George W. endorsing brother Jeb: would it help Jeb or hurt him?

[heatmaster]

Then again Obama, going on the campaign trail (hope to god she's the nominee, damaged goods and all), will hopefully cost Hillary a few winnable states. Considering what's been happening over the past few days, definitely will impact even more negatively on Hillary. 

[dudeabides]

W endorsing Jeb would have minimal effect.  W on the campaign trail wouldn't necessarily be game over for Jeb, but it would certainly cost Jeb a couple of winnable states.

My advice to Jeb: Use Rudy Giuliani. Use Susana Martinez. Use Marco Rubio. Use Laura Bush even. But do not use George W. Bush as a surrogate, he can attend fundraisers if he wishes.

[heatmaster]

Using George W. Bush, would be a distraction and the objective of Jeb's campaign is about change and making the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency as appealing and attractive as possible,  Jeb I would consider a shrewd and deliberate man and no way is he going to allow Democrats to use George W. Bush as a tar baby. On the other hand, Hillary is a sitting target and she doesn't come across as likeable, toughness and strengths, two traits she has going for her, are not going to be enough for her to win, the odour of dishonesty and untrustworthiness is too strong to overcome.  I can see her having to defend herself against incompetence. What is happening to her is weirdly similar to what happened to Dukakis in 1988, all his positives, such as competence were inverted and his negatives skyrocketed. He never stood a chance.  Hillary is not as smart as Bill is and she has a tendency of saying things that come back to haunt her later on. Her handicaps are overshadowing the qualities that she had expected to use to her advantage (e.g. her period as Secretary of State). Her vulnerabilities are far more problematic in the final analysis. She will have her work cut out for her, trying to tackle Jeb Bush.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Using George W. Bush, would be a distraction and the objective of Jeb's campaign is about change and making the idea of a Jeb Bush Presidency as appealing and attractive as possible,  Jeb I would consider a shrewd and deliberate man and no way is he going to allow Democrats to use George W. Bush as a tar baby. On the other hand, Hillary is a sitting target and she doesn't come across as likeable, toughness and strengths, two traits she has going for her, are not going to be enough for her to win, the odour of dishonesty and untrustworthiness is too strong to overcome.  I can see her having to defend herself against incompetence. What is happening to her is weirdly similar to what happened to Dukakis in 1988, all his positives, such as competence were inverted and his negatives skyrocketed. He never stood a chance.  Hillary is not as smart as Bill is and she has a tendency of saying things that come back to haunt her later on. Her handicaps are overshadowing the qualities that she had expected to use to her advantage (e.g. her period as Secretary of State). Her vulnerabilities are far more problematic in the final analysis. She will have her work cut out for her, trying to tackle Jeb Bush.

I think of a lot of Hillary's "untrustworthiness" is wishful thinking on the part of the GOP, who have a number of questionable souls in their own stable.  

On the other hand, Hillary is NOT likable.  This is an overwhelming feature of her personality; a combination of arrogance and coldness.  Sarah Palin is brash and brassy and has her enemies, but she also has friends that would go of a cliff for her like lemmings.  Hillary doesn't have anyone that fits into that category.  No one likes her, and her accomplishments in public life aren't so overwhelming as to cause people to allow that to negate what they don't like.  If Biden enters the race and starts out close to Hillary in the polls, just watch folks jump ship.  People like Hillary because she's a winner; they won't fight with her if she's an underdog.

What makes Hillary so unlikable?  It's her victimstance-based assertiveness that arouses a combination of male chauvinism in some quarters (and, yes, even in some liberal quarters), coupled with her inner belief that she is OWED the Presidency, a belief that she oozes, no matter how she tries to hide it.  And that debt, of course, has been incurred all because she is a woman who had to suffer playing a secondary role to her husband in public life.  And she's been passive-aggressive in forcing Bill to up her public profile, often with negative results.  She campaigned for Bill's re-election in 1980 using her maiden name, deliberately.  That didn't go over well with Arkansans, who dished a re-election defeat to first-term Gov. Bill Clinton that well may have ended his political career then and there.  She pushed Bill Clinton to appoint her (with Ira Magaziner) to head up the development of Clinton's National Healthcare Plan, but her presence there became a political lightning rod that didn't help Bill Clinton accomplish the passing of a plan.  (Indeed, the main criticism of Clinton's Healthcare plan is that it didn't pass; voters took THAT fact out on Bill Clinton in 1994 as much as anything else.)  Where she HAS helped Bill is in defending him when his philandering came to light, and I'm sure that this has (rightfully) galled her, but that resentment also bleeds through in her life, and people sense it, and it (rightly or wrongly) puts people off.

Hillary's resume isn't terrible.  Any number of current candidates have less to show.  Less time in the Senate.  Less government experience.  Less meaningful appointments.  She was Secretary of State, like Henry Clay; not Secretary of HUD like Julian Castro.  But there is the reality that if she weren't married to who she was married to, she'd be nobody in public life; just another lawyer.  For all the criticism Michelle Obama has received, she is more likable than Hillary Clinton, and perhaps it's a good time for Hillary to think about why this is so.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's an awful lot above that I don't see her as having to have a long hard look at herself. Maybe some people need to look at themselves.

It's pretty simple, she's the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - making yourself a political figure NOT a traditional spouse like Michelle Obama, comes with risks. She does have a knack to have people believe the worst about her. That's obviously a problem, she's not a natural wholesale politician like Bill. She's essentially a technocrat.

A lot of these critisicms don't seem to be based on anything other than groupthink. Now, she might be the hosebeast so many think she is, but I don't know her. But saying she'd never have been where she is without her husband? Sure his name carries weight but who the hell actually knows?

I sound like bloody  dudeabides but there it is...

[Fuzzy Bear]

There's an awful lot above that I don't see her as having to have a long hard look at herself. Maybe some people need to look at themselves.

It's pretty simple, she's the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - making yourself a political figure NOT a traditional spouse like Michelle Obama, comes with risks. She does have a knack to have people believe the worst about her. That's obviously a problem, she's not a natural wholesale politician like Bill. She's essentially a technocrat.

A lot of these critisicms don't seem to be based on anything other than groupthink. Now, she might be the hosebeast so many think she is, but I don't know her. But saying she'd never have been where she is without her husband? Sure his name carries weight but who the hell actually knows?

I sound like bloody  dudeabides but there it is...

I will agree that some of the criticism of HRC's lack of likability is unfair, and some folks don't like her just because she's a Democrat and they're not.

That being said, the Clinton's are just not as good as being less than candid or playing the victim as the Bushes are.  The Bushes can play both those games and not get caught at them.  Jeb's hardly transparent, but he appears to be.  W appeared honest and folksy, but he lied through his teeth about why we needed to go to war.  Daddy Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger, a man who could have rendered damning testimony against Bush 41 himself regarding Iran-Contra, and it's a forgotten episode, whereas I'm sure Bill Clinton's pardons will be brought up again.  

Hillary would do well to drop the victimstance, but she won't, and I don't believe she can.  And she's borne a LOT of humiliation in public life for things not of her doing.  Lots of fathers would go to their daughter's homes and beat the crap out of their son-in-law if he did their daughter like Bill did Hillary, and she knows that no one did that for her, even in a figurative way.  She also knows that if someone DID do that for her, she'd be a more sympathetic public figure, but a less influential one, and she's chosen the latter.  And having chosen the latter, unfair personal attacks come with that particular turf.  The American people do expect their leaders to not whine about that sort of give and take, because the person in the arena signed up for that.

[dudeabides]

There's an awful lot above that I don't see her as having to have a long hard look at herself. Maybe some people need to look at themselves.

It's pretty simple, she's the most politically active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - making yourself a political figure NOT a traditional spouse like Michelle Obama, comes with risks. She does have a knack to have people believe the worst about her. That's obviously a problem, she's not a natural wholesale politician like Bill. She's essentially a technocrat.

A lot of these critisicms don't seem to be based on anything other than groupthink. Now, she might be the hosebeast so many think she is, but I don't know her. But saying she'd never have been where she is without her husband? Sure his name carries weight but who the hell actually knows?

I sound like bloody  dudeabides but there it is...

I will agree that some of the criticism of HRC's lack of likability is unfair, and some folks don't like her just because she's a Democrat and they're not.

That being said, the Clinton's are just not as good as being less than candid or playing the victim as the Bushes are.  The Bushes can play both those games and not get caught at them.  Jeb's hardly transparent, but he appears to be.  W appeared honest and folksy, but he lied through his teeth about why we needed to go to war.  Daddy Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger, a man who could have rendered damning testimony against Bush 41 himself regarding Iran-Contra, and it's a forgotten episode, whereas I'm sure Bill Clinton's pardons will be brought up again.  

Hillary would do well to drop the victimstance, but she won't, and I don't believe she can.  And she's borne a LOT of humiliation in public life for things not of her doing.  Lots of fathers would go to their daughter's homes and beat the crap out of their son-in-law if he did their daughter like Bill did Hillary, and she knows that no one did that for her, even in a figurative way.  She also knows that if someone DID do that for her, she'd be a more sympathetic public figure, but a less influential one, and she's chosen the latter.  And having chosen the latter, unfair personal attacks come with that particular turf.  The American people do expect their leaders to not whine about that sort of give and take, because the person in the arena signed up for that.

Bill Clinton actually did a decent job as President of the United States. He worked with Speaker Gingrich and the GOP congress to pass some good policy, and we were better off for it.

But Bill Clinton is a liar and a criminal, there is no doubt. Hillary Clinton is a liar, a criminal, and an incompetent. These two are slimy and have been able to brush off any allegations of wrong doing, portraying stories of corruption as some kind of vast right wing conspiracy. Yet, it was Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) who exposed Bill Clinton for steering business to his wife's law firm while Governor of Arkansas. It is a known fact that foreign contributors gave to the DNC during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now, we are learning about the corruption and conflict of interest that occurred during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. It was Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, who once referred to Bill Clinton as "an unusually good liar." Jerry Brown, when he ran for Governor of California in 2010, said that "none one ever said Bill Clinton told the truth." It is known that the Clintons are liars.

Your'e a bit delusional when it comes to the Bush's, however. George W. Bush told Americans the truth about the mission in Iraq, he didn't lie to the public as President of the United States. Jeb Bush has released more tax returns than any presidential candidate in history, 33 years worth. He released all of his emails while Governor of Florida. He has been transparent. There is no evidence that George Bush took part in a cover-up as it relates to Iran-Contra, none at all.

The difference between the Bushs and the Clintons are that the Bushs are about public service, the Clintons are about power above all else.

I think the Republican nominee for President should attack Hillary Clinton's votes in the U.S. Senate against funding our troops, against tax cuts for all Americans, and I think the GOP nominee for President should attack her incompetence as Secretary of State. Ethical questions are also fair game, but I don't think we should be attacking her personally.

The only person in this race who deserves to be attacked personally is Donald Trump, and that is because he has attacked his opponents personally. He tells people that Jeb Bush's immigration position stems from his wife, who is Mexican-American. Well, Trump married two communists, so perhaps that's where his political philosophy comes from. Trump attacked Marco Rubio for drinking water on television. Well, perhaps we should attack Donald Trump for being ugly, look at his disgusting hair, it's pathetic and he should be ashamed of himself for walking around like that. He attacked Rick Perry for wearing glasses, perhaps Trump wears that silly hat to make himself look more like a common man and less like new money. He attacks Hillary Clinton for not satisfying her husband, perhaps his two ex-wives were unsatisfied by him.

Everything I said in the above paragraph is completely true and yet, it is completely meaningless. This campaign should be about issues, and Donald Trump is a distraction from the issues. The sooner he is forced to end his presidential campaign, the sooner our republic will be strengthened. If he is the GOP nominee for President, I would urge the RNC to only spend money on Republican Congressional and Senatorial candidates. I'd even like to see the RNC give money to the Libertarian candidate if Trump is somehow the GOP nominee. Until Trump ends his campaign, everyone's focus in both parties should be to expose this evil man for the fraud and simpleton he is. If he bullied a kid in 5th grade, I want it to make front page news. Only Donald Trump can make Rand Paul look intelligent, Ted Cruz look electable, Bernie Sanders look moderate, and Hillary Clinton look like she has integrity.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Basically: see above to prove my point.

[dudeabides]

Basically: see above to prove my point.

Here is the part where I prove you wrong:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0317/17072.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/trie101098.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/

You must be logged in to read this quote.