I wonder if we can all come to an agreement on something about Clinton...

Is she tied to her husband's record as president or is she not?

I've seen posts blaming Hillary Clinton for DOMA, NAFTA, the Telecom Act, Welfare reform, etc. But when the good points of the Clinton presidency is pointed out, we hear "Hillary ain't Bill."

So which is it? Was Hillary a partner in the Clinton presidency, partially responsible for all that went on then, or was she not?

Because, honestly, I would love to credit her with 8 years of peace and prosperity. And if she is to blame for the laundry list of items from the Clinton presidency "progressives" deplore, then she's also responsible for:

Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History.
Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus.
More Than 22 Million New Jobs.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades.
Lowest Unemployment in Over Three Decades.
Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979.
Largest One-Year Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades.
Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.
Increase of the minimum wage...

... and more...

So.. what's it gonna be? Hillary responsible for the the good, too?

You are being way to rational.

If Al Gore runs, he can say "we".

with her running, nor should she get props for what he did or didn't do.

She should think for herself and make a solid case for it if she believes in NAFTA, not just agree with the man who implemented it.

Is it bullshit?

Many think it's a failed policy that needs to go; she doesn't.

If they blame her for what her husband started, yes, it's bullshit.

one or the other, despite what you might think. I did answer your question; T.S. if you don't like the answer.
And no, she wasn't president during the Clinton years. You're blurring the issue, hoping to get some traction with Bill's record. It will never work that way for me.

PS Thanks for the reminder of WHY I stay out of these threads.

It's not one or the other, despite what you might think

In other words, the anti-Hillary brigade want to use the Clinton record against her but not allow her to use it in her favor.

I did answer your question

No you didn't. It requires a simple yes or no answer. Are the posts on DU that blame her for NAFTA and such bullshit? Upthread, one of DU's biggest anti-Clinton member had the guts to say "yes it is bullshit."

You don't.

We tend to lump the Bush's all together as members of BFEE.

Birds of a feather, flock together.

;)

that people tend to hang out with others who are like minded.

I think HRC is a corporatist. She wasn't responsible for NAFTA but I don't hear her speaking to repel it if she wins the White House. She shouldn't claim the good of what President Clinton did, nor should we blame her for the bad, but they are birds of a feather.

candidate, what does she mean?

You argue it isn't fair to tar her with her husband's administration. If she is unconnected, then what possible qualifications does she have to be President?

She has one undistinguished term in the senate.

Either she is running on Bill's record or she is as unqualified as she claims her opponents are. YOU can't have it both ways.

My point, clearly spelled out and understood by everyone in this thread, is if it is ok to "tar her" with her husband's administration's bad points, it is equally ok to praise her for the good points.

You clearly misunderstood my post.

in Bill's White House. She deserves credit for being a good adviser at the level of a cabinet member, an experienced White House aide, and a strong political force in everything he did.

But he was the president, and I'm sure he was the final word. Successes and failures were Bill's. She'll govern on her own standards. That doesn't mean his record can't be examined or mentioned as an example of the kind of think we might expect from her, or that we can't point to Bill's administration as an example of how her ideas will succeed when they mirror his. But to give her credit or blame for what Bill did is going a bit far.

Just like the way we'd judge Gore. He, like Hillary, did a good job for Bill. He deserves credit for that good job, for being a part of it. But the final choices, and therefore the results, were Bill's.

Every other advisor has some specific job.

But she should be judged this way no more than Gore would be, or any other member of the Clinton Administration who might run.

Because she never held those positions. The First Spouse is not an elected office. The Senate does not get to confirm or reject candidates for the office of First Spouse. The office of First Spouse does not have any constitutionally mandated duties. It can (and has in the past) functioned with no Congressional oversight. There have administrations where the office isn't even filled - - and a daughter or other female relative has been given the title of "First Lady".

How does a person fail at being a First Spouse? How do they succeed? What would a First Spouse have to do in order to be impeached or fired?

I agree with others who have posted that it's B.S. for Hillary Clinton to claim responsibility for the successes of Bill Clinton's administration. But it's perfectly alright for people to disagree strongly with her positions on laws that were went into effect during the Clinton administration. After all, if she becomes President, she will be the one who decides whether these and similar laws remain in force.

He went on tirades that she was too powerful, and was not beholden to the voters or the senate yada yada yada.

Regardless, she was a top adviser, had intimate knowledge of the daily operations of the White House, and had duties far beyond any "First Lady" in the past. Don't judge her by that term, if it bothers you. Judge her by the fact that she had an office in the West Wing (first FL to do that), was appointed to chair numerous commissions (those are official titles), and had a hands-on practical role in a lot of presidential policy.

A lot of Clinton bashers have the dumb-ass idea that her main role was to informally talk to the president when she was done cleaning house or baking cookies, maybe while he read the newspaper in the morning and she washed the dishes. The usual sexist crap. She had official duties, official responsibilities, official titles (and I don't mean First Lady), a staff that answered to her, and a direct official role in the running of government business.

Those who don't understand that, or thing she was just fulfilling some symbolic, honorary rule, don't have a fucking clue who she is or what she's done. I suspect if they did, Obama and Edwards would, at best, be in single digits, and more likely would not have bothered running.

We heard all this same crap about Al Gore in 2000--he wasn't liberal, he was a Republican sell-out, we needed Nader because he was a true progressive, Gore was just VP, his role was largely symbolic, he had few if any official responsibilities other than to keep breathing in case the president died. This played a big role in Gore's defeat, and now even progressives like Michael Moore, who campaigned hard to defeat Gore and get Bush elected, now acknowledges Gore's accomplishments and liberalism. I guess if these same bashers win, they'll be crying over our lost opportunity with Clinton in a few years. Same old crap. It gets really monotonous watching Democrats make that same damn mistake over and over and over...

and her close ties with wall street and corporate america are a good indication that she will continue her corporatist business as usual ways. NAFTA is Clintonian, everything OF, BY and FOR the corporation.

*sigh*

**the sound of crickets in the silence**

sick of the same ole crap. We can only answer so many times. I'm checking out. This is plain wearisome.

if we were top posters and we started to post negative posts about (and I have nothing against any of these candidates, just example)

Kunich
Obama
Dodd
Edwards
Richardson

I bet all hell would break loose on this journal with the people who support them. I can't understand why in the devil the supporters (and you all know who you are) of a certain candidate are more swift boating than the rest. If they don't like Hillary shut the heck up about her. Tell the good stuff about your candidate.

something that makes me very comfortable! But IF you think that the Repukes are going to leave "Big Dawg" out of her candidacy, I think you may be dreaming!

I mean, I expect to see her lambasted by Limbaugh and Hannity but to see it here is sad. I've never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but the fact that her husband is the only non-repuke to hold the Presidency since 1980 shouldn't be a albatross around her neck.

Shit, I don't care what you think of Clinton, she or anybody else running would be one hell of a lot better than any of the republicans going for it. People here are going after her for NAFTA and everything else. I hope most of them are either trolling or just being very vocally supportive of another candidate.

AFAIC anybody who says they won't vote for her if she's the nominee can simply FOAD right now, I can't be bothered with them.

I won't be voting for her in a primary, but I sure hell will be doing the work if she wins the nomination as much as I would do it for any of the other candidates.

If you want to know what Hillary cares about and fights for -- and how effective she is -- you might try looking to see how she has represented the state of New York, where she is very popular, even in upstate New York, which is very conservative country (not at all like New York City).

She has very high approval numbers in New York.

She is also widely respected by her senate colleagues who say she is very smart, very hard-working, very knowledgeable -- and works well with senators on both sides of the aisle to get legislation passed.

I think it is possible to be FOR some other candidate but still be truthful about the candidates one is not supporting.

her resume, she takes the bad with the good. If she drops those years from her resume, she loses her claim to experience.

Well, since Clinton was elected Governor FIVE times and president TWICE -- and still has a 65% approval rating -- I guess most folks like what Clinton did, first, for Arkansas and, then, for America.

She has to run as herself or as his clone or as some sort of dual personality. If she doesn't run as herself, she has to take on all of Bill's legacy, not just the good bits.

I myself would rather not turn this election into yet another referendum on Bill CLinton.

I was responding to post #29, which brought up Clinton's years as Governor and president.

Because Hillary wants to have it both ways.

Take away her first lady experience, and she is no more experienced than Obama. When Hillary says she is the most experienced, is she using only her Senate years? Dodd and Biden were in the Senate while she was still baking corporate deals at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas. If she is counting the Bill years, then she gets to take responsibility for the loss of the Congress in 1994 among other things. Dick Gephardt, bent Democrats in Congress and f**ked them to pass the Clinton tax increases and budget cuts to create the Clinton surplus. Those Democrats paid with their political careers in 1994, while Clinton triangulated with Newt Gingrich to win again in 1996. The Clintons co-opted the "Contract with America" to "reform" welfare. Remember that? Ask Gephardt. He has endorsed Hillary, but he recognizes now that he forced his fellow Democrats to commit political suicide in 1993 to support the Clinton budget.

Good monetary policy drove the economy in the 1990s. Clinton didn't discover Alan Greenspan, but he did stay out of his way.

Whatever is wrong with the United States and the Democratic Party, Hillary is not the answer. So NO and HELL NO to Hillary!

According to the Rasmussen Polls, 84% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.

So, why is it it seems a majority of the posters here at DU hate her?

Are all the Hillary haters here even Democrats, or are some outsiders posting here in order to destroy the Democrats' front-runner?

One may not like the stands or actions of the Clintons, yet feel compelled to circle the wagons and support them in the face of attacks from the Right. Gary Hart appeared to ignore his wedding vows and destroyed his career. Bill Clinton ignored his and may have even crossed the line into engaging in sexual harassment, but he survived because to criticize him for this was to align yourself with the extreme Right.

They are linked for the long haul.

Strategically:
Giving credit to Clinton for all of this gives the republican congress credit for 75% of it. Of course that point will be made, though it does not strike me as being a very strong one. Except for those repugs that were in congress at that time.

Realistically:
The fact of the matter is that some of these gains were the inevitable result of the scraps of progressive policy that squeeked through the Clinton white house. Of course he was a democrat. Is anyone arguing that? But was he the best of possible democrats? No. He sold out the American Worker on Nafta, Gatt, and the WTO.

And the benefits that were conscious and deliberate were not as common as they honestly ought to have been. Had they been would Clinton had engaged in Welfare reform that would inevitably increase child poverty. Had it been more deliberate why didn't we see the change we really wanted. A new new deal rather than the ascendancy of an unpopulist 'new-third way'(DLC) democrat party. The strategy was selling our best principles; penny-wise and pound foolish, trading short term electoral gains to win elections with a plurality by embracing republican rhetoric and language. This was a failure.

Linking:
It is unfair for Hillary to be linked automatically to her husbands presidency. But I didn't have to read your post to know that the Hillary campaign is running based on the 'Clinton Prosperity-good ole days' meme and the absolute inevitable 'get on the train or get out of the way' thing.

Is that acceptable?

but she is tied to the same ideological and strategical organization, which means, in the absence of other evidence, that she gets to be suspect in the same way I came to view Bill.