Hillary Clinton 2012 Watch (No. 2 in a Series) -- Bill Helps McCain on the Housing Crisis

If the Mayan calendar is not correct, then Hillary will have two choices in 2012. Either run against a sitting President or accept his invitation for her to become a Supreme Court justice.
If she waits until 2016, and the country's finances have not relegated us to 2nd or 3rd world status by that time, she would have a very good chance at being POTUS 45.

Hey nancy, thank you for proving my point. I contend that the Clintons would be "disowned" by many many democrats, especially black democrats, if there is the perception, warranted or not, that they somehow sabatoged Obams election. That perception could be born simply by not doing anything, or not enough. They are the victims of the parties own tactics, ie, "you better do what we say or we'll cyr any number of things activism" that we routinely see from the radical left. That why Jake made this post.

J. SOrry I missed the POPE remark you refer to so I cant comment. Enlighten me i you wish.

The Clintons need to watch themselves. Democrates will turn their backs on them because their pure selfishness of "ME" before "COUNTRY" is so evident. Bill's bitterness is evident. His fear that Obama will outshine him is evident. I'm a Democrat who would NEVER vote for Hillary if she costs Obama this election. The Clintons are so obvious and they should be ashamed. The Democratic party should be able to have some control over them. Do the Clintons think the party elite will forgive them?

Any Democratic skeptics who were watching Clinton's Florida speeches today for any signs of lingering bitterness against Obama came away empty-handed:

"The Obama/Biden ticket, and particularly Senator Obama, have a better philosophy, better answers, better understanding, better advisers, a better vice presidential candidate, and a better plan for Florida. ... This is not close, folks. It is not a close question."

wake up people, so as not to discourage you, i know you are growing. but you have proven that once again Pope' comment was and still is correct.

dr david hill check this out.

basic answer to your question is that there was heavy pressure to ignore the situation on the theory that it would impede "affordable housing" for the poor, i.e,people who trditionally would not qualify for loans based on proven lending practices.

Now is this the AXIOM of economics or what.
Giving all this easy credit to unqualified people in the name of "affordable housing" fueled an unprecedented housing boom, which , created huge demand for all kinds of products which requires huge amounts of petroleum to produce and deliver and created lots of jobs and in the US, that at times there werent enough people to fill, thus promoting illegal immigration, which increased demand for social services and even more affordable housing, and the bubble grew until, BOOM, oil prices went through the roof, the housing proved to be not so "affordable" especially for the poor who got those loans, and the system couldnt sustain itself. Now, the root of the problem was the Loans themselves that created the demand taht fueled the boom and the crash.
The "affordable housing" loans for the poor people eventually drove prices so high that they were buying houses they couldnt afford simply because they could. Something had to give, and OIL popped the thing.

The lesson:

We just tried to build the economy from the ground up, and it didnt work. The foundation it was built on crumbled.

Please tell that to Barack Obama. Please tell him that people that have money, that manage money well, that invest, that innovate, are the ones who create jobs that last.

Trickle down sounds stupid, but trickle up defies logic and the laws of gravity.

J. Your babbling. Your incoherent. You dont get it do you. If barack loses, this is what you will here.

A.)It because whites are racist and wont vote for a black man

B) The Clintons didn't do enough, and Bill even helped the McCain campagn by praising him.

or even more likely
C.) This election was stolen AGAIN.

D.)ABC, not the network,but A,B and C. : ) Lets smash some stuff and loot.

The clintons have to act like they support Obama, and hope he loses. Its that simple, or they will share the blame IF he loses. People are already crying that they arent doing enough, including the person from ABC who made this post FOR THAT VERY REASON DUH!

So, if they show a little more public support, and Obama loses, then nobody has an excuse to not vote for Hillary in 2012, let alone blame the Clintons. Dont you get it?

If you think Bill and Hillary want Obama to win this election, your a fool.

Living in a Box.
Thats my opinion. Its A socialist let the government run your life and make you dependants on the system cuz you cant think for yourself box. When you have to depend on the government to survive< PERMANENTLY, for no other reason than its convenient, then you ARE TRAPPED. The dems, and OBAMA are enablers of this mind set in their Peter Pan approach to economics. The lure of easy money, taken from one group of people and given to another, is hard to resist, but it will get votes from almost everybody who qualifies for the easy money. Thats the Box that the DEMS policy has built. Hate to say this, but an economy cant be built from the bottom up. I have envy of every rich person out there too, but I dont think they owe me a free living. Social programs are the reason for this countrys debt, and our Energy Policy is a perfect example of what being dependant on somebody else for a necessity will get you. Welfare is Crack. Vote for me and I'll give you some more. OIL is crack. We have to beg for more because were addicted to somebody elses product. Well, why dont they just give it to us free!!! It wouldnt work, we wouldnt have any incentive to conserve, look for alternative sources,explore for our own sources etc. Same thing happens when you give an individual something for nothing PERMANENTLY, as in its my right, you owe me etc.. Thats entitlement and they use it to get votes, and keep people in the box. I understand temporary programs, unemployment, housing programs for poor people etc, food programs. But we need more programs that get people off the system and into the work force. More Energy and infrastructure here at home, funded by private enterprise, but ALLOWED BY CONGRESS, would go alon way towards that. Thats what repulicans are trying to tell people. The dems wont let the people have access to our resources, keeping us,as a nation of oil dependent bufoons. Im sorry. Im babbling. But thats the box Im talking about. Keeping people down by promoting dependancy.

To Pacific Moderate:

Following info is from Wikipedia:
Paul Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates.
However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression, and Volcker's Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building.

Ted, you are wrong about Paul Volcker. He did not "wreck the economy under Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. In fact he served as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board from August 1979 to August 1987, mostly during the Reagan years. He is widely credited for getting a handle on the stagflation that the country experienced in the 1970s. I'm glad that he's on Senator Obama's team of economic advisors, and will take one of him to 100 Carly Fiorinas any day.

Politicians are principally to blame for the impending financial collapse of the World Economy

Why is it that governments around the world did nothing until financial death was knocking on the door?
For they were told at least five years ago about the dire state of the international financial markets. In this respect clear examples of this knowledge that they had at the time were,

In 2003 the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the forthcoming financial collapse if Fannie Mae's activities were not reined in. The government did nothing and Fannie Mae was allowed to continue operating until only last month, some five-years after the warning from the US’s top banker was given. Indeed, the 30% of mortgages in the US, which are toxic mortgages, equates to losses for the banks of $3.1 trillion. Therefore how could politicians overlook such a failure it has to be asked? The only answer can be incompetence and complacency at the highest level.
In 2006 the Bank for International Settlements, the world's most prestigious financial body and the central banker’s ultimate bank, stated that the financial world was in a diabolical state and that it had to change its current ways and activities. No government throughout the world intervened until it is was too late and where caution was not on the agenda for them just a mere two years ago.
Clearly therefore it is the politicians who are to blame for all the mess that we all now find ourselves and due to them not taking any action years ago. Indeed, the dire problems that we are now starting to witness are a direct result of their total complacency for years and where eventually it will cause the worst financial crash that we have ever witnessed. For this is already transferring into the economy and where the wheels of industry are now steadily but surely starting to slow to a full stop.

It is not only the bankers therefore who need sorting out but their bed pals the politicians as well. For both have made enormous financial benefit out of this unprecedented, irresponsibility and appalling personal greed.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)
Bern, Switzerland

Bill and Hillary Clinton will be voting for McCain. His victory will help Hillary run for President in 2012. A Obama win will end it for Hillary until 2016-if not forever.

Hillary was winning in the last three months of the primaries anyway, by large margins in many states. From her big victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on March 4th all the way to the last primary in South Dakota, Hillary put together a coalition of voters that would win a November election. She doesn't have to get everyone to vote for her. Enough Americans recognize what a fine President she would be.

She can do it again in 2012!

also wake up people.

on the living in a box deal.

do i have the honor of finally tipping the scale for you.
what you had been thinking it all along,
but it was just your good fortune that i logged on and you read my comment, and my comments finally proved the box deal, you are talking about?-that is funny.

wake up people YOU said hillary can forget the presidency in 2012, if bill does not start supporting obama more now.
you said bill needs to do more,
i asked you what he has to say.
and now you say there is nothing he can say?
so YOU say bill needs to say more
but YOU also say there is nothing bill can say.

Come on J. Black people vote their emotions. They stick to their guns especially when skin color comes into play. Merraim Barry, Jefferson (80k in the freeser), and Nagin, come to mind, THey RE-ELECT crack heads,corrupt and incompetent politiions just because they are black. Blacks are one of the BEST ethnic groups at any kind of protest. All it takes is one prominent figure, say Jesse Jackson, to call for action and its over. So I say, if one person says dont vote for the clintons cause they sabataged Barack, it will be exactly that. Blacks vote theri skin color when its an option, regardless of the history of the candidate. And that is theri right by the way, but dont deny it.

As far as what I would like clinton to say. Honestly? Hes waffling. Ask any left wing show host or Chris Rock. Today he was at a rally in Florida, so he may be stepping it up. I dont care what he says as long as he honest. It jsut seems that people on the left get mad when Bill speaks the truth in a non partisan way as opposed to slamming John McCain. He can be Pro Obams without slamming McCain. WHy is hate speech always demanded by the left?
I call a spade a spade. I see racism, I call it, not create it. I see biased, I call it. I see pandering, I call it. I want to vote for the best candidate, but its hard to see one when everything is blame blame blame and vitimization and crying like babies because a former president isnt falling in line, at least not fast enough.

You just proved something to me too. The black community is "brainwashed" perhaps forever, that they can only vote democratic, that the democrats are the only party that can EVER help them. You basically said that in your post J. Thats living in a box. Start thinking outside the box.

Jake1: Your right and I am voting for McCain. I am already aware of the fact that this country would go into a disaster and possibly another 1929 depression. Obama doesn't have enough experience in politics or foreign policy for being in the senate three years. We don't need a VP running the country instead of the president and if Obama is elected that's what we might get. Whereas McCain is well qualified and so is Palin. Obama never ran anything in his lifetime only what he is running for now.

mp, palin has even less experience that obama, so if mccain has to go into hosp.
who will be running the country for her?

and by the way, you will see only poor black hurting themselves more.
the clinton' will be alright no matter what. so to say blacks will not vote for them, as payback, is the height of foolishness. so she does not win (if she runs)
blacks are hoping she will run, just so they can-not vote for her.
life gets tuffer for them,
welfare, no jobs, no college for kids,
but at least they paid that old Hillary clinton back. Is that the way you see this happening in 2012, wake up people?

j: It doesn't matter who is the VP for Obama he wouldn't be running the country anyway his VP would. He lacks all experience in politics and foreign policy and had three days of training for the debate. With three years as a senator he shouldn't need any training. When he went on that European tour all he did was sit down for about l/2 hour and he was out to visit another leader. Palin can do the same thing. Biden has already done it. This debate tomorrow night will attack millions and millions of people and I believe because of Palin not Biden. When Palin made her speech at the convention she got 50 million viewers and outshined Obama.

wake up people,
what could the clinton' do to satisfy you?
if you could turn on your tv, see bill clinton, and wave a magic wand. what would you have him say?