<p>She didn’t refer to him. She paused after repeating the question. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, she doesn’t have the favorability ratings of President Clinton. He has some of the highest favorabilities of any public figure.</p>
<p>The latest ABC/Gallup Poll in late February shows Hillary with a favorability of 49% versus 55% for Bill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Hillary has discussed a role for Bill as an “ambassador to the world”, i.e. a special envoy diplomatic role. That would be fantastic and a real asset to the country. She cites the role that he has played with George HW Bush as the public figures for Tsunami relief. He could be very effective in rebuilding the US position in the world – something that is going to require a major effort by the next President.</p>
<p>The other intriguing possibility that has been talked about in the media would be for NY Governor Elliot Spitzer to appoint Bill Clinton to fill the remaining four years of Hillary Clinton’s Senate term. The voters of NY state would obviously love that, but I don’t realistically see the Clinton’s going for it as it would put both of them up for re-election in 2010.</p>
<p>As for campaigning together, this C-SPAN video shows the joint Hillary/Bill $2.7 million fundraiser in Washington last week. Bill’s introduction starts at the 4:30 mark. He talks about their first date:</p>
<p>You forgot Newt, Huckabee, Rush and Falwell. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where on earth did you get that idea? Talk radio?</p>
<p>Not even the Republicans in the DOJ are saying that the US Attorney’s were fired for refusing to prosecute Democrats. If it were true, don’t you think someone would have brought it up by now?</p>
<p>One of the claims was that Iglesias refused to prosecute voter fraud. But that’s because there was no case, as confirmed by the FBI (the government agency that does the investigations of voter fraud). In fact, the FBI says that were ZERO cases of indictable voter fraud that did not result in indictments by the fired US Attorneys. The fired US Attorneys indicted 100% of the time that the FBI thought an indictment was appropriate. </p>
<p>The case against a Democrat that Senator Domenci improperly called him about–the issue wasn’t that Iglesias was or wasn’t going to indict–the issue was that the Republicans wanted the indictment sped up in time for the election.</p>
<p>And sadly, there will likely be no more indictments in the case Carol Lam was prosecuting. Even as the evidence of bribes and other illegalities continues to mount.</p>
<p>Great point…and one that I think explains why W has had such a difficult time in office. </p>
<p>Why wouldn’t you come in to office and get rid of everyone who isn’t 100% loyal to you with the same view of the world that you have? </p>
<p>W was naive. He really did think that if he was nice enough he could convert over to his side those that couldn’t stand either him or other Republicans.</p>
<p>This was and is his failing. A nice guy who never understood to what extent those who detested him would go to in order to bring him down.</p>
<p>It’s why Gonzalez should go. How could he not have anticipated what the Dems would do with the firing of the U.S. attorneys. </p>
<p>I like a lot of what W has done, but his naivite is over-the-top.</p>
<p>The Left hated him before he ever stepped into the Oval Office and he never got it. </p>
<p>Ultimately W has been the best thing that has happened to liberals and Dems in the last twenty years.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Bush did in many cases, especially regarding Iraq. And it’s a tragic mistake. I’m surprised you would think it’s a good idea for leader to deliberately give himself huge blind spots like that.</p>
<p>As the Rev. Billy Graham says, “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”</p>
<p>Do you just sit at your computer screen waiting for those who you disagree with to write something so you can rip apart whatever it is that they’re saying? Six minutes…nice.</p>
<p>Please, get a life.</p>
<p>Of course it makes sense to have people around you who aren’t all “yes” men. W thought that he could convert those to his point of view because he was a nice guy…forgetting the fact that there were so many people working in the government who couldn’t stand him and would never try to view the world the same way that he did.</p>
<p>You should be happy with my assessment because I have faulted him… something that you on the left claim those on the right never do.</p>
<p>He was/is too nice of a guy. He underestimated the con men and various other moms and dads of the world.</p>
<p>Cheney is a ruthless, cold hearted and venile. If anyone thinks that Bush is naive and had no idea what was going on, that person (hi Vox) is the naive one. </p>
<p>Go read the PNAC, or any of the documents that clearly indicate that things had been thought through before the Iraq invasion. Bush isn’t making unilateral decisions…he has his little party of two advisors (Cheney and Rove) pulling a lot of the strings.</p>
<p>Nice guy…my a**. No nice guy sends American soldiers into harm’s way without enough armor, and then keeps them there in the midst of a civil war.</p>
<p>I don’t think George Bush is “nice” in the conventional meaning of the word. In fact, I don’t think many politicians who want to be president tend to be “nice”. Not saying there aren’t nice people in Washington; but I think the term, even though often applied to Bush, is not accurate at all.</p>
<p>I’ve always thought his father was way too nice - read “All’s Fair”, the part written by Mary Matalin - and that his mother is not particularly nice at all. One of my good friends has seen Barbara Bush up close and personal way too much, and her stories aren’t about a very nice person. I think George 2nd took after his mother, and Jeb took after his father. George was, after all, the hatchet man in his father’s administration - not usually a job parcelled out to the sweet and forgiving. His habit of assigning nicknames is a trait that is really a type of passive bullying. And remember when one of the press corps addressed the president of France in French? Bush refused to speak to him for about a week. That’s nice? </p>
<p>And remember the 2004 presidential debates? I don’t have the link, but in Time Magazine’s coverage, a commentator asked a Bush advisor why the President came across as brusque, bad-tempered and snappish. The Bush advisor replied that the Bush campaign hadn’t picked up on that, since he generally acted that way behind the scenes.</p>
<p>Of course, as I said, nice isn’t necessarily a characteristic either required of, or present in, presidents/presidential candidates from either party. [I do, however, believe that Bush is smart, so I guess I’m in the minority on all fronts!]</p>
</p>