Is Hillary Clinton running for Bill Clinton's 3rd term?

[Seeinghope]

It is fair to say that Bill Clinton will be a close advisor to Hillary. How close is the question.

There obviously a law that states there can only be 2 terms for the President of the United States.

What if the spouse is elected? What limitations, restrictions and or guidelines are in place for this situation?

I cannot imagine any that would lead to solid evidence that could be proven. How could Pillow talk be used as evidence and why would pillow talk be used for evidence.

I cannot see Bill Clinton being a traditional 1st lady or even being a "progressive" 1st...whatever. It might be considered an asset. Then again it might be considered a "bait and switch"

[auntpurl]

1. Well, no. Hillary Clinton is running for HER first term.

And this post strikes me as sexist. Why would Hillary cede her power to her husband if she's elected? She will be the first woman President of the United States, and if there's anyone who understands the importance of that statement and WOULDN'T turn it over to any man, even her husband, it's Hillary.

[tularetom]

8. BS, he is taking over already, she can't control him

She can't shut him up, he's running around shooting his mouth off, trashing the president. Nothing will change if the country is dumb enough to elect her president. Two for the price of one, what a joke. Of course it's his third term.

[auntpurl]

9. You seem very angry.

I can only assume your anger is not at me. Bye now.

[Trajan]

46. Why do you say they are 'angry'?

The only negative term is ' bs ...

Not a particularly vicious epithet ..

[MineralMan]

30. Actually, he's running around campaigning for her.

Spouses of presidential candidate always do that. You do seem upset about Bill Clinton, though. I'm sorry about that.

[Armstead]

83. It's not necessarily sexist of they are a team

She sells herself as a partner in her husband's presidency, and has said she would use Bill as a trusted advisory in hers.

Since they have described it as a partnership of equals and "two for the price of one" it is not sexist to raise questions of what Bill's role would be, and if this really is a transparent attempt to circumvent the spirit of term limits.

[upaloopa]

2. You just can't give a woman the respect she deserves can you?

It is unbelievable to see this kind of post in 2016!

[KMOD]

22. +1

[Seeinghope]

40. I do have the utmost respect for women.

I respect Elizabeth Warren and Nina Turner. Women can make it without a superstar husband.

When Bill Clinton ran for the presidency he said right out front that Hillary would be involved. We would be getting "2 for 1". You are making it sexist not me.

She is able to use superstar husband and name brand to her benefit. She is using his President of the United States status to campaign for her. Who doesn't want to see the for President of the United States? What an advantage to Hillary Clinton campaign.. He broke the laws by campaigning on the day of voting and within the 150 ft allowed, by law, If somebody else had done that, they would probably have been arrested, but who would arrest the President of the United States over this? It would be an international scandal.

It isn't about sexism. It is about reality. To ignore the reality is the problem.

The real question that you should have would be is. So what? Bill Clinton cannot be the President of the United States but he would be the best advisor that any President can have.

Is it really a problem?

As far as sexism. Sexism is when you vote for a person based on their sex, do backflips denying it and then defend obvious problems with the candidate as well as becoming outraged at any and all criticisms.

[PeaceNikki]

44. Sexism is when you take the most qualified candidate in the election and accuse others of

supporting her because of her genitals.

[Seeinghope]

71. That is your opinion. I have heard COUNTLESS women want her to win because it is "TIME"

For us to have a women be the President of the United States. I agree. There isn't any reason to only elect men for the office of President of the United States.

However, I first want to elect a candidate that stands for what I believe to be right. I want to elect a candidate, that I believe, will represent this country as the country that other countries want to emulate and people around the world admire. I want to elect a candidate, a leader that wants the American people to become involved in our governmental process, not just getting their vote.

Bernie Sanders is not a wealthy man. He did not spend all of those years in D.C. Building a bank account. He ran for office and was elected just like all of the other candidates the difference is that he wasn't bought. His wealth or the lack of it proves that. His opponent cannot say the same. Her motives are not as pure. The Clintons wealth increased tremendously in Washington. Of course he was the President of the United States but so was Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is cut from a different cloth. He wasn't in it for the power and money either. That is why I stand behind Bernie Sanders as I stood by Jimmy Carter. Both are good men. Bernie Sanders just has a lot more experience and knows his way around Washington.

It isn't about men vs. Women. It is values. It is about which direction that I want to see this country to go. I have a father an ex husband and a son that served this country. I don't believe that this country needs to be anywhere near as hawkish as it is. It isn't honourable and it leaves many people dead and/emotionally..physically or mentally impaired. Bernie Sanders does speak of using the regions involved to use their troops instead of ours. I agree. Why so many others must not have had family go to and come home (or not) from senseless wars and be changed forever by the experience. Not always for the better.

[upaloopa]

58. Well you eclipsed yourself

Hillary is the most qualified candidate. She got that way by her own merit.

It makes no difference who she is married to. It makes no difference what her gender is.

[KMOD]

68. Hillary Clinton was a superstar

before she even met Bill.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/76154-hillary-clintons-graduation-speech-at-wellesley-college-was-inspiring-in-1969-her-words-still-hold

[treestar]

72. merely having a superstar husband

doesn't mean everything she does is because of him. It does not mean she is not talented in her own right. Bill Clinton said that 24 years ago when people were freaking out about the first FLOTUS to have her own career. 24 years later that is not cause for freakout. He was arguing why it would be good to have a FLOTUS who had her own mind and career and wasn't just a helpmate of his. Society has moved way ahead on that score. So there is no reason to be quoting people from 24 years ago.

[Firebrand Gary]

57. +1

[bobthedrummer]

3. I recall all his administration (that I voted for twice) being referred to as the "co presidency".

NEVER AGAIN.

[NWCorona]

4. No

But I think Bill would like it that way.

I do wonder what his roll would be tho.

[MineralMan]

32. His roll is usually 4.

However, sometimes it's a 3 or a 6. You just never know which side of the die will turn up.

[NWCorona]

33. You got me

[MineralMan]

36. I just couldn't resist.

Sometimes I can't help myself...

[NWCorona]

42. No worries 😀

I can take it!

[Seeinghope]

43. This is an IMPORTANT QUESTION BEING IGNORED!

[Trust Buster]

5. What a sexist and misogynistic thread. WOW, I don't like these Sanders people at all.

[bobthedrummer]

13. What are you talking about? "these Sanders people" understand all the games that used to work.

Perception management-defining the P space, NLP-yep you are lost Trust Buster.

[Armstead]

84. Why is it sexist of they advertise themselves as a team of equals?

I'd rather not see Bill back in the seat of power, nor her either. That's not sexist.

Sexist would be to imply that she is merely a "front" for her husband, rather than a co-equal partner.

[Trust Buster]

85. She's a very accomplished woman in her own right.

The Sanders crowd takes shots at AA and now devalue the hard work of a woman. You're just not my kind of people.

[Armstead]

86. Sorry, I'll remember not to invite you to my next barbecue

[kydo]

6. Don't be silly. That's not humanly possible expect in science fiction.

She is running for her first term as President. Stop reading those right wing propaganda sites. They are really bad for your brain.

[bobthedrummer]

14. HRC told US about the VRWC years ago kydo. So what are you talking about? n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. So you ask if a woman can really do anything that's no for her husband's benefit?

Breathtaking.

[auntpurl]

11. I don't generally alert on things...

but I did think about it on this thread. It's blatant what this is.

Then I thought it might be good to leave it out in the open, because I think most rational people will be appalled by it, no matter whom they support.

[bobthedrummer]

23. Has the courage of your convictions failed you again, auntpur re: alerts? What is "what this is"?

BCCI, Irna Contra relevance: UAE, Saudi, Pakistan, money and Bush family (ProSense 10-7-2006 DU)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2870996

[auntpurl]

24. 1. I actually have no idea what you're talking about.

2. I have no idea what the link has to do with my post.

[bobthedrummer]

29. Read it through...

[Agnosticsherbet]

69. I see both the rational and those who rationalize.

It's ugly.

[Fuddnik]

10. She's running for Reagans 10th term.

Same shit, different flies.

[BernieforPres2016]

52. Well done! nt

[Laughing Mirror]

55. Short but sweet

I thank you for that.

[Maedhros]

59. Ding! We have a winner.[n/t]

[Nedsdag]

81. BULLSEYE!!!!! n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Impeachment and all? =P

I think people understand that it's a package deal...just like anyone aware of their political relationship (that is, Hillary being just as involved and - I can't deny - knowledgeable as Bill) understood that when Bill was running.

But that doesn't violate the law, IMO.

[PeteSelman]

15. She's running for Reagan's tenth term.

Hasn't been much change from Captain Jellybean's day. There'll be more "free" trade, deregulation, outsourcing, war mongering and upward wealth redistribution.

It is what it is.

[CharlotteVale]

51. ^^THIS^^

[ibegurpard]

16. She doesn't appear to know what she's running for

Her positions change weekly.

[leftofcool]

17. This thread is full of sexist crap

[PeaceNikki]

18. Your concern about a woman being able to do her job has been noted.

She was an attorney, a Senator and the Secretary of State, ffs.

[TheDormouse]

19. Yes--Obama is still kryptonite for the general election so she's trying to run as Bill-3rd term

[marions ghost]

20. A former president's spouse of either sex

should not be allowed to run for president (other offices OK). It's just too incestuous.

The founding fathers never imagined it. But here it is. And it's exactly like the prospect of having Bill and Hillary in the White House once again, with Hill officially calling the shots this time. But really they are a team, then and now. I think it's very wrong, and people with a better sense of fairness wouldn't do it. Hillary is gonna "Show em" --show all of the naysayers who said she couldn't do it. It would be one thing if the 90's really had been good for the 99%.

I wish it were a crazy SNL skit, but it's not. Too real.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Bill's, Barack's, W's, H.W."s, Reagan's.. she doesn't care as long as she gets elected.

She just wants her place in the history books as the first woman president.

[KMOD]

26. .

Being the first woman President is just an added bonus. Unless of course you don't find something like that to be historic.

She is running for President and is the most qualified, the most experienced and the most knowledgeable of all the candidates.

[Motown_Johnny]

49. I disagree with her being the most qualified or experienced or knowledgeable candidate.

In 2008 she tried running on the fact that she was First Lady. Doing so she incorrectly claimed to have contributed to the peace treaty in Ireland. When called out on this she responded with some nonsense about there not being tea served on that runway in Bosnia that she landed on. Then it evolved into the airplane making evasive maneuvers before landing and then eventually she claimed, over and over again for several weeks, that she had run from the airplane to a vehicle because of snipers. All of that was bull shit. If her being First Lady was applicable experience for being President, she would not have needed to concoct such ridiculous lies in order to claim that it was. It wasn't.


She was in the Senate for ~8 years. Yes, she won 2 elections in her entire life. Both for her carpetbagged Senate seat in a deep blue state with huge media markets. Most any well funded (D) could have won those elections. Her time in the Senate was unremarkable, at best. No major legislative accomplishments and some horrible errors including her vote for W.'s Bankruptcy Bill and her 19 minute speech convincing others to vote to go to war in Iraq. Plus her misplaced vote on that subject. Simply spending 8 years in that seat does not make her qualified. Her time there just reinforces how poor her judgment is.

She was then Sec. of State for ~4 years. We have not elected a former Sec. of State to the Presidency since Buchanan and he is viewed as one of the worst in history. I agree that she did an acceptable job in that position. Unfortunately has people like Henry Kissinger as role models. She may be knowledgeable on foreign policy but her judgment still sucks. Try to name one military conflict that she has not supported. Good luck with that. You may as well be supporting John McCain based on foreign policy. There is very little difference.


You can make unqualified claims all you want. That does not make them true. You should consider the possibility that she will be a terrible President. The long list of horrible mistakes she has made should at least raise that possibility. What happens when the first woman President turns out to be a really bad one? Won't history record that too?


Nominating her would be a mistake.

[KMOD]

56. Hillary Clinton did not run for President in 2008

on being First Lady. She had a very thorough platform.

Hillary Clinton won an award for her role in the Ireland Peace Treaty. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-garners-award-for-role-in-easing-the-northern-ireland-conflict/2015/03/16/d80780f6-cbf6-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

The media, like usual, took the Bosnia comments out of context. She said her plane landed with procedures in place in the case of potential sniper fire.

I am a New York State resident. She is highly respected and admired here. Her tenure here was impressive. Especially the aid she helped push for the September 11th first responders and victims.

I am so tired of the spin that Hillary voted for the Iraq war. She did not. W's resolution was supposed to push for the inspectors to have full access. She made that very clear in her speech that was what she supported. Even so, she has still called it a mistake for trusting W to honor his resolution. He didn't.

This whole Henry Kissinger thing is nonsense as well. All former and currently serving Secretaries of State communicate, and quite often. Knowledge and information can be gained through these communications.

She has never been in favor of rushing into war. Hillary believes in dialogue and building alliances. She was very instrumental in getting the Iran deal done. Military force is a last resort for her.

I am certain that she will be an extremely effective and accomplished President. She succeeds at nearly everything she does.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. Your alert results:

On Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor lie by the House
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511551633

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Ok MIRT troll alert. First this new poster posts a rather sexist right wing dribble post about HRC running for Bill's 3rd term. Now this poster is dragging Bill's impeachment as a reason why HRC is bad. Any real true blue democrat knows that impeachment was a political dirty trick. This poster smells of trolls. Thanks for reading.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:25 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed. This is obvious trolling.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really!? Aren't people permitted to post their opinion on this site?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see a problem with this post in particular - if there is evidence elsewhere let MIRT handle it.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If we hide this post, to be fair we'd need to hide fully half of the posts in the Bernie forum - as they are saying nothing different over there.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Facts are facts, truth is truth. Sometimes that can be very uncomfortable, and it needs to be accepted, not hidden.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[desmiller]

54. Des to Hill-tremists: Please give it a rest.

This mindless taddle-telling has gotten old.

[bananas]

61. There was a second alert and jury

I thought only one alert was allowed, no double jeopardy?

1:25 PM

Automated Message

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Is Hillary Clinton running for Bill Clinton's 3rd term?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511551970

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Outright sexist post!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:25 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is already a discussion underway.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Trollish.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sexist? Are you serious? Leave it alone. It's a valid question if you don't try to pick fly crap out of pepper. I didn't find it at all sexist.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Quite certain the response to this OP will answer this ridiculous question.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[PeaceNikki]

62. Those are different alerts - yours is for this thread - the one above was for a different thread by

same author

[bananas]

63. Ok, thanks. nt

[yardwork]

67. I can understand the confusion. Both threads are very similar in certain ways.

[MineralMan]

27. Uh, no.

She's not doing that at all. I can see that you are concerned, but that is not the case.

[Tarc]

28. The question is inherently misogynist, implying that a female president cannot be...

...sufficiently separate and independent from her former presidential husband.

[jonno99]

41. Do you think Bill was "sufficiently separate and independent" of Hillary when he was prez?

Of course not, they were the "co-presidents" (and we really didn't mind then did we?)

The fact remains however, that regardless of who is the president, it is just understood that their spouse will more likely than not be their closest, most trusted advisor.

In the aftermath, however, we're now re-thinking the whole "co-presidency" vis-a-vis Bill & Hill. It's not a slam on Hillary, it just acknowledging the truth of the matter.

iow - to call this misogynistic is just a wee bit hyperbolic - imho...

[Tarc]

45. The "co-president" thing was silly media innuendo, not fact.

Hillary did expand beyond the traditional First Lady, but it's not like she was a member of the Cabinet.

[jonno99]

48. Of course you're right. But that doesn't change anything I said.

Nancy Reagan wasn't part of the cabinet, but does anyone doubt that she was the most powerful person in his administration?

[zappaman]

87. Reagan had early alzheimers so yes, that made Nancy somewhat more powerful.

But to say she was more powerful than others in his administration, including Bush, is laughable.

[jonno99]

89. You may be correct, but that is not what I've heard. nt

[treestar]

73. Wouldn't they all be, including Nancy Reagan?

Or Mrs. Wilson I think it was who actually took over.

We know spouses have influence on each other. At least in this case the spouse is smart.

[salinsky]

31. This is the Bernie Brothiest thread I've ever seen ... nt

[PeaceNikki]

34. lol @ Bernie Brothiest

[auntpurl]

47. Seriously. nt

[Codeine]

70. BernieBroth; the boiled-down concentrated quintessence

of Berniebros.

I like!

[MineralMan]

35. Well, because she'll always be "The little woman?"

Is that your assumption? I can tell you that is certainly not the case.

[RandySF]

37. A woman can't be her own person?

[Garrett78]

38. I'd expect a Clinton Admin to operate very much like an Obama Admin.

But maybe a bit more hawkish.

The 1990s were different enough from today that the expectation should be for a Clinton Administration to be more closely aligned with the Obama Administration.

And every administration is influenced by people and events in ways we can't foresee. The marriage rights movement, for instance, led to both the Executive and Judicial branches of government taking a stance that may not have been expected 5 or 10 years prior.

[kennetha]

39. Hillary Clinton is running for her own term, on her own terms

But you cannot forget the fact that she would be the first Democrat to succeed a two term Democratic President since Harry Truman succeeded FDR. That's a BIG deal, a chance to consolidate and extend the incremental gains under Obama.

Think how different the political landscape would be if Al Gore had succeeded Bill Clinton, instead us having to put up with 8 years of the Shrub. It took B. Clinton to correct some of the excesses of the Reagan Bush years. It took Obama to correct some of the excesses of the Shrub years.

H. Clinton will have her work cut out for her. The Republicans will likely be ferocious in their opposition -- they will want to make her first term hell, cause they don't want to spend 16 straight years in the presidential wilderness.

But, H. Clinton will be starting from a base of progressive achievement. And she won't have to tear down as many reactionary structures.

That's a damned good thing.

[Seeinghope]

78. You could take Hillary Clinton out and substitute it with Bernie Sanders and all would still be true

[greymouse]

50. Bill is ineffectual

In the horrible event Hillary becomes President, she will toss Bill out of meetings he has no business being in. That I have no doubt of. She put up with him for decades to get her chance to be President. Now that he seems to be failing mentally, he is just a liability to her.

[Herman4747]

53. It's worse than that. n/t

[bobthedrummer]

90. +1 n/t

[onenote]

60. There are no limitations restrictions or guidelines because there don't need to be any

The Constitution says "no person" shall be elected to the office of president more than twice. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are two separate people -- one of them has been elected before and one of them has not. The one that has not is the person whose name would be on the ballot (if she gets the nomination) no matter what the familial relationship. If some day down the line Malia Obama decides to run for President and her father campaigns for her and would be a close advisor, it wouldn't violate the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton was to get elected and Bill die or leave her, there wouldn't be a vacancy in the office of president.

You want to bar familial connections between presidents -- start a drive to amend the Constitution.

[Seeinghope]

80. There have been past President of the United States family that almost both

President of the United States like the Kennedys.

Then there was John Adams and John Quincy Adams. So it is possible and it has happened.

A married couple is different though, especially when it was widely claimed by Bill Clinton that Hillary Clinton was not just 1st Lady but they were, co presidents for the people....2 for 1, so to speak. History has already established how their relationship works by their own admission.

[onenote]

82. And if Hillary got elected and then died in office would "co-President" Bill still be "President"

Of course not. He's not being elected and he won't be President, co-President or any other label one might choose to put on it. From a constitutional perspective he's just another person who once was president and now isn't.

[MoonRiver]

92. I still don't see how having an extremely competent married couple,

who ran (successfully)/are running (tbd) for president, is a problem. Please explain.

[pampango]

64. Sounds like grounds to impeach another Clinton. I'm sure republicans would have thought of this

without our help.

[Sheepshank]

65. Another conspiracy theory? Wow so many today nt

[loyalsister]

66. No

Bill pursued the two state solution in earnest.
I don't understand her motives or goals, but Hillary seems to not want to hold Israel accountable in any way for what they do with the weapons we generously provide.

[AgadorSparticus]

74. The assumption is that the first 2 were all Bill? 😐

It's a twofer. It's ALWAYS a twofer. Whether their last names are clinton or not.

[KingFlorez]

75. Is Bernie Sanders running for Jane Sanders' first term?

She is younger than him and seems a whole lot more lucid.

See how that works? Other people can use -isms about your candidate.

[Seeinghope]

77. Oh, I didn't know that Bernie Sanders was a previous President of the United States

That would give his wife Jane undeniable advantages over any other candidate.

Very very poor comparison.

[KingFlorez]

79. My point was that candidate's are individuals

Just because Hillary Clinton is married to a former President does not mean she's running for his third term. This is a dumb thread, but at this point there isn't much left to post about around here.

[LanternWaste]

76. There is no mechanism in place to prevent her from office

"What limitations, restrictions and or guidelines are in place for this situation?

There is no mechanism in place to prevent her from office or her husband from assuming a non-elected place by his wife's side.

Throw something at the wall and see if that sticks instead.

[gollygee]

88. No. She is running for her first term.

This is sexist garbage.

[Waiting For Everyman]

91. I think you're right, and I can prove it.

This is a TYT video from May 2011 which I had not seen until this week. I was appalled. Not only because Bill and Ryan were discussing cuts to Medicare, but because it was Bill Clinton doing it.

He was not in office at that time. WTH business was it of his to be discussing ANYTHING about policy? What right did he have to be negotiating with Paul Ryan over cuts to our programs?

I remarked in that thread, "So he's to be the shadow President. Well isn't that a milestone for women?" Clearly this "first woman President" selling point is a fraud. What a great feminist icon, when in reality Hillary would be, and was at that time, a mere front for Bill.

I had NOT thought about the 2-term limit though. That is actually a very interesting question, now that you mention it. This video shows us the sort of thing Bill has been doing. He has been conducting the nation's business surreptitiously using Hillary as a screen. It is not at all unreasonable to expect that he will keep on doing in the future what he has already been doing in the past.

And that isn't the only indicator. Several writers on the email scandal are of the opinion that the private server was used so that Bill could have access to official documents, and have input into her role as Secretary of State. The Blackberry that Hillary was so adamant about having for herself and her staff, kept her in constant contact with her "coach" Bill and his staff.

The email hadn't made any sense to me until I thought about it this way. She had two motivations. One, to keep the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play transactions out of view at the State Department. And two, keeping Bill's participation out of State's view too.

I also have said here before, and I will say again, HRC's prior experience as Senator from New York and as Secretary of State are both offices that she probably would not have gotten if she had not been Bill Clinton's wife.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton has been doing any job on her own. Her own actions and choices have led to this being the most likely objective conclusion.

I think if the Republicans wanted to press this point about Bill's 3rd term, they might get some traction with it, given the video above. I think it's another potential liability, and worse, I think it's the truth of the matter.

It doesn't even need to be a stand-alone scandal, it fills in the gap between the two scandals that are already cooking.

This is my opinion on what the few facts we have now might mean all fitted together. Lots of pieces are not filled in yet, and so of course I could be wrong, but on the other hand I could be right. What all the pieces add up to is...

Hillary Clinton is a huge liability. She needs to withdraw before things get worse.