Just one more reason to not vote for Hil & Bil. This is the LAST chance Hil has - she's dang near past her 'Sell-By' date at this point, and I can't see her getting more 'appealing' over the next 4 years.

(Without heavy-duty cosmetic surgery, that is. And even then, you'll need a #4 trowel for the TV makeup...)

She fails in this bid - any bets as to how long it'll be before the divorce papers are served?

This isn't entirely fair, but there is another example much closer to home, in 1966 in Alabama when Lurleen, Wallace ran for governor and won. Her husband George Wallace who couldn't run for another term, ended up 'controlling the policies and procedures of the governorship in the background'.

And let's not forget the infamous quote from Bill's wife: "We are the President".

Not to mention Bill's '92 campaign promise: "Two for the price of one."

Regardless of which of the co-conspirators was or may be the "official" president, they are a tag team of evil socialists.

Can you say "term limits"?

Assume for a moment that Hillary does get her 8 years.

We would also see Chelsea marry some Dem rising star who would be annointed to run for President at the end of Hillary's 2nd term. And after that Chelsea herself would be old enough to run.

I wouldn't be the least surprised if they already have someone in mind for Chelsea.

Scary.

The major difference, to me, is that Hillary was always in the forefront of things. She was NEVER just the "token wife," and I don't think anyone ever thought of her as Bill's puppet.

This is by no means a defense of her, just an observation that she doesn't really fit the mold cited above.

J.

Yes that's true Jay. 'queen of Sheba in a power suit' as someone described her. They are both strong-willed characters.

I agree with Jay Tea. These two are a team, always have been and probably always will be. She is clearly the stronger of the two so if she were to win he would not be the one in charge. It would be joint.

That's why this democrat won't vote for her if she wins the nomination. I'm just sick and tired of the idea of the potential of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton for a possible 28 years. I shudder at the thought. The shame, though, is that she has the smarts and the ability to be the president.

Hillary can always try again another time. She has just under eight years of experience in elective office -- one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama, and the next time, (she will have learned by then) that she won't need her husband to fight her battles.

I have no idea why people think Obama, Hillary, or McCain would make good presidents. This is the executive branch of government. A whole different process to what they are experienced for. ww

This is a real problem for Hillary. I thought her campaign was much better back when Bill was in the shadows. Now, with him as the campaign's leading spokesman it's leading a lot of people to question who's going to really be in charge.

I personally think Clinton did a pretty good job as president but that doesn't mean I want to give him a third term. It's time to move on. No one in their right mind should want a repeat of four more years of the bitter partisanship that we saw when Clinton was president.

There ought to be an amendment to the constitution against this sort of thing. No spouses or sons and daughters of former presidents should be allowed to run. Seriously...enough with the dynasties.

Larkin -

He did a pretty good job, because he mostly left things alone and there wasn't much going on during his Presidency. But I agree - it's time to end the Clinton Dynasty. And the Bush and Kennedy ones while we're at it.

(We won't talk about the bitter partisanship of the last 7 years, either. I think you'll agree that 11-16 years of each side looking to tear apart the other is sufficient...)

Don't forget that Bush-1 also was Reagan's vice president for 8 years. So that's potentially 36 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Too damn many. We are not a monarchy.