What part of Hillary's "campaign" will she relegate to Bill?

[neoblues]

Seems to me that she could let Bill do a significant part of her campaigning; with his political, speaking and people skills and his popularity and fame, there's a great demand for his appearances (each of which would be strong draws for not just Democrats). I'm just saying he could be a powerful part of her campaign; yet...

It could be problematic in some ways. It raises Republican resistance (as they want to hate him; though they might hate him less than his wife). It might "upstage" Hillary herself (though she's a powerful personal and public presence herself); or at least her campaign might have some concern that that might be a potential effect in some cases.

Still, I can almost imagine the two of them running almost "as one"; instead of Hillary for President all by herself, a "Hillary & Bill" for President, where Bill, wouldn't be a formal co-President--but maybe an "informal" one? I mean an expected role, something much more than a particularly 'active' "First spouse" (beyond the "First Man" role, though still informal**). If he were seen as backing up her Presidency--bringing his skills, experience, advice and support to an almost formal degree--a part of the package, I wonder if Hillary would be seen as being perhaps a little more comfortably accepted by some percentage of the people out there who aren't comfortable with a "woman" President (misguided souls to be sure, but they do exist)?

Will he or could he be a profoundly significant help to her campaign? Thus far he's remained somewhat in the background, but will that change? Will she use him to his full potential/effect as such--or use him but only strategically? Should she or should she not? Should she consider allowing the image of him being an informal but real part of her inner Presidency?

**though, no doubt, Bill could play many exceptionally valuable roles as "First Man"...

[delphinium]

1. Good questions

I think early on, at least, he'll be in the background as an important adviser. This is her candidacy, and she wants people to judge her on her qualifications, etc., not as an appendage of him.

[Skink]

2. Water boy

[aquart]

3. So far, none of it.

And nice smear, implying that she can't stand alone. Good work.

On edit: I just noticed that "campaign" is in quotes. Now that, I'm afraid, is unworthy. I take back "good work."

[neoblues]

4. No smear, and none intended.

You're rather sensitive it seems; as well as aggressively searching for any potential doubter of Hillary (even unto imagining meanings that were neither said nor inferred).

If anything, what's being said is that not only is she a strong candidate, with Bill behind her she could be almost a doubly strong one. The question being how she will take advantage of him as a part of her campaign.

I do see, though, how you might infer that I was being insulting as I did put "campaign" in quotes; smear being a common reason for using quotes (ie. Bush is "President"). Alas, I've gotten sloppy in my writing, sometimes using quotes to "emphasis" things. You caught me. However, nowhere did I say anything that suggests Hillary couldn't manage without Bill (as in fact she has not utilized him thus far, it's obvious he's not necessary). So it seems the misuse of the quotes biased your interpretation of the rest of the post; that too is perfectly natural.

Your interpretation of either my intent or the product of my writing alone, being whatever it is, for whatever reason, is evidence enough that I failed in at least one case to achieve my purpose and communicate successfully. Alas, that happens from time to time.

Anyway, do you think that Bill could, in his own right, be a significant boon to Hillary's campaign? If so, to what extent do you think Hillary will utilize him? To those who doubt a woman for President, do you think the idea of Bill firmly being a close assistant/advisor/supporter of Hillary would help allay their fears? Could Bill indeed be a useful advisor, beyond performing exceptionally in the traditional role of "First" mate? If so, could that not make a Hillary Presidency appear all the more capable?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

6. Fundraiser

Its his best contribution.
Otherwise he should step aside and let her sink or swim.

[saltpoint]

7. Intern recruiting, I think, can be ruled out.

[neoblues]

8. Heh, Heh...

I suspect he's rather learned his lesson in that regard--by means of a sort of aversion therapy (where one is subjected to great pain/unpleasant stimuli when one engages in a certain behavior)(his was a many-million dollar campaign to impeach him; and subsequent treatments by the press, public opinion and Hillary).

[saltpoint]

9. I bet you're right. I supported other Democrats in the 1992 primaries

and was lukewarm to Bill Clinton's presidency until the Starr investigations began generally and the Lewinsky story broke particularly.

My appreciation of Bill Clinton rises correspondent to the number of Republican yahoos like Henry Hyde who sought to drive him from office over a sex fib.

[AJH032]

10. "campaign"?

just curious, why is campaign in " " ? Is it to imply that it's somehow not a real campaign?

[neoblues]

12. No meaning; Sloppy writing; Apologies to All...

As mentioned in reply #4.

"I do see, though, how you might infer that I was being insulting as I did put "campaign" in quotes; smear being a common reason for using quotes (ie. Bush is "President"). Alas, I've gotten sloppy in my writing, sometimes using quotes to "emphasis" things. You caught me."

Edit: Oh dear, I see I had even misspelled "emphasize" (dang, there I go "quoting" things again)...

[k_jerome]

11. nice "post" nt.

[neoblues]

13. "Oops"...

As for the "quotes"... See Reply #12.