Do Hillary supporters really think

that, if she gets in, it will just be a continuation of Bill's presidency?

I keep seeing this on various posts here, where Hillary supporters hearken back to the "peace and prosperity" of the Bill years, implying that she will usher in more of the same.

Do these people really think Bill and Hillary are basically the same person, and that her presidency will just be a re-run of his?

If so, that's a fantasy that can end up in disaster.

The corollary to that is their snarky comments that no one knows anything about Obama, so we shouldn't vote for him. In my opinion, we don't really know how Hillary will act as president either -- and if you think she's just going to be Bill in a pantsuit, you're living in a fantasy land.

Which EVERYBODY seems to have selective memory about.

Most, though... yes.

BUT, there is something to be said for having a circle of advisers (including an ex-president) who have proven they can succeed.

How did that work out for "W"?

Took it into consideration, trust me.

do with the quality of advisors she has surrounded herself with during her campaign (Penn, Wolfson etc.) than her policy positions. That being said, since there is little difference between Hillary and Barack on domestic policies, it came down to who they were getting foreign policy advice from. While Hillary has gathered together a cadre of Iraq war supporters (Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger and Martin Indyk), Obama has been seeking the council of people who opposed the war and want to go back to the days of broad coalitions and extended diplomacy (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ivo Daalder, Susan Rice, and Lawrence Korb). If it comes down to Hillary as the nominee, it will take me a few weeks of mourning, disbelief etc., but then I will come around and back Hillary as passionately (almost) as I currently back Obama. Despite my displeasure with Bill right now and the realization that NAFTA was a horrible idea (although when it first was proposed I thought the exact opposite...I was young and politically naive), I for one remember the peace and prosperity of the 90's fondly.

Moment of candor over, back to bickering over pantsuits and pastors;)

;)

Honesty alert: I think Penn sucks. Hiring him was a shitty idea. If pressed, I have to concede that her choices of advisers has been lackluster.

You do make a very good point, don't let it happen again. The poo flingers are counting on us to set an example.

do you think we will now be cut from TeamHillary and TeamObama? :hi:

Tried, proven, and corrupt.

They are along way from the two who lived in the WH....But I guess that is where they might have gotten their start with all the lies. I know I would and have to questioned everything that comes out of their mouths, I mean after all you cannot change history...and they sure tried with Bosnia,

This is a different era. Clinton RECEIVED a booming economy. It was managed OK, in that, he didn't start wars. But he/his did mis-manage with unbridled MEDIA CONSOLIDATION, horrific WELFARE REFORM and NAFTA.

The American People didn't suffer during the 1990s because .... THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING.... However, the RICH became RICHEST, while the Poor got a little better.

NEVER in the history of the USA has there been such a WEALTH GAP between "the rich vs. US peasants." :(

but that was a recession founded on really bad policies, deregulation and the looting of the S&Ls. The fundamentals of the economy were still solid, and his returning to rational economic policies (with the exception of NAFTA and free trade, the effects of which weren't to be felt till the end of the decade) allowed the tech boom to take off.

So, yes, he received a strong economy that was in recession, and assisted a bit in the boom. But he was no more responsible for the boom than I was. The person responsible for the boom was the inventor of the Pentium chip.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Peace and prosperity? What does the gas tax holiday and bombing Iran have to do with peace and prosperity?