These are not the same Clintons that came to Washington in 1992...

[kentuck]

I am not anti-Hillary. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her in a New York second. However, I do not wish to continue the policies of George W Bush and I do not wish to return to the good ol' days of the 1990's either. We are too far into the swamp to turn back now. We can only press forward.

However, when Bill and Hillary came to Washington, they did not even have a house that they called their own. Bill was the lowest paid Governor in America - something like $28,000 per year. They lived off Hillary's salary mostly. But just today, we learn that Bill has made $40 million dollars giving speeches in the last 6 years. I guess talk is not so "cheap" after all. And two weeks ago, Hillary wrote a personal check for $5 million for her campaign. Things sure have changed since 1992.

[ErnestoG]

1. Amen. I wish more took the time to parse that out.

[mtnsnake]

2. What do you mean by "I do not wish to continue the policies of George W Bush"?

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of Bush?

[kentuck]

5. No.

But I do not think most voters perceive her an agent of change as much as Obama. However, perception is reality. And people are looking for big change and are willing to throw caution to the wind. They do not want a slim victory and a gridlocked Congress. They want a landslide and they believe Obama is the best candidate for that sort of victory. No more triangulation.

[Tatiana]

7. We honestly cannot take anymore of the grid-locked, do-nothing Congress.

We HAVE to get some meaningful legislation passed.

We HAVE to achieve a comfortable majority.

These things aren't wishes; they are necessities.

We need someone at the top of the ticket that can get more Democrats elected in conservative states.

[kentuck]

10. I think most voters are just as disappointed in the Democrats...

in Congress, as they are discouraged and sick of the Republicans. They want to run as fast and as far away as possible from the present status quo and all those remotely connected.

[Tatiana]

16. Yes, and that's why we can pick up Senate seats in CO, MN, and VA.

But having a strong presidential candidate on the democratic ticket can give us an extra push in those other strongly republican seats in states like TX, NE, NH, and OR, not to mention AK if Stevens retires.

Plus, there are some very close Congressional races. Slowly, but surely we are replacing the establishment Dems with more progressive ones. If we can get more progressive Dems elected, we won't be at the mercy of the Blue Dogs.

Presidential politics is important, but a Dem president will get nothing accomplished without the Congress.

[kentuck]

17. We should not be happy with a slim majority win...

We need a landslide and we can get one. We have to start believing once again. We have become too cautious, in my opinion.

[Tatiana]

19. I agree.

There are 12 Democrats up for reelection. We will keep all those seats.

There are 23 Republican seats up for election. Two of them (Warner in VA and Franken in MN) we will likely win no matter who our nominee is. But if Obama is at the top of the ticket, I think he will help Mark Udall in CO, Tom Udall in NM, plus our Democratic challengers in Oregon and Maine.

It would also be sweet to steal Liddy Dole's NC seat and Conryn's TX seat. We will need Dean to sink a bit of money into the Democratic campaigns in those states.

But we can get a landslide.

[AZBlue]

3. Their lifestyle has changed and so has their attitudes.

One of the reasons I admire the Obamas is that they probably won't go down this road again for the simple reason that by the time the next opportunity arises they will have lived in DC for another four or eight years and will therefore be too out of touch with the "average citizen" to really be of help. That's incredible insight into what needs to be done.

[TexasObserver]

4. The Clintons have become the people they came to DC to replace.

It's difficult to tell where the Bushes end and the Clintons begin now.

They should all change their names to BushClinton and run someone in each party every four years.

[dkf]

6. They had all the hope boiled out of them.

Now they are just sad "realists" who don't aspire to much.

[ginnyinWI]

13. yep it's true

Hillary is cynically of the mind that the only way to get anything done in Washington is to fight, fight, fight, fight!! You must mash all the Republicans into a pulp and stomp them into the ground.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Which is a pretty odd attitude from someone who has not had

a serious fight since 94, and she LOST that one.

[rodeodance]

8. Another --lets get our kicks at Bill Clinton bash!! YAWN

[LisaL]

9. Well, good.

They've accomplished something in their lives. I guess their success is going to be used against them too.

[kentuck]

12. No.

Some just do not want them to use their success against the rest of us. They believe we are better than a one-vote majority. They do not want Joe Lieberman to be the deciding vote in our Party. They are sick of triangulation. They believe we can do better. They have hope.

[BeyondGeography]

11. They're older (it happens), richer (good for them) and angrier (bad for us)

Time to move on.

[marlakay]

14. I so agree

I voted for Bill twice and only thing that got me pissed was the wasted time because bill couldn't keep his pants zipped.

I never really paid any attention to Hillary at all back then, i was too busy being a single mom with no child support. My kids are grown and have their own kids now so i have time and a computer to see whats going on. I got my first computer in 1995 that was online.

I think in the last 5 years of google wikipedia and other searches and blogs we can learn so much more than we could back then.

The only thing I remember is all the scandals and having to defend them all the time.

Can't we just elect someone with out a lot of baggage???

[Radical Activist]

15. Clinton campaigned as a progressive in '92.

Fool me once...

[gateley]

18. That was one of my concerns about the Clintons --

and one of the reasons I supported Biden. After 35 years in the Senate he is the second 'poorest' Senator, and he made a decision when he entered public service not to invest in the stock market lest his holdings influence his vote.