Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: MEM
Hillary however was & has been part of the Clinton team. She's been there working all along campaigning for her husband & played an active role in the White House...She was an integral part of making Clinton a politically bankable name.


Even if that were true, it doesn't change what I wrote one whit. Do you really think that, for example, DeeDee Myers, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright or any other Clinton advisor/staffer could have waltzed into a Senate seat from a state they didn't live in? Or are you now going to denigrate their roles and claim that they weren't intregral and active parts of his administration?

And, also, BSAMS is right.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


"Even if that were true" So you think it might not be true? Do you feel she was just around for the ride? This to me is you being vague because you know it is true.


As noted earlier, people are disputing her claims of influence on the WH foreign policy. Furthermore, as others, including Obama, have pointed out, Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't take all the credit for her husband's policies and then pretend she was just "along for the ride" when something is politically unpopular with the Democrat base, like NAFTA.

But we'll never agree on this so rather than derail the thread on a side issue, I simply pointed out that, even if you're right (and I don't think you are) it doesn't diminish my other points.

 Quote:
unlike the others, Hillary was right there at the beginning of her husband's carreer palying an active role all along...very much a partner in her husband's political career.


That description is true of most political wives. You might as well tell us that Laura Bush should be running to replace Spitzer as NY Governor.

But, most importantly, the simple fact of the matter is that she wouldn't have any of that alleged influence or experience in the Clinton White House if she hadn't married Bill.