The Argument I wish they had had in Iowa

[Perky]

We have already had years of the Co-presidents Clinton, Doesn't the Constitution bar them from running again?

Response: Bill Clinton's role will not be that of a co-president.

Response: Sure and Hillary just stayed home and baked cookies.

If HRC was in fact and an active, engaged ambassador and counselor to the president "with portfolio" as she seems to suggest qualifies her for the presidency, then how big a role will Bill play in policy?

If Hillary's role was, on the other hand, not nearly that substantive during her husband's tenure then are her claims of being the most experienced somewhat disingenuous?

My real question is why this argument has not played out on the Campaign trail?

[Didereaux]

1. too full of false premises.

[Perky]

3. such as?

[Didereaux]

6. see msg #5 for the main one

[OKNancy]

2. Because it would fall flat

Most Democrats really like Bill Clinton.

[Perky]

4. More than Hillary?

[ZombieHorde]

5. well...

The reason that this has not played out on the campaign trail is because it is not legally true. HRC was never the co-president of the U.S. because the U.S. does not have a co-president. Even if she did all of the duties that one would think that a co-president would do, she can still legally be president.

[Perky]

7. Well obviously....I was thinking obviously of Bill's statement

That the american people get two for the price of one.