This is what happens when the Clintons open there BIG MOUTHS trying to suck up to rethugs

[bigdarryl]

I only posted this article but there are several right wingers like Cheney bringing up Bill Clinton as to undercutting Obama on the ACA.I'm so SICK AND TIRED!!! of this DLC BULLSHIT.And if there is another democrat running in the primary against Hillary I'm voting against her http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/ted-cruz-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-obamacare-99790.html?hp=r6

[Ninga]

1. People just do not want to discuss this, or try to see the big picture. I say his remarks hurt

by giving GOP talking points....why do some here think it's a good thing?

[tularetom]

2. Clinton has made himself into a useful idiot for right wing republicans

This fucking fool just cannot keep his mouth shut. Does anyone think that he'll be able to stay in the background if Hillary is elected? Of course he won't, he'll jump right in the middle of any dispute.

I just want him to go away and count his money and spend the rest of his useless life playing golf with his republican buddies.

[bigdarryl]

3. Tularetom Hillary isn't going to be President if this type of bullshit keeps up

They need Obama's help if she's going to be elected.They should know this look what happened to Gore when he tried to distance himself from Clinton.

[fredamae]

4. Exactly! Early Posturing BS n/t

[Blue Idaho]

5. Bill Clinton always has and always will think of only one thing.

Bill Clinton.

[Myrina]

6. ^^ This, right here ^^

n/t

[Arugula Latte]

34. Agree.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. HRC says we need more "unity" in DC.

[libdem4life]

8. He has a big mouth. But let's remember, she's also a Rodham who existed as a being prior to being a

Clinton. I do hope she smacked him somehow, somewhere, someway.

About the Primary, bring on someone who can really win but don't bother me with the "anybody but" tripe when there is no "anybody". It's getting tiresome.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Fine, so she is free to distinguish herself from her husband but seldom does policy wise.

Perhaps never, certainly not a lot of daylight that I've ever seen her create despite every opportunity if so inclined.

Also, (and I think this ties right back) she can't play the separate person line while wanting to share credit for any positives and maintain plausible deniabilty on any downside.

Getting lumped is the cost of trying to always triangulate, spin, and have everything both ways.

What indicates she and Bill are not very closely aligned ideologically?

[libdem4life]

10. They are both pragmatic Democrats...and surely not the only ones...but they get elected, nonetheless

I'll switch my current, unexcited support for Hillary as I also similarly voted for Bill and Obama, when we have that miracle candidate. In a heartbeat. And, I will remain a staunch Left Liberal.

However, there are not many Progressives or Liberals signing up to spend their own disposable cash or IRAs or retirement nest eggs and depend on the Church Potluck Supper-Senior Center-Door Knocking Fund Raising Plan to back up and finance the national organization, top experienced political operatives and funding needed to propel them to the position of Leader of the Free World.

That's why it's already started, IMO, the inconvenient fact of billion dollar campaigns. That, even as the other side has started their engines and have already proceeded with empty pickups backed up in a long line up at the proverbial bank to haul out the cash...IOUs in hand.

This nonsense that somehow this feat can take place without the financial backing, yea $200,000 speeches, of those small group of families that have been in charge of the economy since the Industrial Revolution, and who still fund the entire world economy emphasis on the US, is naive and absurd. $200,000 is lunch money for them. Seems ironically her speech may have been given at a lunch or dinner?? Nor did they get rich giving away money without a profit or certain beneficial considerations in return.

Investments such as the conferring of funds for a house purchase in exchange for a mortgage...not a lot different. One pays the bank 3 times the value of the original loan on a 30 year mortgage. I detest that fact, as well, but it doesn't stop me from "owning" my own home...which is just an expanded rental agreement with a few more legal rights. I fear we suffer from Magical Thinking.

Yet, to me it's like really wanting a cool Tesla, pragmatically spending my money on a Honda/Toyota for financial and quality reasons, and feeling a bit guilty I didn't buy a Made in America Ford or a Chevy.

Tesla is my ideal ... which represents the Progressive who has yet to appear on the scene; the Honda/Toyota purchase ...the pragmatism of voting for the one person who is the best the Democrats have to offer out of some 50 million or so voting Democrats; and the guilt...that I'm not a full time party volunteer and my excuse is I've only lived in a Very Red State and a Very Blue State for my entire 65 years.

Everyone has their position and thanks for the opportunity to parse and share my reasoning.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. OK. Keep believing that bullshit. And watch us black folk stay at home in 2016.

[libdem4life]

12. Why on earth would black folk stay home? Because they want Jeb Bush? Help me understand.

What about Hispanics? And exactly what bullshit. I put thought into my opinions. You give me a one sentence negative, speaking for an entire race ditty?

Really, I don't mind. It's common on here, but Liberal Stalwart? Help me understand. I have an open mind and if someone can improve on my understanding, please do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. No more guilt trip here. And no more taking us for granted. We will vote for down ballot.

There has been a lot of discussions going on, and while I don't (and will never) speak for the black community--I'm just a member of it--based on what I'm hearing and my discussions, many of us will not put up with the Clinton's race-baiting rhetoric again this time around. We will not put up with their divisiveness again in 2016. Bet on that. I am not voting for that crap and I mean it.

Again, I will support down ballot, progressive Democrats on the ballot and work hard for those Democrats who have my best interests at heart. I will not support Hillary Clinton if she engages in that kind of divisiveness again.

Take it to the bank.

[libdem4life]

14. OK. I can pretty much agree...the Clintons play politics as well or better than most. And it gets

down and dirty, but to suggest this is something new or different flies in the face of reality. I also know that my bank will charge me 3 times the cost of my house, which is technically usury, before it's paid off in 30 years, but that doesn't mean I refuse to buy a house...or that I think that I can change it or that I'm some poor, defenseless victim. I could come up with tons of other situations equally absurd.

And I agree with the down ticket work. But what good does it do if we get sold out...lose jobs...get substandard education...and I've detailed about 10 other items we'll forfeit that the Republicans are just cheering this bit of, as I see it.

Just because we don't like the Clintons and I will say that it clearly has to do with her being a woman, IMO...an uppity woman, and I agree that she is. So? For that you want a cool Republican Tea Party guy that Rush can drool over for 8 years? I believe we've been here before and lost the House. Hey, this time we can lose the Senate, too. And they are out for blood...make no mistake. You haven't begun to see dirty tricks that will make the Clintons look like beginners.

Then again, maybe that's how we got to this place. Thanks for the info and good luck to us all...we're going to need it, regardless.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. I'm just angry now. Maybe I'll get over it, but I am furious at Bill Clinton right now. Furious!!

I'll need to calm down.

[libdem4life]

16. Now there's something we definitely agree on. Big Mouth...Both feet inserted. Maybe that's

why I sometimes go a bit overboard for her, too. Imagine, even with out referring to an unmentioned incident, just having to live with him.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Fine, that has nothing to do with her and Bubba having daylight between them on policy

Which was the discussion not the merits of said politics, which I debate as well, but here you are just switching topics as a response and it doesn't make much sense to me as an answer. Not as a rebuttal to my response to your previous point, anyways.

[libdem4life]

20. It's a rhetorical question that is sexist as hell, right along with being insulting.

The "daylight" between their particular political/public positions and behavior? Jesus on a crutch, what was that idiocy of him flapping his aged, and outdated jaws just the other day.

On to politics and personal character...both matter a great deal in governing...and this is just off the top of my head:

Bill ... Political policy changed nearly every day. Remember Slick Willy?

Hill ...That's why she's getting so much flack now. Same old Same old wife of Bill. Not. She had higher sites and a daughter to raise and I believe, a destiny, that mattered much more than her philandering excuse of a husband/Governor/President. Steady and focused.

Bill ... He was a Governor of a small, uninfluential Southern state, accused of prostitutes, smoking crack and literally shipping it in via the puddlejumper airport at Mena, AR, and locals didn't disagree to vehemently. There was no social media and an embarrassed Arkansas media pretty much enabled him...ignoring his sins of the flesh. His final romp with The Intern was not his first. He "governed" with a very tumultuous and lengthy love-hate history.

Hill ... Crafted the first, national health care policy...Hillarycare...sunk by the "pillow talk" misogyny, sexism and "socialism" memes. Solid, populist, well-crafted national health care. A visionary, before it was cool...and seems it's still not so cool. Focus and commitment. Got elected as Senator to arguably one of the most important states in size and influence and served well...no scandals. Ran a good but losing fight to Obama, yet they both showed their personal grace in the giving and accepting of Secretary of State. They learned to not only respect, but to like each other. She served well, now has global credentials, and a fairly impeccable history. Plus she raised an amazing daughter, in spite of the kid's father's serious defects. Steady. Stable. Forward. Consistent.

Bill ... He's still screwing up, flapping his jaws, trying to gain relevancy and misfiring. Although he has two sides to him and I like the Clinton Foundation part of it. It will do much good for people around the world. That I believe, anyway.

Hill ... Well, she's still doing what she does...steady as she goes...still pretty much politically the same as she's always been, having needed to lilt to the right based on political necessities of the past 20 years. And the war vote...for god's sake, it was New York and about 9-11. She'll have to merge a little left as I believe she did in New York although I didn't follow it closely, and she will.

Yes, they are both Center Left, give or take, if that's what you're driving at...like millions of other people and a ton of other candidates. But she won't embarrass us. She'll serve well as the first American female president, as she's been through the Little Woman muck, and survived. Her daughter will represent her/us well personally and politically, as well as her ability as a parent.

So, I question the framing of such a question. She is a woman, a mother, a politician, an intellectual, a leader in her own right. Agree with her or don't. Who she is married to (if only he'd STFU) is as irrelevant as the old ditty that Little Women have to ask or agree with their husbands so as to fully understand these complicated matters like politics. Right up there among the serious issues of baking cookies and Pillow Talk. Indeed.

Hope this answered your question.

[TheKentuckian]

24. So, same on policy but you like Hillary, consider her accomplished, and think maybe she

will "turn left" based on that she did so in New York (though she didn't and you admit you didn't really follow what she did, other than what she did wrong but have excuses for).

All of this because you know the Clintons are two peas in a pod policy wise but don't want to carry the downside of such policies. The entire discussion was policy, you rankled at the two being essentially the same on policy, and when asked what the differences are we ramble around the wide world to pretty much say they are fairly indistinguishable in this regard and that is okay because lots share their bent, and that Hillary is different as a personality.

Great, she still is for the same policies, outcomes, tactics, and strategies. She has the same circles and worldview. There was zero discussion that she was some puppet without a mind of her own, it was that she shared a position with her husband, when the highest probability is she does and again, if she does not then she has every ability to draw the distinction. She does not.

Also, let's not pretend these two have not always significantly presented as a partnership. Hell, such was the basis of much of Hillary's credibility for both her Senate run and even the run for President, that credibility is no longer needed so it is moving out of the sales pitch but some of us can remember past the last election cycle but that matters little when the debate is not about credibility or qualifications but rather policy.

I think this is because of the tendency of some to re-fight old wars and that there are no good arguments for concerns from the left other than figuring some path to crying sexism and changing the subject.


Personality differences are fine but what is done is what matters and only go so far because Bill isn't going anywhere. The big difference being that he is unlikely to be undermining Hillary agenda because it is likely to be so close to his as to only be defended.

There isn't that much difference between Bill and Barack but what little there is he makes waves calling it out and it is ever even worse than the current Corporatist. He isn't doing it on accident, he is announcing what differences "stakeholders" should expect from his wife's administration, not looking for any relevancy as he remains one of the most influential and sought after people alive.

[libdem4life]

25. Actually, we need a temporary new Group here. The Bill and Hillary Hysteria Group.

Or, just go ahead and vote for The Third Bush...the "smart one" ... third one's a charm. No pillow talk there except for the first one..the other two results of said pillow talk. Oh, god help us all. But hey, that'll show 'em.

So answer me this...you willing to trade 20 years of Bushes for 16 years of Clinton/Rodhams (to be precise, while were using birth names)?

[TheKentuckian]

30. There is no such trade. Why are you presenting it as such? Sounds like Graham4McSame to me.

[libdem4life]

31. That's it? And I have no idea who you are taking about. So...does "choice" work better?

Or maybe, "option" or "opposing candidates of certain well known families", "in lieu of". Thesaurus police, sounds to me like.

[TheKentuckian]

32. I see no need for Clintons and far less Shrubs.

The dilemma is false. It is a dim, wrongheaded, dishonest, clumsy herding device.

Graham4McSame prime talking point, "it takes a Clinton to beat a Bush".

LAME! Less silly sounding phrasing but the same silly and desperate bullshit.

[DFW]

21. Ah, yes, the "miracle candidate." Well put.

Unfortunately, that is probably all it will remain: a miracle. We either find someone who captures all of our fondest ideals and gets crushed in the election, or we find one who can win primaries and stand up to the nut case right in the general election, but only because they are palatable to enough Republicans who don't like their own nut case (e.g. Virginia governor's race a few weeks ago).

I think the reality is that neither party gets their ideal candidate elected, but Republicans are happier when their guy wins, because the game is tilted in their favor (media, SCOTUS and unlimited dirty money are all on their side, not ours).

[Whisp]

17. There are days when I despise him as much as any freakin' Teabagger/Libertarian.

Why does he do this shit?

Is it about his ego, his medal of greatness shadowed by a greater President in Obama?
Is it a temper tantrum because he knows he'll never be an occupant of the WH, Ever Again and blames President Obama?

What a jealous little bratshit. really. I find this man absolutely revolting and what everyone should avoid to try to be.

[libodem]

19. Yep

I'm sick of it. And if Hilary thinks it makes her appear more appealing by being on the same page as, Dick Sinister Fucking Cheney, all over the tv, she needs to get ready for 2016, in an entirely different fashion.

Wrong side sister! We aren't that blind or stupid that we don't see it. Both side ARE NOT THE SAME.





(Involuntary shudder.)

[Beacool]

23. Hillary? I recall Bill answering a question in an interview.

I don't recall Hillary saying anything on the subject. They are not conjoined twins, the woman has a brain of her own, and a mighty one at that.

[libdem4life]

26. How can that possibly be? They made her take his name...even she didn't want it...remember?

The world knew them as Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham. I think it was because she was getting too uppity about that national health care thing she had in her purty little head and shirking her duties baking cookies. Do you recall that?

[Beacool]

27. The only campaign Bill lost was his reelection for governor after his first term.

The Arkansas of the 70s was not used to a first lady like Hillary. She didn't conform to their Southern belle standards. She was an attorney who wanted to practice her profession and she was outspoken about the causes she cared about. Analyzing his loss, Bill's advisers suggested that one of the problems was that Hillary had never taken his name (her response had always been that she liked her own name). She eventually took his name and Bill won the next time he ran for governor.

[libdem4life]

28. Being out on the West Coast, and I admit not active in politics at the time, we probably didn't hear

about it until later. So, seems their HillaryCare snit was the second time they put her in her proper female place. Damn, that makes me mad.

Still it's a frightening, Victorian-era thought for women, even today. Especially those who think they are joined at the hip or something because they now have the last name.

Here's a thought...maybe she could change it back. Now that would make some heads explode. Just kidding, of course.

[Beacool]

29. That would really make their heads explode.

[Beacool]

22. Yawn, another Clinton bashing post.

How predictable...........

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Since when is Ted Cruz considered a reliable source?

There's this guy on the street around the corner from where I work. And he looks like he hasn't bathed since 1982 -- he thinks the Clinton's a part of a huge conspiracy, too. But I don't have a link to him.

But for now, let's discuss what Ted Cruz thinks about what Bill Clinton thinks about the Affordable Care Act.

Please continue...

[Sunlei]

35. 10 days from OP, I for one want the Ds to engage Rs..someone has to hold their feet to the fire.

If a state like Texas won't or can't (due to corruption?) expand medicare then give the Federal funds to another state. Let that state administer the Federal funds to Texans through their healthcare system.

Everything is done by computer anyway.