Skip to main content

Heard it tonight on the Drudge Report: possibility if Hildabeast wins the White House, she will appoint William Jefferson Blythe Klinton to replace her seat as Senator of New York.

God help us if this happens!!!

To remind you: would you really vote for this, and wind up with that in the Senate?????





Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Here we have more information. Rather than photographs which are, I suppose, rendered for people to make a judgement about something or other based on appearances, now we have a stated opinion. Statements are much more rhetorically sound in a format such as this.

As for your statement, speak for yourself. "We" is a word best left unspoken in this context.
Last edited by e 2
Simply put; We, meaning the people of the United States of America have endured 7 yrs of this beastly bast*** called "George Walker Bush"( noted as the "WORST PRESIDENT" Eeker,I hate calling this idiot a President(and that includes "Daddy Bush" who wasn't much better the United States has ever seen)His record proves this.

I believe if you look at the record (except for Clintons sex act Roll Eyes), and what he did under the table Razzer was his choice, and who really gives a big S***?) He had this country in better shape financially, then this hero of your's. And will in the end leave a better legacy then Bush could ever hope for(sex acts, set aside) Clinton "HE LIED, BUT NOEBODY DIED!!' total war dead in Iraq, and Afghanistan is well over 3200.Wounded;thousands Cost in Dollars?? $$$$Billions$$$$
Think about it!

SEMPER FI,(carry on citizens!)
quote:
Originally posted by Delldude:
Simply put; We, meaning the people of the United States of America have endured 7 yrs of this beastly bast*** called "George Walker Bush"( noted as the "WORST PRESIDENT" Eeker,I hate calling this idiot a President(and that includes "Daddy Bush" who wasn't much better the United States has ever seen)His record proves this.

I believe if you look at the record (except for Clintons sex act Roll Eyes), and what he did under the table Razzer was his choice, and who really gives a big S***?) He had this country in better shape financially, then this hero of your's. And will in the end leave a better legacy then Bush could ever hope for(sex acts, set aside) Clinton "HE LIED, BUT NOEBODY DIED!!' total war dead in Iraq, and Afghanistan is well over 3200.Wounded;thousands Cost in Dollars?? $$$$Billions$$$$
Think about it!

SEMPER FI,(carry on citizens!)


Excellent post!

Hillary in 2008!!!
I'd trade my $.19 / 2 week tax cut I got from Bush, for the economy we had under Clinton any day. I never did understand what the people who voted for Bush had against peace and prosperity. Remember, all this mess we are in is not just Bush's falt, it is also the fault of all those who voted for him, not once, but twice. "fool me once, shame on you , fool me twice, well, -------- you shouldn't fool me again"
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by e:
Again, someone resorts to avatars that do not convey a message other than a judgement based on appearances.


I endured 8 years of the Klintonista Regime....I know enough, in fact, too much, of what they bring to the table....We don't need to relive it.


Just how long have you been in the Military B'man? When Clinton was in the White House, we didn't have any wars, our gus were at home with their families as they should have been...

Safe was life back then... we were much more in our own "comfort zones"... and WHAMMO!!! Bush takes over and ALLLLLL COUNTRIES HELL BREAKS LOOSE....

Reality is, people do NOT like Bush, or Cheney or what is happening to our very own...

Reality is, people WANT a change, and they want it so bad, that it IS the time for a woman, or a African American, or a religious fanatic, or a multi-divorced man... any of them to read right in and GRAB it... That is how much people want Bush and Cheney out of there...

They have literally sickened the Country out on Republicans, and now our Country is up for grabs..... and only God knows who will take it over in 2008.

Better be careful, B'man, Billary just MIGHT be your boss someday!!!! Personally, I hope not, but people are SICK of what is going on in this US of A today.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
I'd trade my $.19 / 2 week tax cut I got from Bush, for the economy we had under Clinton any day. I never did understand what the people who voted for Bush had against peace and prosperity. Remember, all this mess we are in is not just Bush's falt, it is also the fault of all those who voted for him, not once, but twice. "fool me once, shame on you , fool me twice, well, -------- you shouldn't fool me again"


Well said, VERY well said!!!! ESPECIALLY that last line Wink
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
[[That was what I was thinking... PLUS, hasn't this already been posted before??? Why do we just keep posting the same old stuff?]]

I think he wants to get an early start and do everything in his power to discredit her. A pathetic posting!



On a tiny forum like this?? LOL!!! The woman is a NEW YORK SENATOR for God's sake, she cannot be that bad!!!! Man, don't people THINK that all of us can THINK for ourselves,.. ????
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
[[That was what I was thinking... PLUS, hasn't this already been posted before??? Why do we just keep posting the same old stuff?]]

I think he wants to get an early start and do everything in his power to discredit her. A pathetic posting!


I've never received a good answer as to WHY people don't like Hilary.

But, to repsond to your comment, I know it is a tiny forum, but posters like BM will do anything they can to spread a bad word about someone they don't like.


On a tiny forum like this?? LOL!!! The woman is a NEW YORK SENATOR for God's sake, she cannot be that bad!!!! Man, don't people THINK that all of us can THINK for ourselves,.. ????
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
[[That was what I was thinking... PLUS, hasn't this already been posted before??? Why do we just keep posting the same old stuff?]]

I think he wants to get an early start and do everything in his power to discredit her. A pathetic posting!


I've never received a good answer as to WHY people don't like Hilary.

But, to repsond to your comment, I know it is a tiny forum, but posters like BM will do anything they can to spread a bad word about someone they don't like.


On a tiny forum like this?? LOL!!! The woman is a NEW YORK SENATOR for God's sake, she cannot be that bad!!!! Man, don't people THINK that all of us can THINK for ourselves,.. ????


David, there is NO good answer to your question... it is politics, but I just bet you that everyone does NOT hate Hillary like other people WANT them to think they do!!! I think that SOME people are threatened by the fact that she might just win and their Commander in Chief would be a WOMAN....

She cannot be that bad, she was a great first lady, and a New York Senator for a long time, she is a genius, just read or watch her Bio on A & E...

All this negative attention that people are throwing her way is just what is going to probably get her elected. Man, wouldn't they feel good about all they said THEN??? lol...

She is a powerful lady, and she will give someone one heck of a race, never doubt that... I know how smart she is, I took the time to actually delve into her history... she is sincerely a genius, and KNOWS how to handle people.

David, no one has the power to sway anyone that does not want to be swayed... people has the RIGHT to think for themselves... sure we can all "back and forth" it... but bottom line, when you pull that curtain, ALL you can do then is PRAY for a fair election!!!
DAvid L
I believe that some people hate Hillary because she is so much smarter than they are.
They hated Bill for the same reason, but they love Bush because he is so %$^$#@ stupid, he makes virtually everybody seem smart by comparison.
I think it is human nature to resent those who are smarter, richer, better looking, or whatever than they themselves are.
What we Americans must realize is that Bush has screwed up this country and the world. We are in deep kempshey! We need someone with some smarts to get us out of some of this mess, and we better be concerned about that instead of trying to fource your religeous beliefs on freedom of choice, or gay rights on everybody. This country has more and bigger problems than the 2 above mentioned.
Personally , my favorite is John Edwards, primarly because he is so straight speaking. Hillary will not out and out say she screwed up on the Iraq vote, but I also think she would make an excellent president, maybe even better than Bill, and if she is on the final ticket, I will vote for her.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
DAvid L
I believe that some people hate Hillary because she is so much smarter than they are.
They hated Bill for the same reason, but they love Bush because he is so %$^$#@ stupid, he makes virtually everybody seem smart by comparison.
I think it is human nature to resent those who are smarter, richer, better looking, or whatever than they themselves are.
What we Americans must realize is that Bush has screwed up this country and the world. We are in deep kempshey! We need someone with some smarts to get us out of some of this mess, and we better be concerned about that instead of trying to fource your religeous beliefs on freedom of choice, or gay rights on everybody. This country has more and bigger problems than the 2 above mentioned.
Personally , my favorite is John Edwards, primarly because he is so straight speaking. Hillary will not out and out say she screwed up on the Iraq vote, but I also think she would make an excellent president, maybe even better than Bill, and if she is on the final ticket, I will vote for her.


excelman, I saw her on television saying that she voted FOR the war, and had so many DEEP regrets over it... she apologised profusely for letting Americans down with that vote... So yes, she is taking responsibility of making the wrong decision... and I admire that, in anyone...

And your first paragraph is so CORRECT!!!! How right you have Human Nature Nailed down!!!!! How eloquently you put it!!! LOL!!!
Hillary Clinton is actually a much weaker candidate than many people seem to believe. Here’s a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that is the case:

1. Likeability and Charisma


If you look back at the last eight presidential elections, at least, the more likeable candidate has won every time. That’s unfortunate for Hillary because unlike her slick, gregarious husband, she does not have the gift of gab or a warm personality. If Hillary has to pass the old, “Gee, would I rather go to a ball game, grab some pizza, or get a beer with Hillary or the Republican candidate,” test, she’s going to be in a lot of trouble unless the person asking the question is wearing a tinfoil hat or is such a radical lefty that she has a “I (heart) abortion” bumper sticker on her car.
2. Gaffes

Hillary not only lacks charisma and likeability, she’s more gaffe prone than most people seem to realize. For example, back in March she suggested that the illegal immigration bill in the House, “would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

Then there were her wacky comments about school vouchers back in February:
“First family that comes and says ‘I want to send my daughter to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic School’ and you say ‘Great, wonderful school, here’s your voucher,’” Clinton said. “Next parent that comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...’ The parent says, ‘The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can’t discriminate against me.’”
As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, “So what if the next parent comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won’t stand for it.”
Criminalizing Jesus? Cain and the Church of the White Supremacist? The School of Jihad? What?!? You put this woman in front of a camera for a year, in a presidential campaign, where every word the candidate utters is scrutinized like the Zapruder tape and she’ll give plenty of ammunition to her opponent.

3. She Can’t Win in the South

The only two Democratic candidates for the presidency who’ve won elections since Lyndon Johnson was in office have been two Southern governors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Why were they able to win? Because unlike John Kerry or Al Gore, they were able to win southern states. Northern liberals like Hillary? They don’t do well in the South and Hillary will have a lot of difficulty reversing that trend. After all, not only is she a liberal, from a liberal state, with a liberal voting record, she apparently disliked living in the South so much that she moved to New York. Good luck connecting with the NASCAR crowd after that Hillary, ’cause you’re going to need it!

4. Hillary’s Base Problem

Here’s a little secret: a lot of liberals don’t really want Hillary as their candidate in 2008. Some of them don’t like her stance on the war. Others don’t like her close relationship with the DLC, which is perceived as being too moderate. There are even some liberals that are probably unhappy with her, as much as anything, because she has been treated like the “chosen one” for the Democrats since the 2004 election.

The result of this is that some of the more hardcore liberal activists aren’t thrilled with Hillary’s candidacy and they’re not shy about saying so. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the more time Democrats spend reading liberal bloggers, the cooler they get to Hillary. That’s not exactly the kind of reaction a candidate hopes for from people who should be some of her biggest supporters.

5. Hillary Will Increase Turnout—for the GOP

Remember how the Democrats turned out in droves in 2004 so they could vote against President Bush? Well, the same thing would happen on the Republican side if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. There are few words in the English language more terrifying to Republicans than, “President Hillary Clinton,” and it’s almost guaranteed that they will turn out in record numbers to make sure it never happens.

6. Hillary as Commander in Chief?

In general, the Democrats have serious credibility problems on national security and Hillary is not going to be the one to reverse that trend. Unlike candidates like John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, she doesn’t have a military background to fall back on. Moreover, her husband’s administration was lackadaisical about fighting terrorism and although Hillary did vote for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, she certainly hasn’t developed a reputation as a hawk, like say Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. Although at this point, it’s hard to know exactly what the foreign policy landscape will look like in November of 2008, it’s unlikely to be tranquil and that will be a major strike against Hillary.

7. Her Polling Numbers Aren’t Very Good

Since Hillary has been the frontrunner on the Democratic side from the moment that John Kerry conceded, she has been the subject of a lot of 2008 related polls. Unfortunately for her, those numbers haven’t looked particularly good.

For example, In mid-May of this year, Rasmussen Reports had Hillary’s unfavorable rating among adults at 39%. Another mid-May poll, from the New York Times, had 34% of Americans viewing her favorably and 35% viewing her unfavorably.

Perhaps that sort of soft support explains the results of a January 2006, CNN/Gallup poll which found that, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president.”

Given that Hillary already has extremely high name recognition, these bad numbers don’t bode well for her chances to win the presidency.

8. Baggage

Hillary is carrying around as much baggage as any of the other five candidates combined, starting with her philandering husband. In fact, there are so many controversies that have swirled around Bill and Hill than you can hardly list them all: Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Whitewater, selling the Lincoln bedroom, using the IRS against political enemies, selling pardons, taking the White House furniture, shady cattle futures deals, impeachment, firing the travel office staff to make room for cronies, it goes on and on and on. Discount these scandals as old news if you like, but the American people are going to think long and hard before they vote to turn the White House into the sort of sleazy circus sideshow that it was during Bill Clinton’s tenure as President.

Conclusion

Although Hillary Clinton would be far from a pushover, she’s not an unstoppable juggernaut either. To the contrary, Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate who would have great difficulty beating a credible, conservative Republican. So while it’s important not to get overconfident about a potential race against Hillary Clinton, we shouldn’t minimize her numerous weaknesses either.
BamaSunshine, maybe you can send this to her phsycho-analysis to make sure she is capable of doing all that BEFORE the elections.

But quite the contrary, while Bill was in office Hillary's personality came out very well over the news media.. She was dubbed one of the best First Ladies in history... She socialized with many people and did it very well... SO much better than Bush's wife does. Bush's wife KNOWS her place, and she stays right there in it...

Hillary DOES have the personality, the BRAINS, and the POWER to win, no matter what all your pshyco-babble says up there... all one has to do is read her Bio, and watch it on television, and you all may be surprised at HOW very smart that woman is!!!

She has more brains than bushcheney has TOGETHER... and thats a fact Wink
While reading this article I could not help but think it read like K.S. with her pro union liberal remark.

It might actually be worth the price of admission to Paul Krugman's column this morning to observe the amusing manner in which the New York Times columnist wriggles around in a trap of his own making regarding Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraq war. On the one hand, he wants her to apologize for it, and so must criticize her for not doing so. On the other, he hastens to make the limits of his criticism perfectly clear. He's not lumping her in with those awful, intransigent Republicans. Certainly not. Krugman wouldn't want to damage the presumptive Dem candidate . . . nor bring down The Wrath of the Clinton upon his hoary head.

And so Krugman spends most of his column, the ostensible purpose of which is to lament Hillary's inflexibility, lambasting Republicans for their unbending nature, all the while being careful to observe that Hillary is, well, perhaps a teeny bit like them -- but not too much, mind you!
· President Bush and VP Cheney are "pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes."
· "Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle."
· "George Bush . . . suffer[s] from an infallibility complex."
· "Dick Cheney is a 'megalomaniac.'"
· "Senator John McCain . . . appears to share the Bush administration’s habit of rewriting history to preserve an appearance of infallibility."
· "As for Rudy Giuliani, there are so many examples of his inability to accept criticism that it’s hard to choose."
But when it comes to Hillary, well:
· "She’s smart and sensible."
· "She’s at worst a triangulator, not a megalomaniac."
· And while the country is fed-up "with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong," Krugman wants to be sure you understand that "I don’t think she falls in that category."
Heaven forbid!
Rather than holding Hillary responsible for her failure to say I'm sorry, Krugman blames "her campaign." Right. We all know how shy and suggestible Hands-off Hillary is. And what is the sin "her campaign" committed? Following "Karl Rove’s playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake." Yes, poor Hillary was led astray by an evil Republican.
According to the Krugman, "that playbook has led them into a political trap." He should know.
Aside: Why shouldn't Hillary apologize? After all, she said she wasn't going to be like Tammy Wynette, not Brenda Lee
Sunshine,
I would like to make a comment about your point 6 - that about the Democrats being precieved as weak on National Defense. That is probably true, but for the life of me, I don't understand it.
Lets look at our wars, and their outcomes since the War Between the States:
Spanish American War : Won President McKinney -Republican.
World War 1 : won President Woodrow Wilson- Democrat
World War 2 : won President FDR then Truman - Democrats
Police actions:
Korea: Although started during Truman's term, ended by stalemate by Eisenhower - Republican
Vietnam: American involvment started by Eisenhower, went thru Kennedy and Johnson adm, and ended via exiting Vietnam by Nixon/Ford _Republicans
Cuban Missile Crisis: (Almost world war 3) won": Kennedy- Democrat
Gulf war 1: won: GHW Bush _Republican

War on terrorist: ongoing

W's Iraq war: quagmire so far President- G W Bush- Republican

It seems to me that the Democrats have a better record on defense than the Republicans. Can't figger out why people think otherwise, unless the lies of the Republicans have had some effect. eg: the swiftboating of Kerry, the travisty of calling Max Cleland non-patrotic.
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Maybe it is because democrats alway want to reduce or military when they are in control.

--------------------------------------------
I believe that is a generalization , that has been simplified, and told over and over by Republicans.
If I remember correct, most Democrats have attempted to stop what Eisenhower warned against, the Military War Machine.
Republicans are partially controlled by the large companies who make the military hardware. I remember that the Air Force ordered a certain number of B2's., but the order was doubled by the Republican Congress, likewise with submarines and the Navy.
Should we be spending billions of dollars on equiptment that is not needed? Should we keep military bases open that are only needed to save the azzes of senators and rep?
Now the real question-- is spending more money than is NEEDED, any help to the security of this country. Is fiscal descepline not just as important, maybe more so?
The Democrats need to get the spine , to stand up and call these lies what they are, and go after the liers, instead of just taking it.
I would feel much safer if our country did not have George W Bush for president, Gore, or Kerry would have kept us safer.
Drudge is WRONG.

FROM THE US SENATE WEBSITE: "The 17th Amendment to the Constitution (1913) established direct election of senators, as well as a means of filling vacant Senate seats. If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the 17th Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place."

This should make it plain that Hillary WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HER SUCCESSOR.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
Drudge is WRONG.

FROM THE US SENATE WEBSITE: "The 17th Amendment to the Constitution (1913) established direct election of senators, as well as a means of filling vacant Senate seats. If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the 17th Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place."

This should make it plain that Hillary WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HER SUCCESSOR.



Glad you pointed that out, Ed.. Some already seems to THINK she has power, maybe they just don't know how much... although, she would not have the power to appoint her successor, she just MAY have the power to win the Presidential Elections.

Bush and Cheney and Company has now made it possible for a woman, an Afro-American and anyone else who wants to run to acutally stand a chance on winning... The Nation is so sick of Bush, that ANYONE could beat him at the moment!!!!

Deja Vu'!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
Maybe it is because democrats alway want to reduce or military when they are in control.


Fellow American, I think you need to do two things. Look at what Reagan did to the GRUNTS in the military, and how he pushed for the HIGH TECH Military while trying to undermine mutually assured destruction. He was aiming for a "winnable" Thermonuclear war.

Second, Observe, if you please, that BUSH INVADED AFGHANISTAN WITH THE ARMY CLINTON LEFT HIM, AND HAD VERY LITTLE TIME TO CREATE AN ARMY THAT COULD TAKE IRAQ AND HOLD IT. The strategy of the US foreign policy has been, for a number of years, particularly since Bush 41, to have a military that was capable of putting down small wars, Like Bosnia, get out, and be prepared for the next crisis. BUSH 43 is trying to use that military to dominate the world, and it is not up to the task. THAT IS WHY THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A QUAGMIRE.

The Gulf War was a pure success. It accomplished its goal in a minimum amount of time, did it with the backing of most of the world, and put the binders on Saddam Hussain. That is the military establishment of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton.
The more I watch, the more I read, I think Hillary has a GREAT chance at the White House... I don't think anyone really realizes that she has above level GENIUS IQ and she works well with people, and she IS, afterall a Politician!!!

We may all be surprised when election time comes... Unless those DANG CHADS start hanging Razzer
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:

This should make it plain that Hillary WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HER SUCCESSOR.



While she may not have the authority to appoint her successor, if she is elected President of the US, I'll bet that if she strongly suggested that Bill complete her term, she'll get her way. Wink

As to why some people dislike her, I think a lot of people see through her. She's a power-hungry,phony that does whatever is politically expedient for hers' and Bills' career. She comes across as someone who will do or say anything (her "stand by your man routine" ) to advance her career. She's put up with a lot of crap from her husband during their political lives and has yet to stand up for herself. I'd be willing to bet, if Bill was just your average guy, say a plumber or truck driver, she would have already put him on the road. She is smart though, smart enough to ride his coattail as far as it will take her.
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:

This should make it plain that Hillary WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HER SUCCESSOR.



While she may not have the authority to appoint her successor, if she is elected President of the US, I'll bet that if she strongly suggested that Bill complete her term, she'll get her way. Wink

As to why some people dislike her, I think a lot of people see through her. She's a power-hungry,phony that does whatever is politically expedient for hers' and Bills' career. She comes across as someone who will do or say anything (her "stand by your man routine" ) to advance her career. She's put up with a lot of crap from her husband during their political lives and has yet to stand up for herself. I'd be willing to bet, if Bill was just your average guy, say a plumber or truck driver, she would have already put him on the road. She is smart though, smart enough to ride his coattail as far as it will take her.


It has been done before, once I think, that a former President was elected to the Senate. BUT, You are assuming that Bill Clinton would want to be a Senator. I think that what he has done in the Past 6 years has been beneficial to the world, beneficial to Bill Clinton, and being a senator would be a come down from where he is now. US Ambassador to the UN might be more like it, or possibly SECRETARY GENERAL of the UN. I don't think Bill would be happy in the Senate. Though he would have a great address for finishing his wife's last four years in the Upper House.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:

This should make it plain that Hillary WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HER SUCCESSOR.



While she may not have the authority to appoint her successor, if she is elected President of the US, I'll bet that if she strongly suggested that Bill complete her term, she'll get her way. Wink

As to why some people dislike her, I think a lot of people see through her. She's a power-hungry,phony that does whatever is politically expedient for hers' and Bills' career. She comes across as someone who will do or say anything (her "stand by your man routine" ) to advance her career. She's put up with a lot of crap from her husband during their political lives and has yet to stand up for herself. I'd be willing to bet, if Bill was just your average guy, say a plumber or truck driver, she would have already put him on the road. She is smart though, smart enough to ride his coattail as far as it will take her.


It has been done before, once I think, that a former President was elected to the Senate. BUT, You are assuming that Bill Clinton would want to be a Senator. I think that what he has done in the Past 6 years has been beneficial to the world, beneficial to Bill Clinton, and being a senator would be a come down from where he is now. US Ambassador to the UN might be more like it, or possibly SECRETARY GENERAL of the UN. I don't think Bill would be happy in the Senate. Though he would have a great address for finishing his wife's last four years in the Upper House.




Re-read my post. I never assumed he would want to be Senator, all I said was if he wanted it and she was President, I believe she could make it happen.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×