2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDoes Bill Clinton matter?
My youngest asked who I was leaning towards voting for in the primaries today. I told her I'm absolutely....undecided.
She raised an interesting thought I have not seen discussed, so I thought I would throw it out there for people to consider.
She's twenty, but does follow politics a bit. She thinks it would be "cool" to have Bill Clinton as first man. To quote her, "It would be like having two Presidents".
I guess I agree it would be helpful. I'm just wondering if others have heard this as a selling point.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not a two for one deal. i like it.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Bill Clinton is a master politician and I'm sure he would assist his wife, should she be president, in anyway he can.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)in the last 46 years. Only Nixon, who took office in 1969, was more prepared.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)There really isn't much for her to learn on the job.
Arkansas Granny
(31,517 posts)and has already established an international reputation.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Since he is doing voice over for the deceased great Don Pardo on SNL now, I look forward to seeing his Trump and Clinton this season.
Other than that? Not to me.
Edit - Phil Hartman was the best but he is no longer with us - I tried finding a link to his Warlords sketch but came up empty.
aha - I found it, for anyone interested -
https://screen.yahoo.com/clinton-mcdonalds-000000491.html
Some great cast members in this sketch - Rock, Farley, Nealon, Tom Arnold (guest star), Sweeney, Schneider, Meadows and Cleghorne.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)part time vegan now and stays away from sugar and high carbs. I'm guessing not a lot of McD any more
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)At the time of this sketch he was getting a lot of shit for his diet. My friends and I often quote the Warlords skit, especially while stealing each others food. Cheers!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as a first lady, it was hers to support bill. she got a little of her own as senator and did a good job, but it takes time to get in ones own. i think the sec of state did a lot, though still she was working for obama. now she is stepping out in her own skin, with credentials and experience and lots of knowledge. and doing things her way. i am interested to see what she has. i want bill to have no part of it. clinton seems to do really well staffing people that are solid.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)me too.
i NEVER want that person to be near public office again.
Feminist that I am.
EVER.
LuvLoogie
(7,003 posts)Maybe even an ace in the hole.
Hillary is at peace in this race, it seems. I saw it in her bemused look at the reporter this morning in Iowa who asked if she felt she had to lock in Harkin's endorsement due to the speculation that Gore or Biden might be entering the race. She had such a serene and glowing incredulous smile at that one and then defered to Tom Harkin for the answer.
I doubt that Bill being First Gentleman, however, is either a deal breaker or a deal closer for anyone.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I still cringe when I think of his "I can't make her younger".
LuvLoogie
(7,003 posts)that he will have matured.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Attention of voters and brought them in to vote for Obama, I expect he will do the same with Hillary. Hillary will also seek his experienced advice on some issues just as she did with Kissenger and Albright and i suspect Colin Powell. Yes, Bill is important to the DNC.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)of his administration. While it wasn't the best of relationships, it was strained in part bc Bill tried to lift the blanket ban on gays in the military. DADT was a compromise that he struck afterwards (he believed in compromise) because Powell's dept didn't want gays to openly serve. I hope Colin redeems himself by endorsing Hillary.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The RW savagely attacked Hillary during Bill's presidency for the idea that she was his equal and part of the decision making process. While I've heard some things that suggest she may have been or was not at all, I think it's incredibly sexist that the first ladies were expected not to be part of the executive power process.
Going forward, I think we should be seeing equal partner status in president and VP couples, "traditional" or not.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)Tell her about how 1992 was absolutely a realigning election to which every Democrat who has won since owes a debt, whoever wins the 2016 nod,, and every Democrat who didn't win still ought to thank for keeping their losses from being landslide losses in the molds of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Kerry and Gore were not very media savvy at all as Obama and Clinton were, but were very gaffe prone. From 1968-1988, IL, CA, NJ, VT, and NH went Republican 6 out of 6 times, MI, DE, ME 5 out of 6 times, PA, CT, ME, MD 4 out of 6 times. Those states alone add up to 156 EVS. All of them except NH have voted Dem 6 for 6 times since 1992 and comprise this "blue wall" that exists now. Before from 1968-1988, the GOP averaged over 400 electoral votes. Since Bill Clinton came along, they average 210, meaning on average they lose. No wonder why the GOP really hates the Clintons.
No Democrat should ever take the blue states we assume to vote Dem for granted.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)we all know how saintly republicans are in their lives - it is just the constant obsession about sex that consumes them.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Obama won the nomination.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)To quote lebowski. "He treats objects like women man."
Seriously I think she should have divorced him after Monica. But apparently she doesnt mind the other women.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)A real Democrat and didn't spew Republican attacks against party heroes, Bill and Hillary Clinton
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Cheating is wrong. I dont believe couples should stay together if one or both are doing other people why not just be single?
I think she would of sent a strong signal to women not to tolerate a womanizing husband. How do you forgive somebody that puts you through that kind of national embarrassment.
Bill Clinton's legacy is not that great. Nafta, continuing reagonomics, deregulating the banks, continued almost daily bombings of Iraq, continued interfering in world governments, then throw in sex scandal and the DC theater company known as politics with gridlock and decay of democracy itself.
He did balance the budget! What one year? Then Bushed bankrupt us beyond repair.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and surveys have shown that a lot more men and women than one would wanna imagine will cheat, and it doesn't automatically, or even usually, result in divorce. Also, Bill did not make it public; Ken Starr, the GOP, and Linda Tripp made it public and embarassed Hillary. Monica was an idiot too, given how she shoulda known how badly the GOP and the media were looking for dirt on Bill.
Clinton's legacy is great. From 1968-1988, IL, CA, NJ, VT, and NH went Republican 6 out of 6 times, MI, DE, ME 5 out of 6 times, PA, CT, ME, MD 4 out of 6 times. Those states alone add up to 156 EVS. All of them except NH have voted Dem 6 for 6 times since 1992 and comprise this "blue wall" that exists now. Before from 1968-1988, the GOP averaged over 400 electoral votes. Since Bill Clinton came along, they average 210, meaning on average they lose. Policywise, Bill never continued Reaganomics. He raised taxes on the rich in 1993 without a single GOP vote. He enacted the Brady Bill, which Bush I was against. The banks were being deregulated before and after him; the Glass-Steagall thing was a myth. The bombings of Iraq are what kept Saddam from getting WMDs in the first place, and they did try to assassinate Bush Sr when he was out of office, wrong to do D or R. He also ended welfare as we knew it, in order to make it a second chance, not a way of life.
Honour and respect ought to be key to Democratic, not Socialist, Underground.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Just because he won votes doesnt make his policies and the results of those policies a good legacy.
He did continue reagonomics and we are still being trickled on to this day.
He just set it up for the Republican wrecking crew to come through and plunder for 8 years.
We are still down from the thievery of the Bush Regime
I am where democrats should be demanding policy away from the last thirty years and the slow death of the middle class. Not holding on to a false idol who was only a moderately good president that got lucky with a tech boom. An emerging industry is always a good thing but the tech and service industy jobs still havent been able to compare to the manufacturing economy of our grandparents
The late Nineties were great but imagine with a more progressive policy of all sharing in the success of our country. We missed a chance to really advance this country because of partisan politics and scandals and bad policies that benefited the wealthy the most.
He let the Unions fall, he shipped jobs overseas, without the tech boom the middle class would of fallen by now. But the debt bubble keeps the middle class afloat. The debt and credit card bubble that also began under Clinton.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not your job to tell people what they should do with their personal lives. Going back two decades to whine about what Clinton did is lame.
Would you have similar excoriation for people who impregnate a woman but don't marry them? What other issues are no-go situations for you? Divorce? Multiple marriages? Premarital sex?
If you don't like her, don't vote for her. But don't play the "She shoulda left her husband" card.
And if you want to see "National Embarrassment" you should look at some of the French leaders--to say nothing of Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and Vladimir Putin--they make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy.
Bill isn't running for President, so his "sins" are not relevant and they're behind him in his dotage, but it's nice to have a former President close to hand. He can provide perspective, counsel without having to pick up a phone (and they ALL do that--it's why they're civil to one another) and he can act as an emissary from the POTUS if there's a lot going on the world and the VP is overtaxed.
It's not like he's going to get his signals crossed--he'll be wired into everything that happens anyway...former presidents and cabinet members do get briefed regularly. He'll get a cadillac brief because he sleeps with the POTUS. He'll be a Lucky Big Dawg.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)former president and former presidents have access to sitting presidents.
With the Clinton's the access will just be a bit closer.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The 22nd amendment prohibits someone from serving more than two terms as president. That was put in place to limit the power someone could attain by being president for a long time after FDR's 3.5 terms. However it makes no limits on a 2 term president serving in some form of advisory or influential role to a current president. It's kind of a loophole to the amendment.
oasis
(49,387 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)since Bernie is going to win this there will be no need to worry with what bill will do or say.
I liked Bill but when I look back on things it becomes painfully clear he fucked us in more ways than I care to count. Hillary will never be President of these United States of America.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)"While everyone can find things to disagree with in the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission, I believe it got some big things right: The debt will become a much bigger problem when normal economic growth returns and causes interest rates to rise; passing a credible 10-year plan now will keep the governments borrowing costs much lower than they will be without one; its important not to impose austerity now before a growth trend is clearly established, because as the austerity policies in the eurozone and the U.S. show, that will slow the economy, cut jobs, and increase deficits; and any credible deficit-reduction plan requires three things spending reductions, revenue increases, and economic growth.
[Article author continues...]
As for our entitlements, the situation is equally dire. As the law is currently written, the Social Security trust fund will run dry in 2033. If nothing changes before then, Social Security recipients will have their benefits cut by 25%. Simpson-Bowles tries to keep the program solvent by putting in modest steps to raise the retirement age gradually far into the future by one year in 2050 and another in 2075 so as not to change the social promises made to people who are nearing retirement age now. But the longer we wait to discuss the real problems in entitlement programs and enact changes like this, the more draconian the fix will need to be.
Thats why Krugmans claim that there is no fiscal crisis isnt just laughable, its downright dangerous. Krugman throws down the gauntlet when he calls Simpson-Bowles a really bad plan. As President Clinton notes, nearly every constituency will find some part of it hard to swallow. But the beauty of the plan is that it attempts to unify the country through shared sacrifice that is also grounded in some form of fiscal reality. And theres nothing really bad about that.
http://fortune.com/2012/10/26/a-call-for-frank-talk-about-our-debt-from-bill-clinton-and-me/
How come all this 'shared' sacrifice' is not really shared by anyone but the 99%, Bill Clinton have zero to lose in this deal just like Simpson and Bowles. ........... you really want 'two presidents' with a statement like that? Really?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)As we have seen with JEB's recent issues, trying to defend what a family member did while President can be a problem.
Yes, Shrub was a god awful President and Bill did a good job over all. Still, there does seem to be an inherent conflict of interest which Hillary needs to address directly.
At some point she needs to make a nice long speech about the positions taken by the former Clinton administration and spell out what she sees as having been done right as well as what she sees as having been done wrong (assuming she sees it as a mixed bag). If she is going to defend her husband's legacy at all costs then she is handcuffed on a number of issues. If she disagrees with actions that were taken, she will need to explain why and how those actions were taken in the first place.
Even if Bill stays out of the entire campaign (which I doubt) he still matters.