12 years of Bushs, 12 years of Clintons

[daughter_of_amid_chaos]

That's a good point. Old fogeys like me (43) forget that there is a whole voting generation that can't remember a time when a Bush or Clinton was not in the White House. That's bound to have some impact on voting. Thanks for reminding me of that.

I hope I did not offend. That was not my intention.

 

[Loubon]

There is a similar view that took place in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories as a possible motive. It basically said that had JFK and RFK not been killed (Teddy was pretty much assumed to be self destructive) that you could have had 24 years straight of Kennedy brothers.

 

[Charade]

Good point. I wonder how much influence Bill would have on Hill.

With his gigantic ego, it would be impossible for him to stay out of it.

 

[Mkrop]

With his gigantic ego, it would be impossible for him to stay out of it.

During Bill's first campaign didnt they start off marketing it, as two for the price of one (meaning Bill and Hill) then backed off when that didnt really go over too well. Yet people think Bill is just going to sit back and chill for four years, pleeeaaze!

 

[CapeCodTenor]

During Bill's first campaign didnt they start off marketing it, as two for the price of one (meaning Bill and Hill) then backed off when that didnt really go over too well. Yet people think Bill is just going to sit back and chill for four years, pleeeaaze!

Nah, he's not going to sit back, he'll be in charge of the interns.

 

[Sir Ron]

I hope you mean it about wanting new blood in the White House. Next year, you are going to have a choice between a Republican who has supported 99% of what George Bush has done and will pledge to continue his policies - or Hillary Clinton who will pledge change from what George Bush has done.

The notion that, somehow Hillary shouldn't be elected because 2 of the last 3 presidents were father and son is absurd. If you want change - vote for the candidate who will change thing. Who cares what her last name is.

Something tells me, however, that you don't want change in the White House. That you are going to vote for the person who wants to continue the polices of the last 8 years. And that this "new blood" cry is just something, anything, to get people to vote against the person who will make the best president.

There is absolutely no chance of ANY Republican winning who supported Bush 99% of the time.

Yes I think it's a bad sign that a name could get you elected. Dubya's last name helped him get his foot in the door (the idiocy of Gore and Kerry helped seal the deal). Hillary is no more qualified than Dubya to be President.

I'm holding out for somebody removed from Washington and not riding the coattails of somebody else.

 

[akhenaten]

If Hillary wins the presidency....2 families, nearly a quarter century consecutively of USA leadership.
Does anyone else think that this isn't a good idea?
Something about that doesn't feel right.

I feel this way also......but we have to see how the primaries shake out....

 

[Galahad]

There is absolutely no chance of ANY Republican winning who supported Bush 99% of the time.

I don't think a Republican will win. But I don't think support of Bush's positions 99% of the time will matter. If their opposition can paint them as a Bush clone, perhaps. But I think there is more visceral hatred for Bush himself than even his most controversial policies, and that if ANYbody other that Bush followed a particular policy, that a good portion of those opposed to that policy now would not have been strongly opposed to that policy.

 

[Ticket Man]

So I guess it's safe to assume that Hillary did not plant this thread?