Romney; Bill Clinton embarrassed nation, breached responsibilities as an adult

[NewYorkExpress]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/16/romney-bill-clinton-embarrassed-the-nation-breached-his-responsibilities-as-an-adult/

Is attacking Bill Clinton going to be winning strategy in a General election? Or will this tactic backfire when voters remember we haven't been in the nineties for fifteen years?

[Likely Voter]

Someone like Romney just doesn't understand why America doesn't hate a deviant like Bill Clinton. The GOP would love to somehow sideline him. Romney especially remembers how effective Bill was at the 2012 DNC. His speech probably gave the Dems the biggest bounce of any, including Obama's

Unfortunately Clinton-bashing like this only works on the GOP base, the rest of the country don't care or remember the Clinton era fondly.

[henster]

What Bush did to the nation was criminal what are Romney's thoughts on Iraq?

[DrScholl]

The loser that won't shut up.

[eric82oslo]

Someone like Romney just doesn't understand why America doesn't hate a deviant like Bill Clinton. The GOP would love to somehow sideline him. Romney especially remembers how effective Bill was at the 2012 DNC. His speech probably gave the Dems the biggest bounce of any, including Obama's.

For me, Elizabeth Warren's speech was much more effective, but that's just me. I also found Julian Castro's speech more effective, but probably cause it was so personal and inspirational - it probably didn't give much of a boost to Obama though, I have to agree.

[eric82oslo]

The loser that won't shut up.

He has a few lessons to learn from Bush, clearly. He clearly loves to attack people, doesn't he? Even though the spirit of his concession speech was so utterly different, uplifting, embracing, ceasefireish. So much and long for that spirit, rest in peace.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The 90's called.  They want their talking point back.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Why making a thread about what some random hobo said?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

[NewYorkExpress]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

Using Bill against her?
To be honest, as a Republican who doesn't like Bill at all, that is distasteful.

[NewYorkExpress]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

Using Bill against her?
To be honest, as a Republican who doesn't like Bill at all, that is distasteful.

Alas, poor Yorick, that is what your party has become...

[Mister Mets]

It's probably good strategy right now.

The voters who matter aren't gong to hold against the Republicans in November 2016.

It gives ammunition to primary opponents for Hillary Clinton, while reducing Bill Clinton's effectiveness as a surrogate.

[Blue3]

It's probably good strategy right now.

The voters who matter aren't gong to hold against the Republicans in November 2016.

It gives ammunition to primary opponents for Hillary Clinton, while reducing Bill Clinton's effectiveness as a surrogate.

No it doesn't. How does this give ammo to primary opponents against Hillary? This is ancient, ancient news. It shows how pathetic the GOP is right now.

[Indy Texas]

It's probably good strategy right now.

The voters who matter aren't gong to hold against the Republicans in November 2016.

It gives ammunition to primary opponents for Hillary Clinton, while reducing Bill Clinton's effectiveness as a surrogate.

At least the Democrats have a surrogate. There isn't a single living Republican former president or vice president who the party wants to go anywhere near. Poppy Bush is too frail and moderate. Dan Quayle is a forgotten punchline. Dubya is radioactive. Cheney?!

[Potatoe]

Really? Going after Bill to "damage" Hillary? What is this? 2OOO era  New York?

[Oakvale]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

Using Bill against her?
To be honest, as a Republican who doesn't like Bill at all, that is distasteful.

...it's not like Bill Clinton is just some guy who's married to Hillary Clinton. You are aware he was the President of the United State (1993 - 2001), correct? I don't see why attacking him is distasteful.

[Lincoln Republican]

The truth of the matter is, and always will be, is that a married, middle aged man who was President of the United States carried on a sexual relationship with a 20 something bimbo, and who knows how many other bimbos over the years, while his wife sat home wondering where her husband was and what he was up to, while all the while he was cheating on her like some common philandering sexaholic.

To say Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation is an understatement.  Bill Clinton was an absolute blight on the nation and his deplorable behavior was an unmitigated low point in the history of the Presidency.   

[Mister Mets]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

Using Bill against her?
To be honest, as a Republican who doesn't like Bill at all, that is distasteful.

Bill Clinton is one of the top surrogates the Democrats have, so there is a utility in going after him.

Anything Hillary said or did during the scandal is also fair game.

It's probably good strategy right now.

The voters who matter aren't gong to hold against the Republicans in November 2016.

It gives ammunition to primary opponents for Hillary Clinton, while reducing Bill Clinton's effectiveness as a surrogate.

No it doesn't. How does this give ammo to primary opponents against Hillary? This is ancient, ancient news. It shows how pathetic the GOP is right now.

During a General Election with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, this would immediately be a partisan issue. Democrats would reflexively defend the Clintons. Republicans would reflexively attack.

So right now is a good time to bring this up.

There's a bit of a generation gap here. People who watched the news a lot in 1999 could be tired to hear this rehashed (more so with Democrats than Republicans). But the response could be different for younger activists, who would have been in elementary school when this was in the news. This could make them more interested in the alternatives.

[Blue3]

I'm 24, and this doesn't make me more interested in the alternatives. Why bring back the drama from the 90's? And don't the Republicans remember that Clinton left with super-high approval ratings, which he still has today?

And people act like it's the first time a President has ever cheated, or that a person's personal life matters (when they aren't being hypocritical, unlike cheating "family values" GOP social conservatives).

[bedstuy]

Even if cheating on your spouse a few times is terrible and disqualifying, which few people would agree with, Hillary Clinton was cheated on, not the cheater.  So, what on earth is the argument that the Monica Lewinsky scandal should hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016?  Are voters going to say, well I agree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, but her husband cheated on her 20 years ago so I guess I'll vote for Ted Cruz? 

You guys are grasping at straws here.  People have decided how they feel about Bill Clinton's horndog qualities.  It's over, there's no new news on it and people don't really care.  People had gotten over it in 1999.  If anything, bringing this issue up just makes Republicans seem extremely petty and obnoxious. 

[henster]

Jesus how many President's have had affairs Ford, LBJ, Kennedy, FDR wouldn't be surprised if all of them have slipped up once and while in their lives Clinton was just caught.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Why is this in this forum? Romney isn't running again.

Because Hillary Clinton is the almost certain nominee for the Democrats... So, even if Romney isn't running... The point is more that he might be pointing out the likely General Election strategy the GOP will use against her.

Using Bill against her?
To be honest, as a Republican who doesn't like Bill at all, that is distasteful.

Bill Clinton is one of the top surrogates the Democrats have, so there is a utility in going after him.

Anything Hillary said or did during the scandal is also fair game.

It's probably good strategy right now.

The voters who matter aren't gong to hold against the Republicans in November 2016.

It gives ammunition to primary opponents for Hillary Clinton, while reducing Bill Clinton's effectiveness as a surrogate.

No it doesn't. How does this give ammo to primary opponents against Hillary? This is ancient, ancient news. It shows how pathetic the GOP is right now.

During a General Election with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, this would immediately be a partisan issue. Democrats would reflexively defend the Clintons. Republicans would reflexively attack.

So right now is a good time to bring this up.

There's a bit of a generation gap here. People who watched the news a lot in 1999 could be tired to hear this rehashed (more so with Democrats than Republicans). But the response could be different for younger activists, who would have been in elementary school when this was in the news. This could make them more interested in the alternatives.

Do you really think young people care about the infedelities of Bill Clinton? If anything, it might be a bonus for him. We look back on the '90s as our golden age. We think Bill Clinton was the coolest POTUS sans Kennedy. He's an asset as long as they use him like they did in 2012.

[SWE]

The truth of the matter is, and always will be, is that a married, middle aged man who was President of the United States carried on a sexual relationship with a 20 something bimbo, and who knows how many other bimbos over the years, while his wife sat home wondering where her husband was and what he was up to, while all the while he was cheating on her like some common philandering sexaholic.

To say Bill Clinton was an embarrassment to the nation is an understatement.  Bill Clinton was an absolute blight on the nation and his deplorable behavior was an unmitigated low point in the history of the Presidency.   

I agree, Clinton completely disgraced the presidency. he is an embarrassment to the great men who held the office, like Jefferson, Kennedy, FDR, Harding, Cleveland, Eisenhower, and LBJ, none of whom had affairs like Clinton did.

[Mister Mets]

Jesus how many President's have had affairs Ford, LBJ, Kennedy, FDR wouldn't be surprised if all of them have slipped up once and while in their lives Clinton was just caught.

I've heard about most of the others, but what did Ford do?

Even if cheating on your spouse a few times is terrible and disqualifying, which few people would agree with, Hillary Clinton was cheated on, not the cheater.  So, what on earth is the argument that the Monica Lewinsky scandal should hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016?  Are voters going to say, well I agree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, but her husband cheated on her 20 years ago so I guess I'll vote for Ted Cruz?  

You guys are grasping at straws here.  People have decided how they feel about Bill Clinton's horndog qualities.  It's over, there's no new news on it and people don't really care.  People had gotten over it in 1999.  If anything, bringing this issue up just makes Republicans seem extremely petty and obnoxious.  

The issue for Hillary is how she responded to the news about her husband.

Issac Chotner of the New Republic considered the times when a likely major party nominee wasn't at her best on this topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

He will also be one of Hillary's top surrogates. As long as that happens, it's fair game.