Hill will make Bill and his administration's accomplishments a central part of her 2008 bid

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
Clinton on Clinton

....what became abundantly clear during a day of campaigning with Sen. Clinton yesterday is that she will make her husband -- and his administration's accomplishments -- a central part of her 2008 bid....

***

One woman in Berlin (N.H.) recounted that she had waited in line for 12 hours to get Bill Clinton to sign his autobiography. "I've waited for him a lot myself," said Hillary Clinton, again drawing applause and laughter.

But it wasn't simply as a comic foil that Clinton brought up her husband. Again and again she touched on the Clinton administration's record on balancing the budget as an example of where the country could go under the right leadership.

The strategy of linking her husband's accomplishments to her potential in the White House is sound. Former president Clinton's approval ratings have reached stratospheric levels since he left office in 2001, and most Americans view his eight years as president as positive ones for the country. By drawing a rhetorical connection between the leadership of her husband and herself, Hillary Clinton is seeking to remind voters of all that they liked about their government in the 1990s.

The risk she runs is that voters will focus more on the foibles of the Clinton administration -- most notably the Monica Lewinsky ordeal -- rather than the policy accomplishments of her husband. It was that fear that led Al Gore to shun Bill Clinton on the campaign trail in 2000, a strategy that drew heavy criticism in Democratic circles in the post-election analysis....

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/clinton_on_clinton.html

State Democratic Primary. :shrug:

The American Evita

Clinton's government was highly successful, and he was popular when he left.

Her only two dangers for bringing up Bill's presidency would be his scandals, and if she did it so often that people felt he was her only qualification. But since she was a victim of Bill's biggest scandal, that might even help her. And things are so bad now and were so good under Bill, she'd have a long ways to go before bringing him up would make her look weaker.

It is a risk to tie herself to Big Dog's policies, some of which were very distasteful to the Left: welfare reform, DOMA, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," NAFTA, 8-years of bombing and starving Iraq, the Bosnian war, etc.

A Hillary Administration will not bring about the immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, nor will it end our hostile stance against Iran and Syria, or change Bush's tilt towards Israel, nor bring peace to the Middle East, nor end America's interference in Latin American affairs. A Hillary Administration will provide hours of nightly tabloid entertainment in our cable news shows, including Olbermann's. I don't think this is what the country wants or needs.

Solving Bush-Clinton-Bush with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in 2008, will invariably lead to a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush in 2012, a Hillary v. Jeb contest. Our republic does not need dynasties!

de-regulation? NAFTA? Welfare Deform? Defense of Marriage? Don't ask dont tell? Cant wait!:sarcasm:

Or President Bush. Same thing. THAT's what Americans don't want more of.

nah just facts. Easily available. Just because some corporate creature has a "D" behind it's name doesn't mean it works for the people. That is the mentality I don't like. No thanks...she can keep her "accomplishments". I'll go with Kucinich or Obama.

Hillary Clinton is doing what Al Gore did in 2000 distancing herself from Bill and letting people judge her as qualified for the Presidency based off of her record in the Senate and not her time as the First Lady. She shouldn't ride her husbands accomplishments, she should go off her own record and her own views of what America should be.

If that Hillary isn't the person America wants in the President, she won't win the nomination. But she can't run off her husbands record, she can point out the better shape the country was in...but not run off of it. And I don't think she is!!

We're in a different place now; the 90's couldn't be less relevant. I guess it sounds good, though. She might as well promise that the NASDAQ index will get back to 5,000 while she's at it.

I fully agree with your statement that the "90's couldn't be less relevant." Boomers had their chance, it is time for a new generation to pick up the torch.