Barack Obama and John Edwards appear more frantic by the day to chip away at Hillary Clinton’s stunning lead for the Democratic presidential nomination. She may be unstoppable. One thing Obama told Newsweek about her first lady days deserves to stick, though: “On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can’t do is have it both ways. She can’t embrace every success of Bill Clinton’s presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton’s presidency.â€
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
38 Comments
why not ?that’s how everybody else in america does it.
What were Bill Clinton’s failures, Rhonda.
I’m no great fan of Senator Clinton. I didn’t particularly like her husband. He WAS the best Republican President in my lifetime.
That said? I like Obama and Edwards even less. I lost a lot of respect for them that last debate. They are ankle biting little dogs.
Dennis!
Hillary will handover the United States to Israel.
When we need to cross into another State, we will need to have our papers in order { including travel permits and necessary taxes }.
Ditto with Guiliani.
Ron Paul will wipe the slate clean, rid ourselves of all unnecessary government and put our derailed America back on track.
Then we can spend the next 200 years slowly eroding our constitution again { only not so bad, as learned our lesson once }.
I don’t like electing the same person as president for 16 years.This is either more of Bill or more of Hillary.
It is unAmerican.
Kinda like electing George Bush and then electing George Bush.
‘Course the difference is that the first George Bush wasn’t so evil as to start a war so that he could get re-elected.
Not the same thing. George senior retired to the golf course. He did NOT go to bed with the president every night in the White House.
OMGosh!
That just gave me a thought, a horrible, horrible thought.
BARBARA BUSH as president.
Whoa, is that scary or what?!
Laugh if you want. I am not the only voter concerned about two people running the country for 16 years.
How about the same two families running the country for 28 years?
It is my sense that the middle class has finally gotten it about how hostile this administration is to them. Hillary is attractive, because it is still in the middle class’s memory how good things were (for them) under Clinton.
The majority of the electorate is so ready for a change, Hillary benefits from this desperation for change and she is seen as a safe choice via Bill’s record.
This worry about too many years ruled (as it were) by one or two families is pretty lame.
The American public would have kept re-electing Kennedys unto the, oh, third of fourth generation. That would have been something to be spooked about.
Hillary is inevitable as the Democratic nominee and ditto for president in ‘08. The main benefit of the latter in my view is that it will cause the right wingers here to moan and complain for several years. If you’ve read this blog at all, you know the preceding has already started.
third OR fourth generation.
wish I could type gooder
Disagree on the family issue Dennis. The same family being in charge of things is too much like a dynasty — a trend counter to the very foundations of our nattional values, not to mention our constitution.
What’s Rhonda’s point, Hillary can’t escape the ‘blue dress’? That’s about the only failure of Bill’s 8 yrs.
“national” not “nattional” – wish I could type gooder, two.
Obama, or more likely someone on his staff, must have read:
Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Hardcover) by R.Emmett Tyrrell
3 or 4 years ago, Emmett Tyrrell very nicely detailed the strategy Hillary would use to get to the White House.
Tyrrell describes how Hillary will use the Bill Clinton Presidency as “Experience” on her resume.
That being the case, then she needs to be accountable for everything she did while in the White House.
She’s campaigning as the “Transparent” President, so let’s see some transparency! Open up the Clinton Library records Hillary!
And – if she is going to take credit for Bill’s accomplishments (whatever they were) then Hillary needs to take the blame for his failures too. (Numerous!)
Something smells. Methinks it’s more Clinton lies. What is it with these people?
“In its 2005-2006 University Libraries annual report, for example, the University of Arkansas reported that the process was almost done. “Archivists were hired to process both the Diane Blair Papers and the records of former third district Congressman Asa Hutchinson, and both collections are nearing completion.”"
RE: The “family” or “dynasty” issue. It seems to me that the only thing un-American is for the people to be told they can’t elect someone. And it’s nothing new. 200 years before the Bushes,there were the Adamses.
Maybe I’m the only one with a strong and independent wife, but I’m pretty sure that if we were in the Clinton’s position, she would NOT be taking responsibility for MY failures. She would be making her own decisions based on her own values. Women don’t necessarily mirror their husbands these days, folks. They really CAN think and act for themselves.
Damn!
We lost another one!
I wonder what the new rules are.
Meetup anyone?
Hank
Hank,I’ll go along with a meetup.This is getting strange. After virtually ignoring us and our antics for a couple of years, the editors have suddenly turned into Nazis.
Wait a minute…
I have responded to a XXX post and a JR post which are gone.
Am I the only one seeing this or am I crazy?
Posted by: Nathan | November 06, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Don’t feel bad Nathan, you are not alone to have had posts pulled this date.
What bothers me the most: It is the liberal posts which remain.
It seems the standard of conduct only applies to one side.
Hank:
Re: Meet-up?
I’m in. But frankly, I don’t blame the editors. This blog exists as a service, as a forum for expressing opinion. The “tolerant” left has, apparantly, run off one of their opponents, and celebrates same. That isn’t what the Eagle is about, and I don’t doubt that the editor is tired of getting flooded with complaining e-mails.
It’s just not worth it.
We are guests here; but some of us can’t seem to act like it. Some want their private playground. It’s gotta stop, somehow. If that means shutting the thing down, well, I’m not sure I blame them one bit.
What bothers me the most: It is the liberal posts which remain.
It seems the standard of conduct only applies to one side.
Posted by: American Way | November 06, 2007 at 11:53
Knock of the partisan crap, Amway. I just had one of my posts pulled, too.
1st Amendment doesn’t apply to a privately owned blog XXX.
FYI,
I’ve recently had several posts deleted that contained no profanity, threats of violence, personal information, etc. It doesn’t matter what your political views are, WEBlog editors are deleting posts they don’t like. Period.
ALL of my posts are gone from there too.
Just as well, I had to leave anyway.
This is the second thread I’ve seen shut for unknown reasons.
Secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, was briefing President Bush this morning. He told Bush that threeBrazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq. To everyone’s amazement, all of the color ran from the President’sface, then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering. Finally, hecomposed himself and asked Gates,”just exactly how many is a brazillion?”
Cleaning out my e-mail jokes and had to see if the editors liked this one.
1st Amendment doesn’t apply to a privately owned blog XXX.
Posted by: Max | November 06, 2007 at 12:01 PM
It’s no longer a privacy issue when it’s published, Max.
I suspect the editors are closing threads when the partisan sniping takes over.
Good for them.
It would be helpful for all concerned if they would say precisely why they are closing the thread.
If a media outlet such as the eagle cant support free speech that would be problematic i dont think anyone’s posts should be pulled. That being said both posters on the right and the left are guilty of being whiney ass crybabies, and several of those posters both sides consataly spam the blog editors in some stupid game of more whining, getting people banned and lets find out ip numbers of posters. The WE blog is a service provided by the Eagle if it whiney posters continue to waste the time of the editors they will shut down this site it wont be worth the time to manage it when it doesn’t appear that the blog makes the paper any money.
I was gone and missed why the open thread was shut down. I was criticized for harping on Max about his statements that Liberals wanted madmen to have nuclear weapons. He made that assertion without a bit of supporting evidence. If my response was somehow offensive, I will try to find a nicer way to say it; but my view still is that this was a very disingenous way of trying to make whatever point that was.
Contrary to what some said, me being offended by untrue and outrageous statements is not evidence that I wish to suppress dissenting opinions. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.
I doubt that’s what did it, Steven.
It was probably all the “JM-JR-Liberals make the Blog suck” “no they don’t” “yes they do” “do not” “do too” crap.
That’s my guess.
None of my posts were pulled.
I was saying that the posts which I responded to were pulled.
Obama’s Red State Appeal
“An August University of Iowa even found Obama running third in the state among Republican candidates, behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani but ahead of both Fred Thompson and John McCain. And a national Gallup poll this month also found that nearly as many Republicans like Obama – 39% – than the 43% that dislike him, compared with the 78% of Republicans who held an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071106/us_time/obamasredstateappeal
I thought this was interesting and didn’t know where to post it. That has been my major problem with Hilary, is she can’t swing any Republicans to her side. I’m surprised that Obama is doing so well in that respect, but glad. It’s still close for me between the two.
At least with Hillary, all my illegal friends will have drivers license’s and our flag will be the Star of David
Hillary is PRO Torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm