SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (126140)2/3/2008 5:33:34 PM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362992
 
I am not angry at "that man" because he lied to the nation. I am not angry at "that man" because he wagged his finger and said I did not have sex with "that woman". I am ready to forgive him when I hear that he called Mr. Lewinsky and asked for his forgiveness for having exploited he 24 year daughter, giving her false promises of marrying her etc.

It is very unfortunate that both Teddy and Bill got involved in this election.

And with Hillary, she had a golden opportunity t o lead the women's movement and divorce him and move out of the WH similar to what French President;s ex-wife Skarkozy did a few months ago. But she didn't. If she did so then, she would have a cakewalk now.

It is not about voting any more since you have indicated that you have voted and I have voted too. I am just talking about character. Not right wing or left wing stuff.

Enjoy the Super Bowl.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (126140)2/3/2008 5:42:50 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 362992
 
Bill Clinton has degraded women during his many years more than anyone else. And now he decides to degrade black people just because it didn't fit within his and his wife's power goals. Who are next? Latinos? Asians? To say "the issue is dead" misses the issue. And the issue is that the Clintons are for themselves and nobody else. They will do and say anything just to win the power chair. They are the most polarizing divisive figure there is. I'll even go on record to say that the Democrats will lose in November if a Clinton name is on the ballot. I know many many Democrats that will never vote for the Clintons, not only because of their past baggage, but also how they run this campaign by trying to bring race and gender into it.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (126140)2/3/2008 5:52:28 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 362992
 
NEWS: The 'Bill' question hovers over the Clinton campaign
John Kass

February 3, 2008
chicagotribune.com

What about Bill?

I asked this more than a year ago now, and have waited patiently for a straight answer. I'm still waiting. And with only hours until Super Tuesday, it's getting late.

If Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and is later elected president, her prospective First Laddie will dance into the White House. Only, Bill Clinton won't be elected this time. He'll be the spouse and therefore untouchable.

And that's not only her problem; it's our problem, even if you're not a Democrat. Sen. Barack Obama's people have raised the issue, but not loudly enough.

This isn't about whether she can keep her hound on the porch or protect her lamb from some green-eyed Jolene with ivory skin and auburn hair.

But what will President Hillary Clinton do if President Bill Clinton decides to freelance in China, or the United Arab Emirates and shoot his mouth off?

The New York Times reported last week that Bill Clinton jetted off to Kazakhstan, and undercut American foreign policy by supporting the dictator, while helping his Canadian pal Frank Giustra win a huge uranium deal. In return, Clinton enjoyed a $31 million donation to his foundation.

It sure makes that Tony Rezko deal for Obama's dream house seem rather small. And the Obama people can be thankful that the story appeared on the morning of the Clinton-Obama debate, effectively prohibiting Hillary from playing the Rezko card.

Bill's adventure in Kazakhstan took place in 2005, with a Republican in the White House. Just imagine what he'll be capable of should his wife rule the Democrats?

In 1980, the Republicans faced a somewhat similar issue at the Republican National Convention in Detroit. The difference is, unlike the Democrats, they dealt with it.

Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan was considering former President Gerald Ford as his running mate, but Ford wanted to increase vice-presidential powers and install former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as foreign policy czar. Reagan killed the idea, the Republican flirtation with a virtual co-presidency was ended, and future president George H.W. Bush became Reagan's running mate.

"There's only one desk in the Oval Office," President Bush said in 1988.

Last year, I personally eyeballed the Oval Office, and he's right. There is only one desk. Yet if the Clinton Restoration is complete, they'll need a twin set.

In January 2007, I suggested that a President Hillary just lock him in the White House basement, or put him in charge of the interns, or send him to Thailand to be special ambassador for Bangkok. But that's just my old anti-Clinton blood rising.

And, there are other ways to look at it. The feminist argument is understood. Why should a competent woman be denied a chance at a job she's capable of -- and Sen. Clinton is clearly capable enough to be president -- only because her husband might cast a giant shadow?

Fair enough. Women shouldn't be penalized for the actions of their husbands.

But we don't live in a place called Hope. We don't live in Happy Land. And foreign leaders, and their agents, don't feel any obligation to consider the demands of feminism on American politics as they pursue their own interests.

How will foreign leaders seek to exploit this co-presidential situation? How will American special domestic interests, and their own cliques in Washington, exploit it?

These are the questions everybody has to ask and Democrats should take the lead, because if they don't, then Republicans will.

If she's the nominee, then Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) can make this an issue in the fall. And though Democratic mouthpieces will conveniently forget Obama's concerns about Bill, and begin shrieking about Republican sexism, it's a legitimate question.

Because if she's elected president, those same questions will be asked privately by Iran, Russia and China.

There's nothing about a co-presidency in the Constitution. Years ago, when she wore those head-bands and he didn't inhale, and Fleetwood Mac was in the air, the Clintons eagerly sold America on their co-presidency. Their official slogan: "Buy one, get one free." Remember?

But now, she can't even answer the question. She was asked about it in Thursday's debate, and she didn't answer.

Question: "If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?"

She laughed and laughed, a hard, embarrassed laugh, hard to listen to, like cats in a sack.

"Well, one thing I think is fair to say, both Barack and I have passionate spouses. ... This is my campaign. ... After consulting broadly with a lot of people who have something to contribute to difficult decisions, I will have to make the call. And I am fully prepared to do that."

What about Bill, Hillary?

What about Bill?