Bill and Hill on the Outs

[Ben]

While it's a pretty gossipy story, I can actually believe it. Whatever else Bill Clinton is, he is an excellent political strategist who knows how to get people on his side. I can absolutely believe that he gave Hillary the advice (and more) mentioned in the article, and that she, delusional know it all that she is, told him to shut up.

And deep down, it has to be killing her to know that her "stupid old" husband was right and she was wrong. At this point, between this and everything she talks about, and everyone she blames, in her book, I truly believe she has diagnosable mental illness.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/13/bill-and-hillary-clinton-not-speaking-after-blow-up-over-memoir-author-says.html

[MechAg94]

Bill Clinton was also supposedly a likeable guy which went a long way with some people.


Even with that, Clinton was well below 50% of the vote in his first win.  In his second, he was facing Bob Dole.  I think he was worse than John McCain as a candidate, but I am not sure about that.

[MikeB]

Bill Clinton was also supposedly a likeable guy which went a long way with some people.


Even with that, Clinton was well below 50% of the vote in his first win.  In his second, he was facing Bob Dole.  I think he was worse than John McCain as a candidate, but I am not sure about that.

Yeah, I’ve often thought he was overrated at supposedly being such a stupendous politician (which is generally negative to me anyway). If Perot hadn’t been in those two races, I’m not sure he would have won. Escpecially the first one. Partially my fault. I voted Perot twice thinking we needed change from Dems and Republicans. That just wasn’t going to work as I can see now in hindsight and why I mostly stopped voting third party. I have major gripes with your standard Republican, but mostly I’d rather them than most Democrats.

[just Warren]

If they turn against one another I wonder who has the upper hand with blackmail material.

[mtnbkr]

Yeah, I’ve often thought he was overrated at supposedly being such a stupendous politician (which is generally negative to me anyway). If Perot hadn’t been in those two races, I’m not sure he would have won. Escpecially the first one. Partially my fault. I voted Perot twice thinking we needed change from Dems and Republicans. That just wasn’t going to work as I can see now in hindsight and why I mostly stopped voting third party. I have major gripes with your standard Republican, but mostly I’d rather them than most Democrats.

Having worked for Perot and having met him multiple times, we could have done a lot worse and did.

Chris

[MechAg94]

I don't know if I would term Bush I as bad, but I am not sure what else to call it.  He was trying to run for reelection after betraying just about every Republican voter base that existed in his first term.  Who knew that he was becoming an example to future Republican Congressmen.  

I didn't really like what I saw of Perot at the time, but that would have been interesting.  The 90's would have been a lot different politically. 

[Jim147]

If Perot would have picked a better running mate it might be a totally different world right now.

[Blakenzy]

Bill Clinton is a sex offender with a weaponized psychopathic wife and Bush is a notorious politically-inclined crime dynasty.

What's there to dislike? 

[RoadKingLarry]

If Perot would have picked a better running mate it might be a totally different world right now.

A little hindsight..
If Perot had somehow managed to get elected the obstruction, pushback, sabotage and outright backstabbing Trump is getting from the "establishment" today would seem like actual cooperation compared to what he would have gotten.

[Jamisjockey]

Yeah, I’ve often thought he was overrated at supposedly being such a stupendous politician (which is generally negative to me anyway). If Perot hadn’t been in those two races, I’m not sure he would have won. Escpecially the first one. Partially my fault. I voted Perot twice thinking we needed change from Dems and Republicans. That just wasn’t going to work as I can see now in hindsight and why I mostly stopped voting third party. I have major gripes with your standard Republican, but mostly I’d rather them than most Democrats.

Never be ashamed of voting your conscious.   That's what's stuck us with the 2 party system to begin with...conscious shaming.

[Fly320s]

Never be ashamed of voting your conscious.   That's what's stuck us with the 2 party system to begin with...conscious shaming.

This.


As to the Clinton breakup, I don’t think it will happen.  Hillary is completely tied to Bill.  Without Bill’s success, Hillary wouldn’t even exist on our radar.  Without Bill, Hillary is nothing.

[Perd Hapley]

Never be ashamed of voting your conscious.   That's what's stuck us with the 2 party system to begin with...conscious shaming.

Actually, it's the constitution of our government that stuck us with the 2-party system.

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, it's the constitution of our government that stuck us with the 2-party system.

How so?

[Perd Hapley]

The answer is that the U.S. political system is set up for two major parties, because it awards seats in Congress and the presidency with a winner-take-all method. Candidates running for Congress need only to get a plurality of the vote to be elected. In 48 of 50 states, presidential candidates get all of a state’s electoral votes — the way in which presidents are elected, state by state — as long as they win a plurality of the vote in that state.

French sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized in the 1950s that this kind of setup leads to what is effectively a two-party system. “Duverger’s law” states that third parties can’t compete because there is no prize for winning, for example, 15 or even 25 percent of the vote. This leads voters to choose candidates who are most likely to win, and it leads the parties to try to broaden their appeal to half of the electorate — and ideally more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/why-are-there-only-two-parties-in-american-politics/?utm_term=.ac1a68fb94dd

Yeah, it's the Washington Post, but there are plenty of other places you can read about this. Our system just doesn't have a place for more than two parties. While it's true you'll be criticized or ridiculed for voting third party, (just like you'll be criticized or ridiculed for continuing to blindly vote for the one of the two big parties), that's not really why we have a two-party system.

[MechAg94]

How so?

I would say the all or nothing nature of our elections is a big reason.  That is from the President on down to the Congressmen.  Small minorities get very little without working with the majority (or a borderline minority party) in some way.   Interest groups get more power by working within one party or the other.  

As much as people complain about it, I would hate for us to go to a parliamentary system. 

[French G.]

This is the alternative, watch Trump burn down both parties, hopefully a better version arises from the ashes.

[wmenorr67]

If they turn against one another I wonder who has the upper hand with blackmail material.

Double suicides?

[RevDisk]

Bill Clinton was also supposedly a likeable guy which went a long way with some people.

He was very nice to me, so yeah, I'd agree with that statement. I also think he was good, not spectacular but good, president. As well as personally a scumbag. Carter, I generally hold as the best human being to become president since Eisenhower. But unlike Eisenhower, easily the best president of the last century, Cart was not a great president. Sadly the ability and personality are not linked.

He was always significantly more the people person than Hillary ever was. Now it's just getting ridiculous as she believes she paid her dues and believed the election should have been her coronation. Not understanding that a lot of folks voted their pocketbooks and their annoyances. A lot of people supported her, because of party affiliation or policies. But she didn't have the personality to engage people.

[Ben]

Looks like this will be volume 2 of "What Happened".

Russians?

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/10/16/london-hillary-falling-down-hillary-clinton-falls-breaks-toe-on-stairs-during-london-book-tour/

[AJ Dual]

Well, one theory I have heard circulating, that the REAL reason Bill was all for making Hillary "co-president", was that if she went to work every morning with him, he'd never have to kiss her goodbye...

[Scout26]

He was very nice to me, so yeah, I'd agree with that statement. I also think he was good, not spectacular but good, president. As well as personally a scumbag. Carter, I generally hold as the best human being to become president since Eisenhower. But unlike Eisenhower, easily the best president of the last century, Cart was not a great president. Sadly the ability and personality are not linked.

He was always significantly more the people person than Hillary ever was. Now it's just getting ridiculous as she believes she paid her dues and believed the election should have been her coronation. Not understanding that a lot of folks voted their pocketbooks and their annoyances. A lot of people supported her, because of party affiliation or policies. But she didn't have the personality to engage people.

Clinton - I could never understand his appeal, but I do admit that he was a very good politician, with good political instincts. (I don't know if it was his folksy downhome manner, but most people seemed to like him.)  He understood what people were wanting this last election, and Hillary chose to ignore him, which is part of why she lost.

Carter - I can't think of a worse President.  And the Worst Ex-President.  He should have stayed in the Navy.  Now he should shut his anti-Semitic piehole and just build houses.

Eisenhower - Very, Very Good President.  I'd rate him as #3 for this past century.   However, Reagan ended the Cold war, so he gets props and the #2 slot.  #1 of course would be "Silent" Cal Coolidge. 

Well, one theory I have heard circulating, that the REAL reason Bill was all for making Hillary "co-president", was that if she went to work every morning with him, he'd never have to kiss her goodbye...

You are sooooo wrong.  It's probably true...

[Pb]

Having worked for Perot and having met him multiple times, we could have done a lot worse and did.

Chris

I don't like the first Bush, but I do know Perot was in favor of strict gun control, and medicare for all.  I would never support a candidate like him.

[Perd Hapley]

Looks like this will be volume 2 of "What Happened".

Russians?

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/10/16/london-hillary-falling-down-hillary-clinton-falls-breaks-toe-on-stairs-during-london-book-tour/

“I tried to get up and it really hurt. I’ve broken my toe. I’ve received excellent care from your excellent health service.”

Oh, for crying out loud. That staircase was clearly not long enough.

[AJ Dual]

Oh, for crying out loud. That staircase was clearly not long enough.

Dammit.

When it needs to be done right, they should send the team the Queen used to do in Diana. 

[Sindawe]

Looks like this will be volume 2 of "What Happened".

Russians?

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/10/16/london-hillary-falling-down-hillary-clinton-falls-breaks-toe-on-stairs-during-london-book-tour/

Idiocy run amok in the voting population, unable to recognize the inherent superiority of Hillary to rule lead the nation.  Time to do away with the old fashioned idea of voting altogether and just establish a ruling family.