<p>[Bill</a> Clinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President’ | The Onion - America’s Finest News Source](<a href=“The Onion | America's Finest News Source.”>The Onion | America's Finest News Source.)</p>
<p>Thanks for posting that article - it was hilarious!</p>
<p>It almost seems like he is. Even Obama made a comment about it. It’s kind of strange.</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s pretty obvious that Bill believes that constitution thing to be just another technicality—kind of like the definition of “is”. But, there’s a way around it. Hillary might have the title, but he would really be the one in charge. Certainly, if this campaign is any indication, he would spend just as much time in front of the cameras and microphones. And he’s just as willing to get down and dirty in the political mud as ever before. "Former President his rosy red,—!</p>
<p>…maybe I’m crazy, but I just don’t see Bill back in the White House as a bad thing.</p>
<p>The Onion is such a humorous source. …</p>
<p>“…maybe I’m crazy, but I just don’t see Bill back in the White House as a bad thing.”</p>
<p>I won’t speculate as to your sanity, 1of42, but I think a “dual Presidency” is potentially quite problematic, and not to be desired. These two in the Oval office are bound to act as the fulcrum of ever rancorous partisan fisticuffs, much to the detriment of the American people–at least that’s my opinion. </p>
<p>No need to point out the disaster that is the current administration. You’ll get no argument from me on that count. But different doesn’t necessarily translate into better. In my view, we’re not likely to see better from these two, only disaster of a different sort.</p>
<p>Of course, I don’t expect you to agree. I can respect that. In any event, what will happen will happen. If the Clintons do end up back in the White House, I hope to God that I’ll have been dead wrong, and that they will instead work to mend the rift that currently has Washington in a sullen stalemate, and actually restore reason for optimism in this country.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that Clinton is too pragmatic to become a partisan-rancor-inciting Democratic version of Bush. As divisive as she is now, I suspect that a Clinton Presidency would be less divisive than many think.</p>
<p>“Personally, I think that Clinton is too pragmatic to become a partisan-rancor-inciting Democratic version of Bush.”</p>
<p>Would that be Clinton singular (meaning Hillary), or that peculiar, two-headed creature, Billary? Nope…don’t like that dual-Presidency concept one bit.</p>
<p>“As divisive as she is now, I suspect that a Clinton Presidency would be less divisive than many think.”</p>
<p>The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.</p>
<p>I think it’s a bit of a circular argument (or a self-fulfilling prophecy if you like) to say that because the first Clinton was divisive this one will be.</p>
<p>“First Clinton was divisive” -> Assume this one will be -> Go up against her with guns blazing and attacks stronger than any other opponent (this is also because of her clear political strength) -> Divisiveness -> “See, she’s divisive just like…” and we’re back to the start.</p>
<p>So potentially I guess you’re right. But I’m not convinced that’s all Hillary’s fault.</p>
<p>I have the original article in hard print. I thought it was hilarious. The whole paper is …except for the reviews section in the back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. But the fact is that she attracted and continues to attract animus that would be hard to overcome. As well, she contributed her share to this animus. She was the one who went after the women who could have been an embarrassment to her husband (and will again, as he’s been happily skirt-chasing since leaving the presidency). She fought back the bimbo eruptions by charging a vast right-wing conspiracy. In return for her support, Bill gave way to her on a number of issues, including the health reform package where she was unwilling to compromise. This intransigence as well as the total lack of transparency (read as well lack of bipartisanship) sank health reform for the last 15 years. Travelgate was a problem of her own making. She allowed a minor issue to balloon in a big one in her love for secrecy.
I agree with her on most issues; I don’t like Bill and Hillary, much less Billary. In fact Obama and she do not differ hugely on the issues; but he does not have the baggage she has. I was willing to consider her experience, her hard work in the Senate since being elected a big plus (though her vote on Iraq gave me pause). I thought she had changed from what she was in the 1990s. But the campaign has brought back the old Hillary.</p>
<p>1 of 42:</p>
<p>Take your cycle and begin it with:</p>
<p>contentious Florida election > bad feelings + payback time for impeachment > meet all efforts of reaching across the aisle with a slap on the face > …</p>
<p>and you have the cycle of divisiveness that we have now.</p>
<p>Wow…I agree with funding father—maybe agreement over Clinton’s divisiveness among those in different political camps can mend rifts in this country! </p>
<p>Marite, thank you for that post and the historical reminders of why this built-up animosity.</p>
<p>“…maybe I’m crazy, but I just don’t see Bill back in the White House as a bad thing.”</p>
<p>1of42,
I hope the voters don’t want Bill back in the White without a chaperone. His Pinocchio nose is just too long.</p>
<p>Well at least we’ll have somebody in government to rival Paris/Britney for sleazy news coverage…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That might be the first thing you and I have agreed on! ;)</p>
<p>I must say that I was a fan of George W. Bush. I was in favor of going to Iraq. I can’t say I’m exactly a fan of his anymore. But I’d rather stick with him than to see a Clinton in the White House.</p>
<p>He cut the military in half during his presidency. Sure, he came close to balancing the budget, but due to events after his presidency, I believe he likely helped to throw the country into even deeper debt. Call me crazy.</p>
<p>Would the research our defense contractors are doing now be cheaper 10-15 years ago than what it is now? I’d say probably so. Remember we are flying 25 year old aircraft as front-line fighters. It’s no wonder we’re having issues with the aircraft.</p>
<p>hops_scout,</p>
<p>Military spending was cut for good reasons. We had just finished the Cold War. It’s not like Bush Sr. didn’t also preside over periods of reduced spending. If you look at percent of GDP military spending, the US’s spending begins to decline around 1988, and continues to decline until 2001. OF COURSE military spending would be reduced-- there was no longer another superpower left to try to beat.</p>
<p>I find it remarkable that Clinton is damned for cutting military spending, but nobody seems to consider the context of reduced spending.</p>
<p>Rumsfeld redirected military spending to fight the wrong war.</p>
<p>We shouldn’t be concerned only with how much we spend, but how we spend it.</p>
<p>If we’re expecting to be fighting more urban battles, we may want to spend differently. This is something Shinseki was concerned with and likely got run out of town for talking about…</p>