What if Hillary has been the 'real' Bill Clinton all along

"He was fresh and new and exciting.."

Exciting? Just exactly what was so exciting about him?
And for that matter why should a president be exciting?
I thought this was a job for serious individuals not entertainers. Strange that a bunch of voters still don't understand that -- after 9/11, after Iraq, after Katrina and the rest.

"I think it's good to remember that, should Hillary win, she will be under more scrutiny from all sides than Obama, or any other possible winner, could ever imagine."

There is no evidence for that whatsoever.
And for that matter Hillary could get away with a lot of things other politicians could not.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton = Too Many years of only two families. They are all corporatist. When do we get someone that will work for the people?

Check this other content out and see if maybe the media and the people made a mistake by ignoring Biden and driving him out too early: http://current.com/items/88615771_biden_superstar. I'm beginning to think it's not the D.C. Dirty Politics underground that decides who the candidates are....it's the media (and we should protest loudly).

It's too bad Biden dropped out. He was really the only Democrat with the requisite experience and character to be President this time around. It was HIS turn....but the media chose different darlings to give the spotlight to instead. This may be the first election in my life where I'm not going to vote.

Kind of a nasty looking pair. I will not vote for her. Her husband gave us NAFTA and finished off fairness in broadcasting. She is a Republican in Democrats clothing. Plus her voice is just plain irritating.

hmmm she did use to rock that beard too, so maybe its possible?

refreshbot: All I need to know to know I am not voting for her is that Wall St wants her to win. That pretty much says it all.

why are so many smart democrats having a hard time seeing the corporate threat she poses? Why don't they see that big government and big business have synergistically combined forces to subvert individual freedoms? I get the sense that people that support Hillary are asking people to risk trusting that, once elected, she will act in ways that favor the poor, the middle class - which may very well be true - but after Hillary, we risk having an opressive Republican take the reigns of an empire with even fewer civil liberties, more controlled media, and a even more global consolidation that will trump the interests of the citizens of our sovereign nation. I absolutely own up to having nostalgia for the Clinton administration of the 90's, but after years of being compelled by the Bush administration to research news headlines while simultaneously -yet carefully- verifying sources before reflecting on the big picture, I realize that the euphoria experienced during the 90's prevents us from realizing that the transgressions against democracy, the war crimes, the profiteering, the corporate favoritism, the outrageous tax cuts, the privatization of government - all of these nation-destroying transgressions that have occured under GWBush have taken place and ARE taking place thanks to conditions set in place during the 90's. Bill Clinton should not be held responsible for creating the scaffolding for such transgressions... he SHOULD be held responsible for failing to uphold his oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States of America against the transgressions of government itself, ultimately enabling this 8 year campaign of destruction that the American people had nothing to do with - we are in fact, VICTIMS. Because Hillary and Bill will never acknowledge this failure, and because Hillary is awash in corporate money and fails to address corporate power and radical "free" market global dominance as being the root cause of all of our nation's problems, I can absolutely feel comfortable in assuming that we will see the same kind of behind-the-scenes legislative changes we failed to recognize in the 90's, all while experiencing short-sighted blindness thanks to the temporary relief promised to us in exchange for our "trust" that Hillary will "do the right thing" by her supporters.

I think this is why I perceive that so many other awakened Richmond, VA democrats and republicans / brothers and sisters, are breaking free of the shackles of partisan politics AND gender roles to cross party lines by supporting Ron Paul, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while democrats still unwilling to commit to an analysis of the problem at hand (and who's talking about it? who is not?) are still holding on to Hillary signs, angrily watching people leaving and puzzled as to why... as a nation, we would be best served by being well informed about our History while mimicking the behavior of our Nation's planners/leaders by always being mindful of the election-after-next.

I think it's good to remember that, should Hillary win, she will be under more scrutiny from all sides than Obama, or any other possible winner, could ever imagine. She will have to be the very best president to make up for history's worst. Don't think, even for a moment, she's not aware of that.

Now, when I think of Bill. I just think that he let big media take control of all communication and he pushed forward NAFTA which gave the WTO control of people and their land!

Not a good memory any more!

hysterical "blast from the past" photo! Thanks.

yeah, what she said.

If you liked the Clinton era, then electing Hillary is clearly the closest you'll get to having that type of leadership in the White House again. If Hillary was running the show then as puppet master for Bill, a victory for her would be a direct return to those policies. But even if she was not the puppet master, and his presidency was his own...he'll be a closer adviser to her and more influential, even simply as her husband, than he will be on any other administration (at least that's my read - I don't see him taking an appointment with any other president).

I thought Bill Clinton was a good president. I expect Hillary would be a good president for many of the same reasons he was, at least one of which is intelligence, which has been sorely lacking the last 8 years. But part of what I liked about Bill Clinton as a candidate was that he was not a regular. He was fresh and new and exciting...which his wife today is not.

That vibe goes squarely and fairly, I think, to Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was a good president without a ton of experience. Hillary should remember that when she focuses on how important experience is...

"But with President Bush's deepening problems making the memories of the 1990s appear rosier than ever, the former First Lady's edge can be tied in very measurable ways to her husband's own popularity."

That's it about the first woman president.

She would be nowhere without the Clinton name. She can't even run her own campaign.

"As a guest on Oprah Winfrey's television show on Sept. 4, he professed that he was "far removed" from the campaign trail even though, of course, he was right in the middle of it."

Translation: when Bill Clinton lies Hillary benefits.

"Many polls show the American public's nostalgia for the 1990s, with the perception of Bill Clinton's presidency benefiting from comparisons with his increasingly unpopular successor."

Which successor wouldn't have become the successor without Bill having too much fun with a certain intern.