Do you think that one of the reasons Hillary may have an uphill journey to the White House is because of Bill's Presidential issues? Is it fair to grade Hillary by this?

I'm not aware of any presidential issues for Clinton. What did you have in mind?

I think Sen. Clinton's bigger problem is pretending that being First Lady for 8 years somehow is "experience" for being president. And I think that's nuts!

But it doesn't hurt either. She has been privy to most, if not all of whatever was happening and has seen how things were handled. She knows how things work and should be able to be "on the job" in no time because of her being there before. I think with any new president there is a lot of time wasted the first few weeks just for them to learn the ropes. I also think that having her husband there, even if he never is asked to give advice, is a good thing. She certainly has someone who has been there to bounce thoughts and ideas off of. At least I hope so.

Bill had plenty of presidential issues, he just wasnt paying any attention to them Sherri

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

I consider her years in the White House as First Lady as a plus. Maybe not an overwhelming plus, but still a plus.

There is no denying that she was an involved First Lady.

The big strike against the Clinton administration when it started was that it didn't know how things are done in the Beltway. And indeed, in the beginning, the inexperience showed. The whole health care initiative failed in large part because they thought they could strike out on their own without getting buy-in from important interest groups and Washington lobbyists. The Clinton White House was unwilling to negotiate or even let others participate in the decision making.

The administration swung to the opposite extreme with the issue of gays in the military, adopting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. While not involved in it as a decision-maker, Sen. Clinton watched it unfold and saw that the compromise on this issue was not the best decision. And she watched it up close and personal.

One of the things that I place on the positive side of the whole "who are you going to vote for" is that Sen. Clinton experienced these events, even if not as a first-hand decision maker, but as someone privy to the whole process and its outcomes.

Both of the things that I mentioned -- the health care initiative and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- were failures, IMHO. But they were ones that Sen. Clinton got to witness and experience first hand. And she's a smart woman. No one denies it. So, I expect that she learned from it.

So I do think that her time as First Lady counts. And I don't think it's nuts to think so, particularly when it is combined with her years as Senator.

I don' think being First Lady is "experience" at all, at least not enough to bother bragging about. I certainly wouldn't consider Laura Bush remotely qualified to be president (of course, her husband isn't either, so maybe her FL experience is all moot.)

You're right. He was too busy fighting off attacks by the neocons. No telling what he could have accomplished if he hadn't had to constantly defend himself on what were ultimately issues that were not vital to this country and it's security.

I have thought for years that if the Dems would just impeach Bush, he wouldn't have had the time to do all the things he has managed to do.

Being president is a man's job, I don't know what she is even trying to do.

"Being president is a man's job"...did you REALLY mean to say that? Is that a typo? You can't be serious in 2007...or since the 60s for that matter!

There is not one thing wrong I can find with Bill Clinton as President, leading the nation, and he can only offer much valued experience and knowledge to Hillary...WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT!

WOW...

I think that either a man or a woman could be President. I think the most qualified should get it.

Honestly, I think we have a troll here. Although you never know.....Ah, the good ole days. Maybe women shouldn't vote at all and just leave things up to our menfolk. After all, Anne Coulter says single women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Then again, she's getting kind of long in the tooth and may be in mourning for her empty womb.

My only complaint with Bill Clinton was that he was far too willing to compromise with Newt Gingrich's congress.

Poor Bill having to defend himself all the timeHello???? He didnt do his job...thats why he was always on the defense!!!!!!!!! Sherri

What "part" of his "job" did Bill not do?

Apparently he failed to start an unnecessary war, suppress Americans' rights, lie to the American people, expose a CIA operative, veto health care for children, and lead us to the biggest deficit in history. Good think GWB was able to do all that -- and so much more! -- for us.

how could anyone vote for someone who choses to stay married to an adulterer, I just don't see what they are thinking.

I thought you listened to everything your husband told you to do. If he told you to stay married to him after he did another woman #1 I would not blame him you are a nut #2 you have to stay with him because you are the traditional wife that listens to everything that he tells you to do. You have no brain of your own so you wouldn't know any better.

__________________
cmemaloy@yahoo.com


I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

Life! is a coin. You can spend it anyway you wish, but you can only spend it once.

LOL Carrie!!!!

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

if he cheated on me i would not stay with him. i know others would look down on me for it, but i would leave him regardless.

Actually, I must be freakin NUTS............. But , I kinda agree with ya on that one ProudUSAMama.

This may the one and only time I will do that......SO ya better be smiling!

__________________
"Madison AnnMarie " 6/13/2008

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=8652d1ea.pbr

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=adbcb309.pbr

OH lets see....do we really have to rehash this again....BIll did nothing for this country....oh yea, he bombed a aspirin factory or something...he ignored how many terror attacks???? he cut military funding and closed many military bases...and as for his health care reform????? Well lets just say that went down the tube...No we didnt have such a deficit but he did nothing to protect this country from terrorist so he didnt need to spend any money.... and look at all the money he saved on the backs of our military...he didnt even have the guts to get Bin Laden when had the chance...he was pitiful and pathetic.....Sherri...OH and my list could go one but it doesnt matter with you..your hate for Bush tops anything anyone can say.....so why botherSherri And by the way...Name one right you have had suppressed???????? You say he lied to the American people....So did all the dem's...would you like me to list all their comments on Saddam having WMD before Bush even took office??????? Its an really long listLOLOLOLOLOL

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

No, we don't have to, but you get so darn much pleasure out of it, who am I to stop you?

How cute! Let's do rehash this again. When Clinton office, it was with a record deficit caused by irresponsible spending by his Republican predecessors. Clinton had some hard choices to make. When he closed some bases there was a great deal of hand wringing and despair from the GOP. When Rumsfield announced his base closure list (and remember, we were at war), not a peep. Why the difference?

During his entire administration, Clinton was put under a microscope by the GOP dirty tricks machine. It's not my job to educate you but you should google The Arkansas Project, headed by Kenneth Starr and funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. All they managed to dig up was a land deal that the president's wife had invested in and lost money. There was nowhere to low to go for the GOP. So, at taxpayer expense, Kenneth Starr was appointed special prosecutor and commenced a special investigation. What a delight it was to learn that the President of the United States had been unfaithful to his wife and, even better, to air this dirty laundry before the entire world! Gee, maybe the world should have been informed about George H. W. Bush's affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald. At any rate, you cannot deny that Clinton co-operated with this ridiculous investigation. Did this petty little trick distract Clinton from doing his job. Perhaps, but you also have to bear in mind the fact that he put in a lot longer day than the current occupant of the White House.

After the first attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton did have the perpetrators arrested tried and convicted. Last time I heard anything about him, Osama Bin Ladin was at large and largely forgotten.

The second attack on the World Trade Center occurred on 10/12/00. Although Clinton had less than 90 days remaining in office, he managed to determine who the guilty party was and draw up a plan of attack against Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

When Pres. Clinton debriefed President-appoint Bush, he warned him that Al Qaeda was the greatest threat facing this nation. Bush disagreed. Handed all this information, Bush did nothing. He ignored Richard Clarke and the briefing titled, Bin Ladin determined to strike in US. Considered so urgent by the intelligence community, they flew an agent down to Crawford to deliver it and answer questions. Bush responded with, "I guess you've covered you a**. You can go now."

Somebody dropped the ball all right, but it wasn't Clinton.

As far as lies told by President Bush, it is true that the world believed Saddam had WMD. It is not true that WMD would have a sufficient cause for war. So Bush lied and told us that Saddam had an active nuclear weapon program. Cheney is the one who first outed Valerie Plame. Bush said he would conduct his investigation into that little act of treason and punish those responsible. I'm still waiting for that to happen.

There have been many, many lies told to us by this President and every single member of his administration. Everything you heard recently about Iran being a threat is a lie. Bush saying last week that he didn't know anything about the content of the NIE until a few days earlier was a lie. He had briefed Olmert on its contents 2 weeks earlier. A big lie is when he said, "The United States does not torture."

As far as rights we have lost, we have lost the right to communicate with other citizens without being spied upon. We can be detained indefinitely without knowing what we're being charged with and denied access to an attorney. These are rights granted to us by the constitution.

Totally agree! Weren't the dem's suppose to have us out of this war by now? They are every bit as responsible for this war as anybody, where's the hatred for them? I seriously don't know what some will do when they don't have President Bush to kick around anymore.

Mrs. Clinton would not have gotten this far if she weren't married to billy boy. She would of gotten rid of him long ago if he weren't advantageous to her power hungry career. I mean why would she even want to be President and have to sit in the Oval Office, the very room billy boy desecrated with that women Miss. Lewinsky .

I guess you haven't had a chance to read the paper or watch the news since January. The Democrats have passed bills to get us out of the war. Bush vetoes every one and his buddies back his veto. Don't blame the Democrats for the slaughter -- this is all on the Republicans now.

Yes, I think the "record" of someone's spouse, does and should, play into it. Will it affect Hillary?? Depends on who you ask,I guess. I think the woman was NUTS to stay with him after her cheated on her, and then LIED to the American Public - "I did NOT have sexual relations with that girl". But......it is HER marriage, not mine. I think she clearly wears the pants in that family, and his opinions would factor in very little, overall.

I hate to sound like a throwback to the 60's, but, I just don't think we are ready for a woman as president. They think with their heart too often. Maybe me need a lesbian president??? Not to knock them, but, maybe a masculine type, and they will think less with their heart???

IMO, war is war. If you need to use torture to get them to give up info., then so be it. If you have to take out innocent people to get to the bad ones, so be it. Me, as a woman, could not give that order. These are people, and someone loves them and cares for them. I could not be the one to give the order to do this. Am I against war??? Not always. Sometimes it is very necessary. In this current war??? I think something needed to be done.

a little off topic, but, had to try and clarify.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Seriously amusing. But we will have him to kick around. We will take a page from your book and blame him for everything under the sun for the next 15 years, maybe more. Seems to work for you and the other cons concerning Clinton.

First, Senator Clinton is far from my candidate of choice for the democratic nomination. My feelings for her have absolutely nothing to do with her decision to stay with President Clinton, as you said, not my marriage, not my business. To answer the question, I think President Clinton is more of an asset then a liability.

Secondly, you might want to do a little research on Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Both were married and had children. Neither was a lesbian nor did they unduly "think with their hearts". My own, personal feeling about most women is "don't p off a woman with children, she'll hunt you down to the ends of the earth".

As for your comments on "war is war" and torture. I would hope that our country never again uses torture (waterboarding to be specific). We tried Japanese soldiers at the end of WW II for waterboarding. We prosecuted some of our own soldiers during Vietnam for the same thing. My sincere hope is that someday those responsible for such actions during this "war" will be tried and sent to prison.

Please debate the issues of the thread. We can all do this without personal attacks.

If anyone has an issue, please pm me.

Thanks
Kristin
Moderator

Yep. President Pratibha Patil (India), President Michelle Bachelet (Chile), and Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany) are a few more. The highest number female world leaders serving simultaniously was 13.

I absolutlely believe a woman is up to the job. And I, for one, am ready.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

Me too. If you read about the history of women's suffrage, you realize that women, can do and be anything. Such strong women got us to this point, and to not advocate for the abilities of our gender is very sad. There have been many female heads of state in the last hundred years, from countries big and small, well-known and mostly unknown. And then there's the U.S. Just the fact that we have to have this discussion is disheartening.

Hillary might not be the best choice for president, although I haven't decided that, at this point, but her gender is not going to be my deciding factor. And the more people attack her, the better she looks to me.

I'm not attacking Hillary Clinton, I just don't think we're ready, or in the position to benefit from, a woman president. Yes, there have been some great female leaders, but, we are not talking about "small" countries like England, Chile, etc. We are talking about one of the largest super powers in the World.

I agree, women can do ANYTHING. I just don't think they are taken as seriously as a man. It's just a fact, and I think many people in the working world would agree. That's why we hear about the inequities between men and women in the work place.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I disagree. I think gender is completely irrelevant. OTOH, I don't support Clinton because I don't like her, I don't trust her, and I think it's cowardly of her to refuse to denounce her votes in support of the war.

Sadly, I agree. Women are treated like crap in the working world.

I respect that.

I also don't support Hillary Clinton. She just never has sat well with me, even as first lady. She just comes across to me as "shifty" and not on the up and up. I think she stayed with Pres. Clinton for her own agenda, and I don't think Monica Lewinski was the first or last "other woman", but, again, that is their marriage, not mine. I did like her a little better after I saw an interview she did on some news show, maybe it was the Barbara Walters special, where she talked of growing up and having to fit in with the boys, etc. But, I still don't "like" her enuf to vote for her as our next President.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Her support of the war would be the main reason I might chose to vote for someone else, but I certainly don't think her refusal to denounce her vote is cowardly. If she changed then people would just start complaining about that. I think it takes guts to stay with an unpopular choice in spite of public disapproval.

I disagree, to the entent it take FAR more courage to admit you were wrong than to keep defending a clearly wrong decision.

Would India count? It is the 7th largest country with 28 states and not what I'd consider "small". It's president is President Pratibha Patil, a female.

Women have proven themselves to lead. We've had to make hard decisions. We are capable and society has benefited from our leadership. I think suggesting otherwise is buying into the same ideas that denied women the right to vote.


I think it's irrelevant as well.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

While India is not "small" I don't consider it a Super Power. When a country is in trouble, I don't think they say "let's see if India can help us". Nor do they say "don't mess with India, they have a huge military".

President Patil has not been president for long, so I don't know of her record as president. I did, however, find this Wikipedia link. I am not sure of the validity of Wikipedia information, tho. There is a section in here that says President Patil thinks people with deformities/handicaps should be sterilized. I'd be concerned with that. We are not debating this woman's thinking for HER country, tho. I am just saying, personally, I don't think a female would be taken seriously enough as our President.

Pratibha Patil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I think denying a woman the right to vote is not the same as saying a woman would not be taken seriously as our President. Denying a woman the right to vote is basically calling them stupid. Saying they would not be taken seriously as President (at THIS point in time) is just today's businessworld. I don't know how better to get my opinion across. I think a woman can do ANY job she wants, but, should she??? To me, THAT is the question. Should women be allowed to serve on warships???? I know they ARE allowed to ( and many, quite competantly do), but, SHOULD they? **rhetorical question, don't want to get off topic.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

At what point do you think it would be okay?

The only way to change attitudes is to challenge them. Putting a female, a person of color, a handicapped person, or anyone that is not a conventional white male into the White House is the best way to start doing that.

I don't know, but, I don't think NOW is the time.

We HAVE had a handicapped president before. I don't think NOW is the time to challenge attitudes. With the world, and our place in it, so unstable, I just don't think that is a good thing to do.

I respect your stand on the issue, but, I also have my own stand on it.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

And there are men that have espoused what I would deem ridiculous notions that I don't agree with. Yet they have led countries.
I would have been concerned too. But I did not vote for her. The people of India did.

Exactly.

Still, that's not the yardstick I'd use in determining whether someone has the ability to lead. Gender should not come into play.
And if given the chance and opportunity, who knows.
The point is women DO lead contries, big or small. It has been done, it can be done.

Well back then, people did not feel women should worry their pretty head about political matters. They were treated as second class citizens. Men in power felt they were not competant. They weren't taken seriously.
Women have proven otherwise. We were given the voice to be heard and I feel we have done a darn good job.

Well like you said, a woman can do ANY job she wants.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

I have no doubt that a woman could lead this country as well as any man. European countries do not cling to patriarchy like we do in this country.

India has a population more than three times that of the US. They maintain armed forces of over one million, all volunteers. They have nukes. They are well on their way to becoming a superpower.

The economies of both India and China will surpass ours within 10 years.

I think a woman brings a different perspective.

I have two problems with Sen. Clinton. The first is her vote for the war in Iraq. The second is her unmitigated support from AIPAC. They like what she has to say. One of the things AIPAC wants is war with Iran.

I want someone who leads with their head and not with their gut.