"But the former secretary of state, who is now running for president, is not the first Clinton to weigh in on the matter of the Confederacy. The state flag of Arkansas sports 25 white stars and four blue ones. And in 1987, while serving as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed a bill affirming that one of those blue stars is there in honor of the Confederate States of America."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/bill-clinton-arkansas-confederate_n_7638542.html

You are certainly reaching for crap to attack Hillary on. That must have hurt.

We all have spouses and relatives who have done crazy stuff at different times. Guilt by association is unfair my dear low-post-count poster.

Many couples have very divergent positions on things
They should not be required to state each one of them

Do you expect people to disentangle the political careers of the Bush's?
Do you think it's unfair to reference W. and H. when discussing Jeb? What would you think of some Republican campaigner explaining how we have to disassociate Jeb from his brother and father, from his family, and pretend to ourselves that there's no substantive connection? That the Bush political family doesn't share the IDENTICAL political/economic connections, and that if it were Jeb in '01 things would've been different in any substantive way?

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not "many couples" - they aren't just one arbitrary couple picked at random.
Their politics has been of one piece through the years and even a $2.5billion campaign can't change the public perception of that.

There just seems to be this automatic reaction that anything associated negatively with Bill is also thrust upon Hillary as well
And they often lump everything negative to her in a post.
I'd like to see more discussion about her positions
I've also noticed, that if she has an opinion people agree with or has changed her stance, that it's usually treated as pandering. As if the only people who have ever changed positions on an issue did it to pander.
Or, if we all agree, someone will immediately toss in something unrelated to the topic, "What about her position on X?" though it's not the topic at hand
History points to many people who have changed their positions on issues over time, The President of the United States has, much of the country has on topics such as religion and beliefs, death penalty, etc.

There are legitimate criticisms of Ms Clinton. Example: Someone posted HRC speaking in support of harsher sentences and 3 strikes laws. Bill supported that. It's fair game and accurate

I would also add, that if you polled the electorate, most would find her having similar positions to Bill as a positive. Bill Clinton has a very positive public rating. So, it's not a bad thing

What concerns me is whether she will try the 'Vice-President Syndrome' (my term)

Definition: The Veep lets everyone know that he/she agreed 100% with everything that worked and was in opposition to everything that failed
Examples: Walter Mondale (1984), George Bush (1988)

I mean, "we came. we saw. he died. hawhawhaw"
We know what we're getting.
We know what Bill did.
We know what Hillary did.
It's all the same program, and the nuance that you're suggesting doesn't exist.

Get off DU and join the freepers.