Edwards/Obama 2008. Obama 2016. Bill Clinton, Secretary of State 2008-2016

I LIKE YOUR STYLE

http://www.ireachable.com/vote

So how will putting the Clintons back in be "change"?

If you dont agree with Hillary, just wait a few days – and she will flip-flop.

When Clinton was in office we had a recession because after the DOTCOM boom went bust, we had nothing REAL to fall back on.

NAFTA (that he signed off on) caused a great deal of those high paying IT jobs to leave the country.

Gutting the military was why we had a surplus and while that was going on......

If we had such peace and were "loved" so much, why did we have the first WTC bombing, USS Cole and Khobar towers bombings (TOO NAME A FEW) all under his watch? Why did he treat them as criminal acts and not terrorist acts?

Why did he PERSONALLY sign off on Sandy Berger going into the National archives to destroy CERTAIN CLINTON ERA DOCUMENTS?

More minorities were imprisoned while he was PRESIDENT so I guess that means they were "better off"?

Do we need to even mention the scandal after scandal that saw many in the administration and friends of the Clintons go to jail, get disbarred and get levied heavy fines or how about the mysterious deaths?

How about Hillary stating that she can't recall 50 plus times in 42 paragraph statement?

Do we need this for four more years?

It would be funny for Mr. Edwards after being part of the group that strongly criticizes the Clinton Presidency now considers him to be indispensable to his administration. He strangely predicts the same role for the former President that Senator Clinton advertised during the first CNN debate for Mr. Clinton.

It is odd how much of Ms. Clinton's words and actions appear to be misunderstood. She is criticized for doing what politicians are expected to do when she makes a political decision to give the President conditional approval to declare war after all peaceful means have expired, and her political judgment is demonized. On the other hand, someone who never had to make such a decision, and who might have been prescient in opposing the war, made a decision without having access to the intelligence, and this is used to glorify that prson's political judgment that was the result of a guess, at best. since the intelligence information was not available to him. Mr. Edwards, on the other hand believes that apologizing, after the fact, makes him more principled and a better leader than Ms. Clinton who admits to an error based on incomplete knowledge at the time, but refuses to apologize for an eror made in good political faith.

With Edwards as president we can clear the corporate sponsored mine field that blocks us from real change.

Obama as VP can get extensive foreign affairs experience and ratchet up his knowledge of critical presidential responsibilities from the inside. Then Obama will be unstoppable in 2016.

This strategy not only gives us the White House for 16 years but Obama for 16 years.

Bill Clinton, for all his shortcomings, would be an incredible Secretary of State. He can go anywhere and meet with anyone. What a great mentor he would be for VP Obama.

I also believe the field of Democratic candidates is the best we've seen and should all be players in an Edwards administration.

Edwards/Obama 2008. Obama 2016. Bill Clinton, Secretary of State 2008-2016.

On Electability, Rasmussen match up polls show Clinton losing by a small margin to Giuliani and by a larger margin to McCain. Edwards ties Giuliani and beats every other Republican handily. Check it out:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

But the promise brings up a larger issue for the democrats. And that is finding and shaping their identity - something that they could not do in the last election. Why are the democrats so tied to the democratic party of yesteryear? Sure, Bill Clinton was popular, but the democrats have to forge ahead if they want to be considered relevant. The good old days aren't going to come back magically if you keep repeating "Bill Clinton" over and over again. The survival of the democrats depends on them forging their own identity that looks forward, not one terminally wedded to the past.

I would only hope that former President Clinton would do the party a fabulous service by helping the Democratic nominee, whomever that might be.

As the primaries get closer, it becomes clearer that Hillary Clinton is the person of the hour to take over in 2009. While Edwards and Obama are perhaps well-meaning, it's so very obvious that any of the so-called lower-tiered candidates would be more effective as president. No matter what is said to downplay experience, right now in our country's perilous, worldwide circumstances, nothing can take the place of the Clinton experience.

There would be a big difference in Bills role is viewed by the public within the two administrations. In Hillary's Administration, Bill is in some circles already viewed as an anchor weighing her administration down, this gives Hillary less credibility than she deserves. Another perception is Bill being viewed as the "First Laddy", a mere title, but nonetheless this gives him less credibility than he deserves. In John's Administration, Bill would be viewed as more legitimate, he was asked to be there, a posting, and cannot be misinterpreted as a tag-a-long.

Please get your historical facts and events straight before you try publishing again.

Furthemore, Eben, you accuse him of using his Senate position to make himself (more) wealthy. That is a serious charge, and unless you provide evidence, we have no reason to believe you – particularly since you can't get the story straight about Edwards' time in the Senate in the first place.

Ditto with your charge that he has changed his position – back it up, or we have no reason to take you seriously.

As for Edwards' current popularity in his home state, he has been back and forth with Hillary- not surprising, since she is the national front-runner. In general, he has run a close second to her, and at times has held the lead. The latest poll I can find – http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/pdfs/PPP_Release_120407.pdf – shows that as of 3 Dec, Hillary has regained the lead over Edwards in North Carolina, 31-26. Again, considering that she is the national front-runner, a gap of 5% (close to the margin of error) can hardly be called "struggling" – and Edwards' numbers have generally risen in his home state since August.

On the Republican side, the pickings are much leaner. Every candidate is terribly flawed. Giuliani's experience as mayor was ok but not brilliant. He got some great coverage after the 9-11 event and that is the basis for his candidacy. Huckabee can only pull in the Bible vote and that's not enough to win. Romney has theological poisoning and hoof-in-mouth disease. Thompson doesn't particularly want to be president and no one particularly wants him to be president. A Ron Paul candidacy might end the Republican Party forever. If you put them all together you couldn't get one good man out of the mixture.

(The kind of achievements I'm referring to are, for example, Mayor Guiliani's reduction in crime [by over 50 percent] and Mitt Romney's turning around a billion dollar enterprise from bankrupt to successful.)

Can anyone name two similar accomplishments that Edwards has made that don't involve raising taxes or making a new "law" or bill. Name something Edwards HAS DONE, not what he WOULD DO if elected.

Edwards will surely pick up support by doing that.

If you really want to know Edward very well, then ask NC electorate who voter him just for one term in the Senate. He did nothing but accumulate wealth for himself and now preaches something so-called Epic fight with the lobbyist.

This guy is a smart con lawyer that uses the way he grew up poor to play on the weak to be on his side and he’s been successful and working for him for now.

Even though every candidate is doing well in their home state Edward is the only one struggling in his because of his same old same old Senate con that voters believed and voted for him and send him back home after one term.

If you want to know a good candidate in this election track where they've been and done and you will know where they'll be taking America, that’s how you see a real person. Edward prey on the weak who depend on their emotions to vote, but what they don’t know is Edward is not born to lead. You can disagree but it’s true and will bet anyone.

Last but not the least, every lawyer knows how the American electorate vote with their emotion instead of their head and Edward is dueling and using the courtroom strategy to become president and counting on that even though he could sign-off to take care of a sickening wife. If I was in his situation I will put my family first before anything else.

Edward...will never be president of America, never just because he doesn't look like one and won't be and he will try again and again because it is an ambition and not gifted with it.

He doesn't practice what he preach...So, those senseless electorate that sympathize with him are not using your head.

So what if Hillary says that William Jefferson Clinton would not be invited to sit in on his wife's National Security Council (NSC) meetings for worldwide military and diplomatic strategizing? Ever hear of "pillow talk"? It's alive and well in every White House since Dolly "Don't forget the ladies" Madison.

Clinton has that same ineffable charm, unassuming yet brilliant and the best national treasure we could deploy - whether for his spouse, future President Hilllary Rodham Clinton, or for any other president.

So what if Hillary says that William Jefferson Clinton would not be invited to sit in on his wife's National Security Council (NSC) meetings for worldwide military and diplomatic strategizing? Ever hear of "pillow talk"? It's alive and well in every White House since Dolly "Don't forget the ladies" Madison.

Clinton has that same ineffable charm, unassuming yet brilliant and the best national treasure we could deploy - whether for his spouse, future President Hilllary Rodham Clinton, or for any other president.

Lets keep looking to the PAST to solve the problems with the future. It worked so well for Bush II to grab oldies and stack them in his cabinet.

Hey, Billy would sure have a place in my administration. What an ego. What on earth makes Edwards think that Bill Clinto would want anything to do with his administration. If Hillary were to lose the primary Bill has much more important things to do that help out little Johnny Edwards.

I'm glad Edwards would ask Pres. Clinton to play a role in his administration. The U. S. needs someone who can play the world like Bill Clinton can after the mess GW has put us in.

Which is it? Either the Clintons screwed up in Washington or they didn't and if they did they why would you want Bill Clinton to help?

Neither Edwards or Obama have the experience needed to make a good president.

In a pig's valise, and that ain't pork

The only way Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton will play a role in your "White House" is if you paint yout curent house white.

Amnesty for illegal invaders.
Redistribution of wealth.
Nanny Government