0
   

Clinton is a bargain - two for the price of one

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 10:38 pm
If Hillary becomes President you have two presidential heads for the price of one. Hillary being the nominal president and her sidekick Bill Clinton being the ex-president with all the connections. It a good deal I would say. Bill will not even be paid and I am very sure functioning. Hillary is no slouch as she was president of her own law firm. Bill is tested and and a good president and Hillary is tested and a good senator and maybe even a better president.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 637 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2008 10:51 pm
I don't doubt for a minute that Bill is still functioning.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 04:42 am
So quickly we forget the flaws in Bill Clinton's presidency.

We should be going forward, not backwards.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 05:00 am
roger wrote:
I don't doubt for a minute that Bill is still functioning.


rog- How DID you mean that???? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 05:57 am
ebrown_p wrote:


We should be going forward, not backwards.


Monica tried both, repeatedly going forward and backwards. She failed. But that was using her head mind you.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Mar, 2008 12:03 pm
Well, you know, Phoenix. Functional.

Anyway, I think we've already experienced that toofer bargain before.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 01:04 am
Wouldn't it be something to repeat the good times of the Clinton Era I after Bush II?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 07:11 am
Re: Clinton is a bargain - two for the price of one
talk72000 wrote:
Hillary is no slouch as she was president of her own law firm.


Which law firm would that be? Funny that she never mentions it...

(She was a partner in the Rose law firm. She was never President and never ran any law firm of her own.)
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 04:24 pm
If she is a partner that means she part owner and run things.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 05:13 pm
Another Bill Clinton Moment On The Campaign Trail
March 21, 2008 04:23 PM

by Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
Adding a bit of fuel to the political fire, Bill Clinton made a bizarre comment on Friday, leaving the impression that he believed Barack Obama's patriotism would be a general election issue.

MSNBC is reporting that on the campaign trail today in Charlotte, North Carolina, the former president said a general election matchup between his wife, Sen. Clinton, and Sen. John McCain would be between "two people who love this country" without "all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

It's difficult to determine exactly what Clinton meant by this. Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said the former president was not implying that Obama didn't love America. As for "this other stuff," that Clinton referred to? He was talking about "the politics of personal destruction," said Wolfson. "He was lamenting that these kind of distractions 'always seems to intrude' on our politics."

Not everyone had the same interpretation. MSNBC, for example, was quick to suggest that the former president was implying there were doubts about Obama's patriotism, and that those doubts would play a role in the general election. Which seems, on its face, hardly a stretch.

However, President Clinton also seems to be suggesting that his wife would be immune to swift-boat like attacks; a supposition that does not seem terribly likely.

Recently on the campaign, the former president has made remarks that have been a bit unpredictable. Days ago, he complimented McCain as a bipartisan, war hero and a tough general election foe. Not "but"s included. Days before that, he was touting a Sen. Hillary Clinton-Obama pairing as an electoral "dream ticket," even though his wife's own campaign was making the case that Obama was not ready to serve as commander-in-chief.

Here is the full quote: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." video
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 05:37 pm
Ther are 2 sides to every argument (and not three)
pick up or select your choice among the two.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 06:11 pm
talk72000 wrote:
If she is a partner that means she part owner and run things.


Partner does not, and never has, been the same as President which was your original over-inflated claim.

There is no indication that she has ever held any position of authority within the firm. She was not the CEO or Chair. For that matter, I'm not even sure she was an equity partner and had any voting rights within the firm. But I'm sure her years of working on Patent Infringement and Intellectual Property law will help her lots. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 06:25 pm
fishin:

I have not checked her background on the law firm but my understanding of a business would be that if there is partner there is ownership otherwise she would be just an employee. The partnership is could be a franchise, corporation or just plain unlimited company.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 06:35 pm
My view is this
Among the 3 available contestants
to occupy the White house
none will refurbish USA's shattered image
V R fed up with U .
Rama
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:35 am
talk72000 wrote:
fishin:

I have not checked her background on the law firm but my understanding of a business would be that if there is partner there is ownership otherwise she would be just an employee. The partnership is could be a franchise, corporation or just plain unlimited company.



Your admission that you have no idea what you are talking about comes as no surprise...
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:40 pm
talk72000, these links might help you understand the nature of the term "partner" in a law firm and the different versions of structuring the partnerships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_firm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Law_Firm
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:28 pm
Thanks Butterfly:

I don't see any need to snoop on Hillary. Being a partner is generally a part owner but there no indication of the financial structure the law firm she was in. The responsibility is still there.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:39 pm
Simply awesome.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Clinton is a bargain - two for the price of one
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 09:19:35