Quote:
Originally Posted by ottyhotties
Agree with you more or less then; but I would note Bill Clinton had his attack dog in Hillary (vast right wing conspiracy stuff) and she became the lightening rod in their political team, while Bill then could act above the fray. You still can't win in politics without dividing up the camps and the Clintons played up the divisions as good as anyone ever did.
As for this thread and how Bill Clinton got brought up; comparing Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) to Sarah Palin doesn't make sense at all to me even with both having been governors. I might not agree with Bill Clinton all that much but the man was truly a brilliant, smart man.
|
For sure Clinton had Hilary as his attack dog. That is how it works. The presidential candidate has someone on the team that can attack and they can stay above it all and "not endorse" what the attack dog is saying.
Palin kind of played that role for McCain. The problem with doing that is if you lose and then want to run for office yourself you are married to those statements. Some of that stuff Hilary said, literally 16+ years ago was brought back up during this last election. With Palin it so soon after the last election that she and some of the stuff she said and did is still right out there in the public's recent memory.