This is a smart move by Hillary. Bill Clinton enjoyed very high approval ratings, especially after the witch hunt. The fact is he was popular among independents, and as the article says, he actually called his presidency as a copresidency (resulting, of course, in attacks by the right). In addition, though righties will rationalize the failures of the Bush administration and the successes of the Clinton administration, the facts stand out more than their political rhetoric. Plus, bringing up Bill has the added value that it will make some of the righties' heads explode.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122102588.html

...

Both Clintons are making the case that theirs was a co-presidency -- an echo of Bill Clinton's controversial statement during the 1992 campaign that voters would get "two for the price of one" if they elected him. At times, the former president has seemed to cast the current race as a referendum on his administration.

...

But the unchanging core of Clinton's message is her experience, and in recent days she has presented the election as a binary choice: between a competent, experienced Clinton and novices such as Obama. "That's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said this week in Iowa.

And the main basis for her assertion is the time she spent as first lady. Bill Clinton is hitting the theme hard as the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire draws closer, pointing back to the 1990s, citing his record as his wife's, referring to the work "we" did in office and, for the most part, brushing past or ignoring the tumult of those years.

...

On Thursday night in Holderness, N.H., the former president returned again and again in his hour-long speech to the achievements of his administration as proof that his wife would be able to bring results if she were elected. Several times, he cited the statistics on the economic gains of the 1990s -- the rise in family income, the decline in poverty and in the number of uninsured, and the increase in students obtaining college aid ("I still know the numbers," he said).

You've GOTTA be SH-TTING ME!
Wasn't Bush II the son of Bush I? Wasn't he the governor of Texas? What kind of idiotic logic is that? Is Bill senile?

Also, is he comparing Obama to Bush II? That's idiotic and so is anyone else for accepting such a ludicrous premise! Obama = Bush! OMFG!

Also..."brushing past or ignoring the tumult of those years..."????? Tell ya what, if my wife ever found out that I was nailing an employee, I would be still healing from the wounds ...no...I'd be dead and everyone would be spitting on my worthless grave. What a pair of demented, sick fu-ks the Clintons are!
This seals defeat for the Wonder Twins.
Unbelievable!

What witch hunt..? That term implies that he was innocent of that which he was accused of. But we all know he was guilty, he did bang Monica, he did lie under oath and he did obstruct justice. Interesting definition of "witch hunt" you got there...

(I hope people read this before it gets censored... after all, how dare I criticize the Clintons..!!)

Not for nothing here, but Hillary has no choice but to accept Bill's legacy if she wants to be President. America will not vote only for her, it's why she stayed married to him when everyone told her to distance herself from him when she became a senator.

Hillary is crafty and driven ... Bill is her HGH ... she will break all moral laws ot keep him around. Oh, and for those that think he keeps his pecker in check, forget about it. If Hillary becomes President the National Enquirer will reap record profits.

to be fair here Giuliani and McCain are no saints either .. stock in the gossip rags is looking good for 2008-2012.

I worked for years in a pretty conservative technology company out in the suburbs. Most of my colleagues were moderate middle-age Republican white men, and they liked Clinton a lot. Even though they supported Bush I, they said that if Clinton was allowed to run for a third term, they would have voted for him. They were not caught up in the kind of moral self-righteousness you and the Christian right seem to be caught up. (I think the holier-than-though crowd often have their share of secrets.)

That's because he governed moderately, in some ways to the right. However he mostly had a Republican Congress which Lady Bill likely wouldn't have. Lady Bill without a Republican Congress watching over her scares the crap out of me. She can keep all those stupid presents.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick

I'm not supporting Hillary because she is moderate -- on social issues, she's mostly liberal, on economic issues she's moderate, and on foreign policy she's moderate. That's her record.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratin...posite&o2=desc

Nonetheless, I do think recalling her husband's success in office is a smart move. Actually, Bill Clinton was not liberal even when he had a Democratic Congress. For instance, NAFTA passed during that period and the Don't Ask Don't Tell (which was clearly a compromise between liberals and conservatives) was implemented.

Pant Suit Hillary:
Lying, double talking, flip flopping, dishonest, immoral, untrustworhty, power hungry, crap bastard.

I don't want a women running America and trying to fight a war that lets her own husband sh!t all over her, if she can't keep her own husband in line how the hell will she be able to handle Mohammad Headhunter?

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

That's a pretty lame argument Harry.

My gut feeling is that Bill is the ultimate politician whereas Mrs. Bill plays politician to get her way. Once she's there (the Presidency) she has no reason to play nice and pretend to be someone she's not. I can't prove this and I may be wrong but that's how I see her - hopefully we won't find out.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick