The Clinton Thread

[Tron5000]

Not only did she know "her husband was a lying adulterer," but she is also harboring a rapist. Does the name Juanita Broaddrick ring any bells?

 

[Marx]

While I agree it is a tasteless and tactless question to ask, I don't think its an unfair or unreasonable question to ask. The questions addresses Hillary's character and leadership ability in times of personal weaknesses and how these personal weaknesses may impact the public domain. While Monica was a 10-year old affair for bill, it demonstrated a personal weakness in Bill Clinton that tainted his presidency forever, it's unlikely as time progresses he'll ever be ranked in top half best presidents considering his impeachment. First, he had a personal problem (or "addiction") he could not control that allowed him to violate his marriage vows (which he's been doing for years as governor). His personal problems allowed him to sexually take advantage of several employees of the government, creating several conflicts of interests and inappropriate relationships that can taint the confidence in public policy decisions he's made. Because of his problems, he had to lie about it and coerced others to lie which became a public distraction. He put others including Monica in legal jeapordy. He further undermined the confidence and trust the American people had in his words.

Think of it this way. Is the fact that someone is privately a compulsive gambler the business of a boss at work? If it impacts the work the gambler does, then yes. Clinton's affair impacted his work in the White House and lead to a public distraction that cost the American people millions of dollars.

I understand this is about Hillary and not about Bill, but Hillary's response to spouse's infedlities does suggest things about her character. She knew her husband was lying adulterer..her decision to paint herself and her husband as victims of some conspiracy when they're actually lying about something that he actually commited shows you have to question everything she says or does and that her character may lead to scenarios that can easily create a distraction in the White House.

After wading through all of the "he did this, he did that," it was nice to see you finally mention that this is about Hillary and not Bill. I'm not entirely sure you believe that to be the case though. The fact that a woman decides to stand by her husband, for only reasons that she knows, has no bearing on this campaign.

I fail to see your argument that the Lewinsky scandal somehow questions Hillary Clinton's credibility and leadership skills. Whether or not you want to admit it, Bill Clinton was the target of a republican headhunt. Should he have lied under oath about his extracurriculars? No.

But I have grown tired of people trying to throw that woman into this campaign. (With all due respect to you Sent.)

 

[SentinelMind]

After wading through all of the "he did this, he did that," it was nice to see you finally mention that this is about Hillary and not Bill. I'm not entirely sure you believe that to be the case though. The fact that a woman decides to stand by her husband, for only reasons that she knows, has no bearing on this campaign.

I fail to see your argument that the Lewinsky scandal somehow questions Hillary Clinton's credibility and leadership skills. Whether or not you want to admit it, Bill Clinton was the target of a republican headhunt. Should he have lied under oath about his extracurriculars? No.

But I have grown tired of people trying to throw that woman into this campaign. (With all due respect to you Sent.)

Oh, I admit Bill Clinton had enemies that hated his guts. Politicians will always have enemies. The fact that he was the target of a Republican headhunt does not negate the fact that he allowed his habit of "extracurriculars" to complicate and convolute professional relationship with several employees that created unnecessary animosity, legal conflicts, and public distractions both in and outside of government. Subordinates have to lie about relationship, cover up for others,..some will feel intimidated to lie because they don't want to lose their job,...they'll have to lie about when and where they met, people who have nothing to do with the affair now have to create alibis to protect others. If Monica was the first time, maybe I could see your argument, but when someone has a habit of sleeping around with co-workers or abusing power with subordinates like Bill Clinton did, especially after some of them threatened to publicy humiliate him, it was bound to catch up with him. It was just a matter of time. His decision to lie under oath is his own fault, nobody else but his own.... He could have answered the question honestly. He could have avoided engaging in conspiracies.

I'm not questioning Hillary's decision to stand by her man personally. But she played a role in Bill Clinton's escapades and covered for him that had legal ramifications. It's fair game to question the character of someone who is willing to cover for other people's personal weaknesses and lies that have legal ramifications. If she's willing to do that for Bill as First Lady, what else would she cover for as President, since we all know Bill Clinton would play a very active role as an advisor for Hillary in the white ?House.

 

[Marx]

Oh, I admit Bill Clinton had enemies that hated his guts. Politicians will always have enemies. The fact that he was the target of a Republican headhunt does not negate the fact that he allowed his habit of "extracurriculars" to complicate and convolute professional relationship with several employees that created unnecessary animosity, legal conflicts, and public distractions both in and outside of government. Subordinates have to lie about relationship, cover up for others,..some will feel intimidated to lie because they don't want to lose their job,...they'll have to lie about when and where they met, people who have nothing to do with the affair now have to create alibis to protect others. If Monica was the first time, maybe I could see your argument, but when someone has a habit of sleeping around with co-workers or abusing power with subordinates like Bill Clinton did, especially after some of them threatened to publicy humiliate him, it was bound to catch up with him. It was just a matter of time. His decision to lie under oath is his own fault, nobody else but his own.... He could have answered the question honestly. He could have avoided engaging in conspiracies.

I'm not questioning Hillary's decision to stand by her man personally. But she played a role in Bill Clinton's escapades and covered for him that had legal ramifications. It's fair game to question the character of someone who is willing to cover for other people's personal weaknesses and lies that have legal ramifications. If she's willing to do that for Bill as First Lady, what else would she cover for as President, since we all know Bill Clinton would play a very active role as an advisor for Hillary in the white ?House.

I understand what you're saying Sent. But put yourself in her position - would you throw your own husband under the bus?

 

[SentinelMind]

^To be President of the United States, you have to rise to the occassion. Life's not fair, there's no easy do-over, you have to suffer consequences of your actions. Hillary chose to stick by her man and cover for her man, I'm not personally condemning that. Not saying most people would or should throw their spouse under the bus. But it clearly demonstrates that when there is a conflict between personal infidelities/mistakes and professonal conduct, she will succumb to covering/making excuses for the infidelities, personal problems (like the whole lying about Bosnia trip). If she bowed out of public domain after that....then it would be gravy. But she's running for President now...her decisions to cover for a spouse and play dumb or play the victim is fair game to be questioned because those same types conflicts and scenarios where a spouse's personal problems may jeapordize the operations of professional conduct may happen again if she were to become President. If she couldn't rise to the occassion then, how can we expect her to rise to the occassion now? How do we know she won't feel even more comfortable for covering for him in the future?

 

[Memphis Slim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxvi2EXc1Wc&NR=1


This is why the kid at Butler asked whether Hillary's credibility had been hurt by the Monica debacle. Hill comes out and blames the "right-wing"
...basically lying about what she knew to be the truth....

Many did think (and still do) that this has dogged her cred. If she wants our votes, she needs to answer our questions.

The kid didn't ask a "personal" question. He didn't ask if Hill slapped Bill or if she cussed him out.

He asked if the public had soured on her because of that problem.

 

[Zen]

People, especially on this forum, have been complaining that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, more people in the Democratic Party will not vote for her than if Obama was the nominee. Those polls indicate that more of Clinton's supporters will flat-out refuse to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Which means Obama is at least as much of or more of a divisive figure than Clinton.

all those combined people make me sad. i can only hope that the reality that will bear out from the convention to november will resonate more with those folks than the sibling rivalry that could scream in their head that their candidate would have done better... so they sabotage the party and their morals (not all of them, i remember your post Jman, but IMO most of them) in the wake of a seething democratic primary that caused everyone to personally feel attacked by the success of the other candidate back and forth to the convention

 

[Abaddon]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

It's really inappropriate to ask a child about her father's affair.

 

[Memphis Slim]

It's really inappropriate to ask a child about her father's affair.

He didn't ask about Monica. He asked about Hillary's credibility in light of that!

 

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.

His question was very clear. Chelsea wasn't gonna answer regardless.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe he should have made his question more clear if that was the case, because he didn't bring any of that up when he asked the question.

His question was very clear. Chelsea wasn't gonna answer regardless.

 

[Addendum]

Nor does she have to. The question was much better suited for Hillary, since she's running and it's about her credibility.

 

[Abaddon]

He didn't ask about Monica. He asked about Hillary's credibility in light of that!

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?

 

[Tron5000]

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?

If her parents have trusted her with a role in the campaign answering questions about her parents, then they have trusted her to field questions responsibly and truthfully. Perhaps they should've handed out "What Can Be Asked, What Is Off Limits" information to the media. Don't ask your kid to enter the dirty game of politics and expect her to emerge with no mud.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Why is there even a need to mention Lewinsky name at all? I thought Bill was impeached because he lied about the affair, not because he had one. And how is Chelsea even supposed to answer that?

The kid did not mention Monica.....the subject of his question was Hillary...not Monica.


Did you even watch the clip?

 

[Memphis Slim]

Nor does she have to. The question was much better suited for Hillary, since she's running and it's about her credibility.

If she is asking for their votes, she does.

 

[Memphis Slim]

If her parents have trusted her with a role in the campaign answering questions about her parents, then they have trusted her to field questions responsibly and truthfully. Perhaps they should've handed out "What Can Be Asked, What Is Off Limits" information to the media. Don't ask your kid to enter the dirty game of politics and expect her to emerge with no mud.

BINGO.....and she's not a child anymore....

 

[Tron5000]

BINGO.....and she's not a child anymore....

Hell no she's not. Chick's 30, and what the hell has she ever done in her life that would make me care the least bit about her opinion? Absolutely nothing.

Dude, we need to hang out some time. Find a reason to come down to GA and let's really piss some people off.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Hell no she's not. Chick's 30, and what the hell has she ever done in her life that would make me care the least bit about her opinion? Absolutely nothing.

Dude, we need to hang out some time. Find a reason to come down to GA and let's really piss some people off.

 

[Tron5000]

According to some around here, that would be an impossibility.

"A white dude from the South agreeing ideologically with a black man? Can't be!"

Everyone knows we're all just racist folk who kill animals in our spare time (Michael Vick included) and attend Klan rallies in between our gay-hating extremist church services.

 

[Abaddon]

Tron, I'm not saying that the question shouldn't be allowed. But aside from being socially inappropriate, how the hell is she supposed to answer that?

The kid did not mention Monica.....the subject of his question was Hillary...not Monica.


Did you even watch the clip?

You're talking about the first guy or the second? Because the first guy clearly referenced Lewinsky. Any clip i've seen of the second incident only showed her reaction to being asked pretty much the same question. And both have more to do with her father then any of the 3.

 

[Tron5000]

Tron, I'm not saying that the question shouldn't be allowed. But aside from being socially inappropriate, how the hell is she supposed to answer that?



You're talking about the first guy or the second? Because the first guy clearly referenced Lewinsky. Any clip i've seen of the second incident only showed her reaction to being asked pretty much the same question. And both have more to do with her father then any of the 3.

i don't know how she's supposed to handle it. But if her parents put her out there, they need a battle plan for every conceivable question that could be asked of her.

You can't get out there and act as a surrogate and say, "I will answer questions that fall into Category A, but Category B is off limits." Either you answer the questions or you don't allow yourself to be put in that position. It's like when Mark McGwire set himself up by agreeing to answer questions to Congress, then says, "I'm not here to talk about the past." Well, the events of the past have a connection to the events of the future. If Chelsea does not want to answer certain questions, if she only wants softballs instead of fastballs lobbed at her, she should not be involved in this campaign to the degree that she is.

 

[Abaddon]

Well she's not the one running for office either, so if some people feel those questions should be asked then they're looking at the wrong person.

 

[Tron5000]

Well she's not the one running for office either, so if some people feel those questions should be asked then they're looking at the wrong person.

No, if she is a spokesperson for the Hillary Rodham campaign, she should field the questions. Otherwise she should just stay home and not be involved.

This strikes me as a clever ploy by the Clinton family. They know that journalists (before the General Election) will not grill Hillary on this matter, so they send their precious little girl out there to take the questions and tell the big mean reporter man that he shouldn't ask for Chelsea's opinion on such personal matters. When in fact, the decisions that one makes in times of personal crisis have great bearing on the issue of where their moral compass will lie when it comes to matters of national security vs personal protection.