up the whole "POWER COUPLE" concept.

http://time.com/3815663/1992-hillary-supporters/

These People Have Been ‘Ready for Hillary’ Since 1992

These People Have Been ‘Ready for Hillary’ Since 1992

With Hillary Clinton’s expected announcement Sunday that she will run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, her supporters who have declared themselves “Ready for Hillary” will finally have the chance to see whether the rest of the country is ready and willing too.

But, though that Super PAC is only about two years old, some people were ready for her to run since more than two decades ago.

When her husband Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, Hillary’s smarts—and her divisive comments about how she didn’t want her political-wife role to mean just sitting at home—drew frequent questions about whether she had the aspiration to run for office herself, perhaps as her husband’s Vice President. As the election approached, the idea of her political prospects didn’t go away. In fact, TIME’s September 1992 cover story about “The Hillary Factor” began thusly: “You might think Hillary Clinton was running for President.”

[BlueMTexpat]

197. Well, you are certainly

selectively choosing excerpts to reinforce your POV rather than reading the whole article. Its gist was that Hillary should have been the one running for President instead of Bill in 1992. In fact, there were plenty of articles about that at the time.

But if you are determined to keep your bias, I doubt whether anything I can say will persuade you otherwise.

You will certainly not persuade me in any way whatsoever that
a) there is anything wrong in Bill campaigning for Hillary, as most, if not all, spouses - including Jane Sanders - are doing when their "other" is running for political office OR
b) Hillary would never have been elected NY Senator or appointed as Secretary of State on her own.

The very fact that you insist on doing so proves that women can be every bit as misogynistic as men.

[salinsky]

157. Thank you.

Hillary haters have become completely unmoored from reality.

[wyldwolf]

18. yes

[IdaBriggs]

179. I asked "am I the only one" and there are multiple replies saying no.

Factually, your "yes" is wrong. Is it possible you may be ignoring other realities you do not wish to acknowledge in order to support Hillary?

You don't have to answer in this thread; my guess is that you it will not satisfy either one of us as to your credibility.

[wyldwolf]

182. You're the only one.

[IdaBriggs]

183. You remain factually challenged.

[wyldwolf]

184. you're the only one

[Marr]

233. I've never seen someone outside of church so proudly make bogus statements like that.

I'm not kidding-- your posts supporting Hillary always read like a proclamation of faith. It's bizarre.

[wyldwolf]

234. yet, you're the only one

[SCantiGOP]

224. Dear Ida:

There is another thread talking about how great Jane Sanders is, and what an asset she is to the campaign. Do you plan to go there and tell them she is freaking you out?
I know you want to be consistent.

[IdaBriggs]

247. Jane Sanders has never been PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

And Bernie wasn't the other half of the First Couple sharing a bed in the White House. I have explained the ACTUAL issue - power, prestige and influence - at length. I remain consistent.

[riderinthestorm]

19. Yes, even as I said at the beginning I wasn't happy with the "political dynasty" aspect of this race

Last edited Sun Mar 6, 2016, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Especially when it looked like it would be Clinton v Bush.

She has every right to try like any other US citizen.

[nruthie]

22. I sort of agree with you.

Hadn't thought of that aspect before, but now I can't get the idea of Barbara Bush running for president out of my mind. Thank God she's too old to try.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Yes

I sort of agree with you. Hadn't thought of that aspect before, but now I can't get the idea of Barbara Bush running for president out of my mind. Thank God she's too old to try.

Yes because Barbara Bush was a Merit Scholar finalist, a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate, a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state, and Secretary Of State.

[mythology]

29. This is really silly

In addition to having been First Lady, she's also done some other things. Discounting her simply because her husband used to be President is basically saying that as a woman, she's simply his puppet. As another poster said, it's hardly a feminist position.

And really, given the example cited of the Kennedys or even another example like the Roosevelts, or Ann and Cecile Richards, it's not inherently bad to have multiple people in a family have an out-sized impact on politics.

[BuelahWitch]

30. Thanks for your post

I've often wondered how much of this is about him wanting to get back into the White House.

I wonder how people would feel if Laura Bush was running for President?

[lostnfound]

35. Not much different than George HW campaigning for W, or W for Jeb

Proof that America is more of an aristocracy than a meritocracy, no big deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. The difference is W didn't help Jeb a lick...

Democrats love the Clintons. Why do you want to take the election out of their hands?

[Faux pas]

36. K N R

[lostnfound]

41. Hey I'd love to see Michelle Obama get elected and we could have 8 more years of the Obamas.

I think it would be better than four more years of the Clintons.

Michelle doesn't seem likely to seek that, though, and we'd have to wait through senate and Secretary of State terms to make the comparison fair to Hillary.

[Gwhittey]

141. Michelle Obama

does not see to be same type of first lady ,one that loves power. Her thing is going around telling kids eat healthy and the First Lady under Clinton was going around pushing NAFTA.

[BooScout]

43. ...

[Vinca]

44. I don't really care, but it would be nice if he obeyed the 150 ft. rule around polling places.

[mylye2222]

51. AGREED.

As a self-proclaimed Royalty.
Just like the Bushes.

[Impedimentus]

53. No, you are not the only one. She constantly references that she is a woman, but never hesitates to

unleash Bill. See the hypocrisy.

[rbrnmw]

54. ...

[Zambero]

55. Now go find a legitimate argument against Hillary

Whether or not one likes her politics or supports her candidacy, Hillary's experience as U.S. Senator and SOS qualifies her for the job. Being First Lady prior to that would have no bearing, since (surprise!) Bill and Hillary are actually two different people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. It's Showbiz complete with commercials.

[jehop61]

61. YES

[IdaBriggs]

180. See post #179. nt

[tritsofme]

66. I knew things would get bad around here. I didn't think I would see completely unhinged this soon.

[Beacool]

188. It seems that some people people are going to need medication when the primaries are over.

[NurseJackie]

71. Oh brother! GMAFB!

[tblue37]

74. I understand your concern, because of course powerful men use their wives as surrogates

when they get term limited out of power in corrupt countries. In fact, George Wallace did the same thing when he had his wife Lurleen run for governor.

But OTOH, do you really want to have a rule that prevents talented women from seeking to achieve their own goals just because their husband got there first? That would be unfair to women, especially when it is so much easier for men to reach the top in virtually any profession where people at the top wield real power. Hillary has always wanted to be president, and even Bill says she should have been elected instead of him. But in our backward society, no woman had any chance at all until quite recently, so all she could do was to accept the "litle woman helpmeet" role and help her husband win the office she wanted to run for herself.

I also dislike the idea of political dynasties, and I wish US voters were not such celebrity worshippers, because any celebrity, including a member of a famous political family, easily turns the voters' heads and also drives the media narrative because ratings/$.

Those who already have political power (and the wealth that it is inevitably used to amass) can all too easily install their own relatives into powerful political positions, which is how a country ends up with a strongman's family members feeding off the body politic and its treasury like parasites. It is how we ended up with the BFEE and both of GHW Bush's sons as governors and one as president, even though he was clearly incompetent and only a figurehead. It is how North Korea ends up with the insane descendants of one dictator in a position to execute people in such creative ways.

The Clintons are new on the scene, so they are barely getting started as a dynasty, but any person or family that amasses too much political power and wealth become a danger to any chance of restoring and maintaining a democracy. The BFEE has already done probably irretrievable damage to our political institutions with their nepotism and cronyism. Cheney is always working to get his daughter into office. It is a danger that besets us at all times from all sides, so we need to be vigilant against it.

We lucked out that the Kennedys actually did have concern for the people they served while in office, because their family patriarch was an old crook. But political dynasties are inherently antidemocratic.

But it still isn't fair for a woman to be expected, or required, to abandon her own goals and ambitions just because her husband got his turn first.

[riderinthestorm]

132. ^^^^This ^^^^

I like every part of your post. My discomfort with political dynasties underlies my position.

That said, I do fully support her run and admire her tenacity and patience to get to this point

[ToxMarz]

75. It wouldn't say much about her as a candidate if her own husband didn't campaign for her

He's a former President. He can't change that now, and that in itself does not disqualify her from running. If Sanders wife were a former President I suspect you wouldn't have an issue with her campaigning for him, because you prefer Sanders. I certainly hope Bill will also campaign for her in the General Election too. It would send a bad message if he didn't.

[IdaBriggs]

87. Wrong about Sanders. I do not support immediate family of presidents

running for the same office.

Immediate = spouses, children and parents.

It wasn't an issue for me with Junior because I didn't support him on that and multiple other grounds of his being unqualified. It disheartens me that the Clintons are doing it.

I respected President Clinton. I still don't want him back in the White House.

[ToxMarz]

139. I'll stick with the Constitution rather than an arbitrary rule used as a campaign tactic

Freedom of speech, freedom of association. None of these are qualified by any office you have held or how you may be related to someone.

[Chalco]

76. I am speechless.

I like the idea of having Bill Clinton as First Dude. I liked him as president and I
like the fact of him being available 24/7 for advice. It will help the President,
who has already been a Senator and Secretary of State be even better.

[Person 2713]

78. She was an elected senator and sec of state not just a past First Lady

But she is a woman so......you just fixate on the wife thing

[BlueMTexpat]

86. +1!

As with racism, people do not recognize their own misogyny.

[demigoddess]

194. +10

she was politically active back in the college years, but because she is a woman and a wife she has to give up her ambitions once her husband achieved his.

[mcar]

229. +1000

[jalan48]

82. Bush. Clinton.

We can't afford new candidates in our declining democracy so we are stuck with re-runs.

[Darb]

94. Hillary is a Rodham, derrrrrrrrrrrr

but you know that, or you should.

[jalan48]

95. New and improved! Repackaged for better flavor.

[Darb]

107. No, they are not related, like the Bushes.

But you knew that too. Derrrrrrrrr.

[jalan48]

116. If you liked Clinton I-you'll love the sequel, "Hillary Rides Again".*

This one is rated 'G'. The whole family will be able to enjoy it!

[ismnotwasm]

84. .

[sulphurdunn]

85. Clinton supporters are like Bush supporters,

neither have a problem with dynastic politics.

[Nitram]

235. Oooh! That's deep.

Confusing the presence of one similarity with proof of correlation is a common mistake.

[sulphurdunn]

236. One current presidential candidate and another who just dropped out

are nuclear family members of three of the four presidents who have held office since 1989. That correlates nicely with the idea of dynastic politics. Try and get your Oooh! around that.

[thucythucy]

244. I think Ted Kennedy was a great senator

despite his being a part of a "dynasty." I think FDR was a great president, despite being closely related to a former president. I can even find nice things to say about John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams).

A dynasty, by the way, generally doesn't rely on elections to perpetuate power. When I hear "dynasty" I think Louis XIII, Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XI...I think Tsar Nicholas I, Tsar Alexander I, Tsar Alexander II, Tsar Nicholas II, etc. etc.

Really, there are lots of substantive issues to dispute Sec. Clinton's candidacy. Who she is married to, to me, is pretty far down the list of my problems with her.

[sulphurdunn]

246. It shouldn't be too far down the list.

It wasn't until the Bush and Clinton families got into the game that public service became the family business. I am unaware that any of the other families you mention made money from government contracts or donations to their foundations while serving the public.

Dynasties are not just hereditary ruling families. They are also people in a line of succession from the same family who play prominent roles in business, politics or other endeavors.

[thucythucy]

261. I see your point

and recognize the distinction.

Still, I think the dynasty issue is among the least worrisome.

What DOES worry me is that President Clinton can be a pretty loose cannon, and no matter how many times people try to distance Hillary from Bill, pretty much everything he does or says will inevitably reflect on her. Fair or not, that's how it has and will play out. I was surprised, back in 2008, at how many cringe-worthy things President Clinton said which had to be dealt with by Hillary's campaign. People have always said that President Clinton is a master at politics, but 2008 made me wonder if he hasn't lost his touch. Or maybe he's just too close to the campaign, it's just too personal for him, and this is clouding his political judgment.

Whatever the reason (and I know I'm just indulging in useless speculation) for me this is another reason to worry about Clinton as our national candidate.

[Nitram]

266. Sulphur, you are seriously mistaken.

The Kennedys were the first family that considered public service an obligation.

[Arkana]

88. Seriously?

There are a lot of reasons not to support Hillary Clinton--hell, I'm a Bernie man myself--but doing it JUST BECAUSE she's married to an ex-President?

That's just...well, that's just dumb.

[IdaBriggs]

89. Please refer to her by the correct title: former First Lady.

Which established name recognition for Senator and relationships for Secretary of State.

This is an political TEAM.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. Why do you casually dismiss

Why do casually dismiss the fact she was a Merit Scholar finalist and a Wellesley and Yale Law School graduate before she married Bill Clinton?

[IdaBriggs]

96. Sigh. Because "like attracts like" and OF COURSE she is smart --

The two are a POWER COUPLE. Do you deny her power and influence during the eight years they lived in the White House? Or do you think all she did was put on pretty dresses and smile nicely at people who came to visit?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Her last name is an asset.

But so is having a last name like Kennedy, Adams, Bush*, and Rockefeller for starters...

And there are lots of other pols who have benefited from familial connections.


*maybe not, but George P. is lurking.

[rbrnmw]

111. No you are so wrong her formal title is

Secretary Clinton her last appointment as Secretary of State gives her that title

[Person 2713]

212. That's what I have heard used in the media. Even the low end Fox types call her SOS

But this DU OP wow

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-host-democratic-town-872639

[Mike Nelson]

90. Not at all freaked out...

...I expect him to campaign for his wife. Jane Sanders often appears for her husband. She's a fine woman and advocate. In my opinion, one's spouse is no "dynasty". Hillary has a right to run for President - and be the first Rodham elected!

[BlueMTexpat]

91. And spouses NEVER campaign for

Presidential candidates? NEVER EVER?

Please show me one example where this has NOT happened.

If I wanted to be nasty, I could imply something about how Bernie's spouse got to be where she is, which is exactly what you are outright stating about Hillary. But I will not because I would like to believe that Jane - who is also a strong and beautiful women - got to where she is on her own merits.

[Darb]

93. This is bad satire right? Sarcasm?

Geezus Chreeeest.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

100. Totally sexist bullshit.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Metatron]

232. I completely agree. n/t

[Chico Man]

101. If there were a top 10 DU idiots column

Here is a post that would take top prize.

[BlueMTexpat]

199. +1! eom

[Person 2713]

213. IMO it is a contest this weekend between this OP and

this OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1421295

[Smarmie Doofus]

102. K and R. Lots of reasons to oppose Clinton ( wife.)

But I'm not sure these are paramount.

I wish, for instance Michelle Obama would run for something.... and I'm hardly a big fan of this president.

But K and R for your artful and powerful argumentation.

[OKNancy]

106. Embarrassing

That's all I can say about this post.

[kstewart33]

108. Ida, you certainly deserve to be heard.

But frankly this is one of the most outlandish reasons to bash Clinton that's been offered on this forum. The 22nd amendment does not apply in any sense. How a husband campaigning for his wife is corruption is nonsensical.

But if you believe that Bill and Hillary violate the Bill of Rights, file a lawsuit.

[IdaBriggs]

131. Bill of Rights is first ten amendments. The amendment is #22

And they are Different People so TECHNICALLY no violation but I am pointing out that they are a TEAM (as married couples are) and transferring the job title from one spouse to another does not mean BOTH don't have influence.

The spirit of the amendment was intended to avoid concentrating power in the hands of one figurehead. When this happens in the rest of the world, the term is "banana republic" because of a ruling plutocracy.

Husband to wife transfer fits the whole plutocracy theme.

[CherokeeDem]

109. Yes.... nt

[IdaBriggs]

181. See post #179. nt

[40RatRod]

113. I certainly am not freaked out over it.

Let the big dog bark.

[Docreed2003]

119. While I don't see them as the same person..

What disturbes me the most is the willingness of the people to accept political dynasty. When Bill ran the first time, they were billed as the power couple and "two for the price of one". I felt this way in 00 and 08 and I feel this way now, this country should not be controlled by political dynasties. It speaks to the level of corruption in this country that since prior to the New Deal, the repukes haven't had a successful campaign without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket. I cannot acquiesce to another Clinton presidency just because "it's her turn".

[quickesst]

124. Haha....

No, you're not the only one.... and it's a little weird.

[mhatrw]

129. "You were supposed to have been immortal." nt

[MineralMan]

130. Perhaps you aren't, but that doesn't matter much.

Bill Clinton has every right to campaign for anyone he chooses. It happens to be his wife, Hillary, this year. You can always just ignore him, though, I suppose.

[MarianJack]

133. So maybe he should campaign against his wife?

Do you have some fantasy that he'd campaign for Sanders instead? Or maybe that the First Amendment should not apply to President Clinton?

Grow up!

[KoKo]

134. It is the Second Time she's run with her husband in tow......

It is Not sexism to point that out. He even campaigns on his own for her in states she's too busy fund raising to devote full time to. If she can't win on her own without having her hubby do dirty tricks (like impeding voters) then she shouldn't be running at all.

Bill and Hillary are running for a Third Term. This is their Second try at it. We all need to be concerned.

[tularetom]

135. I used to worry that he wouldn't be able to keep his big nose out of it

And I think he'll still try but I doubt that anybody will pay much attention to him. He doesn't look well and he appears very slow to respond.

Their biggest problem may be keeping him from wandering aimlessly around the west wing with his bathrobe hanging open.

[brooklynite]

138. Can tou get back to us when Bernie Sanders is worried about this?

[treestar]

140. Doesn't bother me

Unusual, but she could have had her own career had she never married him and might still be running.

Also the husband has been thoroughly vetted. And in this case, thoroughly.

[spooky3]

142. Next thing you know, she'll want her own credit card.

This OP is offensive on many levels. Back to the 50s...

[Trust Buster]

143. Such a ridiculous OP would make a Republican blush. Now that's saying something...LOL

[The Second Stone]

145. Yes, you are freaked out

and that is worthy of note. That you seem to think that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President, a necessary implication of your line of thought, is a lot of crap and also worthy of note.

[Hiraeth]

146. BILL CLINTON IS A CLASS ACT !!!

[asiliveandbreathe]

148. So I guess Michele Obama is out of the question

Heaven forbid Barack would campaign with her....btw - the 22nd amendment? - violate the SPIRIT? - now that is a CRUZ move!!!

Come on, everyone has their passion for their candidate, so be it..but to question Prez Clintons involvement in Hillarys campaign byway of the 22nd amendment...well, me thinks that is a wrong turn.....(byway of) (via)

I am not beholding to anyone - just the issues - facts - then I will vote..I have always resisted others making plans for me...

Bernie or Hillary - As an Indy, I will vote DEM! - Our country depends on it ....

Quick note - I am surrounded by snowbirds from all the republican states here in AZ, as one fellow said last night, a republican from ND, "out of 300 Million people you would think the republican party could come up with at least two viable candidates...I'll take eight more years of Obama over any of the candidates running in the republican party" - (I eliminated the swear words that were sprinkled in his comment) -

[IdahoGoBlue]

149. Exactly how I feel

I don't want them in for a third term. How incredibly messed up are we to even think it would be right?

[Loki]

150. Is this what you have to stoop to?

I've seen your name on this board for years, and this is beneath you. Does it matter, I guess only if you are a Bernie supporter, other than that I don't have a problem with any wife or husband stumping for their candidate. Bill Clinton can't undo the fact that he was President, and a damn good one. Next thing we will see is Michelle Obama bashing on this board.

[retrowire]

151. i agree with the nepotism aspect of this

it really does seem wrong and it does give off this "royal family" vibe.

That said, I'll certainly vote against the next Hitler if it comes to the that. but I won't campaign for her.

[Dont call me Shirley]

154. It's the way he's going about it.

[RufusTFirefly]

156. I have HUGE policy and character issues with an HRC Presidency.

The issue you bring up is comparatively minor in my own estimation.
I don't like it, put it pales in comparison to her warmongering, Wall Street loving, weathervaning ways.

[liberalnarb]

158. You might be.

What did you expect? He's her husband. Of course he's gonna campaign for her. C'mon guys this is just silly.

[liberalnarb]

160. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with Barack campaigning for Michelle. Would you? and why?

[rury]

162. I am so thoroughly disgusted with both Bill and Hillary

that it gags me to think that I have to vote them back into the White House in order to keep a Rethuglikkkan from becoming president.
Well, of course, I could vote for the Green Party or write someone in...
That said, there is nothing wrong with campaigning for a spouse running for public office.

[Chicago1980]

163. He's not that good at it.

I don't know if it's overprotectiveness or trying to make up for past sins.

[Dems to Win]

165. I've disliked the idea of Hillary running for Prez ever since I first heard it in 1996

I want our first woman president to be elected in her own right.

I don't want to send this message to young girls: Any girl in American can grow up to be president. All you have to do is find and marry a man who will be president first!

As a feminist, I am strongly opposed to the Sexual Harasser in Chief returning to the White House in any capacity, even as First Gentleman

Bill's 'rules are for little people' attitude, as shown in Massachusetts on voting day, also causes me to want him to go far, far away and be quiet. Fat chance, I know. It's unseemly for a former president to be slugging it out in party primary politics.

I so much wish the Clintons would take their $200 million haul from cashing in on their public service and go away. I want the Democrats to move on from the Clintons.

[HRC isnot prgrsv]

191. Well said; I was once a fan

I was at one time a pretty big fan of hers until I realized how conservative she really is. Arguably her time has passed. She is toxic for the health of the Democratic Party, and for the country.

I heard a caller on a Progressive radio show call in recently saying that since women make up the majority of people in the country we should vote for her; I almost threw up my lunch.

I am a middle aged women and I would love nothing more than to see a women in the White House...but not just for the sake of it....not her, that would be irresponsible.

[HRC isnot prgrsv]

166. . Am I the only one freaked out by PRESIDENT Clinton campaigning for his WIFE?

I agree that it is creepy. Prez Clinton had no right to go into a polling place in Mass to meet and greet voters....see that is the kind of distrust and manipulation that both of them bring into the the mix.
If dems and progressives want to beat the Republican nominee there is strong evidence that the only way to do that is to vote Sanders in; Cenk Uygur host of the Young Turks, wrote a piece that I found on the Huf Po and you can also hear on his podcast from either March 1st or 2nd about how the numbers do not add up if HRC is the nominee... she will lose the general, contrary to what the corporate media says.
Her unfavorable ratings are second highest to Trump and the person that is liked the most regardless of party is Sanders, he is the most electable.

[aikoaiko]

167. I wonder if there is a precedent for a former President campaigning for party nominee.

In any party.

[greymouse]

168. I have no problem with Bill campaigning

I have a big big problem with his interfering with people's ability to vote.

The country has numerous instances of a spouse holding the same office that their spouse previously held. That's up to the voters.

I would have loved to vote for Eleanor Roosevelt.

I don't think Bill would be doing much interfering if Hillary gets elected. I don't think he's mentally up to it. This is just my opinion, but I think he is going to need a health aide.

[HRC isnot prgrsv]

175. I have no problem with Bill campaigning

......even if it is done illegally or even if it has the appearance of it? It allows for a lack of trust. But then again I think it is power they are both after not trust; which goes to your second point about Bill interfering with her presidency...ah are you kidding? He has a lust for power like no other and will immerse his expertise in all sorts of issues.

Can you imagine the non-stop frenzy with the media, especially Faux news with the Clinton's back in the White House? If you thought the frenzy with the Black Kenyon in the White House was distracting imagine what it will be like if the Clinton's are there...WOW!!!

[Goblinmonger]

169. Jury results

I was #1

On Sun Mar 6, 2016, 06:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Am I the only one freaked out by PRESIDENT Clinton campaigning for his WIFE?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511424373

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

> He is working to get HIS WIFE his old job
> and if that doesn't scare you, pretend this
> was George campaigning for Laura or
> Barack for Michelle --


How would Barack campaigning for Michelle violate the 23rd amendment?

Please hide this bullshit.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 6, 2016, 06:33 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a little odd of an argument but I don't see anything over the top
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think it's a bit banana republic, too, just like Bush plus Bush plus almost! Bush, and yet I know they are two different people. This post isn't hide-worthy, it's just someone's opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is tame compared to the race and gender based posts I've seen here lately.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post sucks on so many levels, but not a reason to hide or alert.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I WON'T DO IT.

I won't vote to hide a post in Gosh Darn - Primaries unless it is really vile. This post is lightweight compared to a lot of what is left here.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[IdaBriggs]

172. Wow - thank you, Jury! Very much appreciated!

So glad to know I am allowed to share what I think matters on this forum!

People can disagree, but at least we are talking about it.

I am a fan of history. I am currently focusing my appetite on Korea/Japan/China during the up through the Josean dynasty fueled by an unexpected interest in Korean dramas.

The personal politics of power in dynastic succession is really on my mind.

Thank you for not hiding.

[johnp3907]

173. What a steamin' pile o' crap.

[msanthrope]

174. Your head's gonna explode when he gives his convention speech. nt

[Orsino]

178. There are reasons not to support Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

That dynasties suck is just one of them. America cast off one royal family in order to generate its own, and we keep doing that.

[Beacool]

185. Wow, such an over the top reaction to a husband campaigning for his wife.

As for your vote, do whatever you want with it.

[IdaBriggs]

186. To a President working to get back in the White House. And I will. nt

[KauaiK]

189. I with you all the way Ida!

[Generic Brad]

190. I would be more freaked if he didn't campaign for her. n/t

[LonePirate]

192. I'm surprised this thread wasn't shut down based on the implied sexism.

[Nitram]

196. No, just you and anyone with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Just lie down on a couch and inhale some smelling salts. You'll be fine in an hour or two. We thought hysteria went out with corsets and the victorian age, but it seems to have re-surfaced.

[Jitter65]

204. This!!! nt

[dana_b]

198. not to be too graphic

but when that 3:00 a.m. call comes, who will roll over and answer it or who will she FIRST confer with? Hmmm...

[moondust]

200. "Two for the price of one."

Bill Clinton said that in electing him, the nation would "get two for the price of one", referring to the prominent role his wife would assume.

I suspect some who favored the IWR may have followed HRC's lead assuming she had discussed it thoroughly with her co-President husband who knew everything because he got all the top level briefings only a year or two before.

And one can only assume that it would be the same "two for the price of one" deal if Hillary were to be elected: more NAFTA, welfare reform, media consolidation, deregulation of Wall Street, that kind of thing.

Does anybody really think she would do much of anything to seriously challenge or reverse her co-President husband's legacy?

[840high]

202. .+1

[gollygee]

201. There is no reason why he shouldn't be able to campaign for her. N/t

[Hekate]

205. You ever hear of Eleanor Roosevelt?

Oh okay, you just stamp your feet and yell "I won't do it" in all caps. Nobody is making you, and they will not show their "royal displeasure" at your disobedience.

[IdaBriggs]

211. Since I don't work for the DNC, no one will come after ME

but that is not what is being reported about the "strong" support she is getting from the "powers that be" and what happens to those who DON'T fall into line.

Ask Nina Turner....http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511421681

[Hekate]

216. Oh FFS

[IdaBriggs]

257. You seriously think every ambitious Democrat in the country simultaneously

All told themselves, "Wow, Hillary would be so much better than me - I must support her for the good of the country because she is just so AWESOME?"

For myself I find it beyond odd must that a man who has spent THIRTY YEARS AS AN INDEPENDENT and never expressed an interest in the Executive Branch of the government who is beholden to NONE of the Clinton benefactors is COINCIDENTALLY the only ACTUAL CHALLENGER (not including the young "pick me as VP to show party unity" fellow) despite a beyond insane "come from behind" zero funding to start campaign is actually running.

I think Bernie Sanders is a man of principle and the rest of the DNC sponsored Dems have more fear than admiration of what can happen to their political careers if they oppose the Annoited One.

I am suspicious and cynical by nature. A generation of up-and-comers refusing to throw their hat into the ring against a dynasty says there is stuff going on behind the scenes I am not privy to. And the fact this husband-and-wife team is friendly with scum like the Bush folk raises this liberal's hackles.

Thank the powers that be for President Barack Obama and Chicago politics. I am not sure if Vermont Grit can do the same job, but I am hoping....

[KingFlorez]

210. ....

[BreakfastClub]

214. I love seeing Bill Clinton back in his element. nt

[felix_numinous]

222. We're voting to put both of them in the WH

two presidents, essentially. No one can tell me Bill Clinton is going to just go to prayer breakfasts and stand on the sidelines. Impossible.

[Attorney in Texas]

227. The 1st 3 female governors rode to office after the husbands held the office first. I thought we

were past the Nellie Ross/Ma Ferguson/Lurleen Wallace phase of US history, but we'll see.

[Tanuki]

240. Fail. Your performance art was never amusing, but the

attempt to negate Secretary Clinton's achievements and "put the little woman in her place" says a lot about you. Have you run out of right wing websites to link here?

[onenote]

242. And the inapt analogy award goes to AIT

for equating the wives of three governors who immediately succeed their husbands with the Clinton, who ran for and won election as Senator from one the country's most populous states, twice, then was appointed to serve as Secretary of State by a President who wasn't her husband, and now, 16 years after her husband left office, is running for President.

[Chemisse]

230. If wives are merely brainless clones of their husbands, this would be a problem.

But they're not, and it's not.

Hillary - if elected - will do her job her way, just as Bill did it his way. I'm sure she will value his advice, just as he valued hers during his presidency, but she is an independent person, and will act accordingly.

It's actually a pretty sexist meme that you are sharing here.

[Marr]

231. I agree. It's our electoral system's most blatant admission yet that

it is is owned by a tiny handful of people. I thought GW Bush was a pretty clear statement to that effect, but somehow this is worse. Possibly because it's the Democratic Party and not the openly corporate Republican Party.

[NCTraveler]

237. Perfect parody!!!

[PeaceNikki]

239. .

[bbgrunt]

241. it's like watching season 4 of House of Cards

[Warren DeMontague]

243. I'm not a big fan of Dynasties, but we knew this was coming.

[Lucinda]

256. Spouses campaign all the time.

Bill just happens to be a very popular one.
And it isn't a Bill third term. It is a Hillary first. They are two different people.

[laserhaas]

270. Puhhllllleeeeaaaasssseeee..... Like Bill would go into hibernation

Sheeesssshhhh!

It's the best of all worlds for Bill.

He can be Cheney/Haliburton - and get to the billionaire oligarch class

Swiftly...........

[laserhaas]

269. Concur... NO Dallas Dynasty III and NO Bill Clinton part Deux

It is an Oligarch Civil War - upon U.S.!