Obama will not have a Lewinsky scandal

[Kozmik]

What will be the effect of this hypothetical for the 2012 election?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both Democrats, both are Presidents who contended with economic policy, both had political battles with Republicans; Clinton in 1994 onward, Obama in 2010 onward, Clinton had the post-World War II economic expansion; Obama had the post-9/11 economic crisis.

What will it mean for the electorate in 2012 if they believe Obama will not have a Lewinsky scandal? And, as a corollary, what will it mean for the electorate in 2012 if they believe Obama will have a Lewinsky scandal? Assume that a 'Lewinsky scandal' shall only occur in a President's second term.

Republicans, Tea Party members will admit that Clinton had an effective economic policy. Those same voters will claim that Obama has a failed economic policy.

What is the difference ultimately between Clinton and Obama: Lewinsky.

[Bryan Ekers]

I figure if the American public lets itself get mired in another vapid Lewisnki-ish circus (though I don't expect Obama will get embroiled in one), they deserve another lousy follow-up president.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

What will be the effect of this hypothetical for the 2012 election?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both Democrats, both are Presidents who contended with economic policy, both had political battles with Republicans; Clinton in 1994 onward, Obama in 2010 onward, Clinton had the post-World War II economic expansion; Obama had the post-9/11 economic crisis.

What will it mean for the electorate in 2012 if they believe Obama will not have a Lewinsky scandal? And, as a corollary, what will it mean for the electorate in 2012 if they believe Obama will have a Lewinsky scandal? Assume that a 'Lewinsky scandal' shall only occur in a President's second term.

Republicans, Tea Party members will admit that Clinton had an effective economic policy. Those same voters will claim that Obama has a failed economic policy.

What is the difference ultimately between Clinton and Obama: Lewinsky.

Do you really think that Clinton and Obama's opponents really care about these issues? Their concern is getting any Democrat out of office and replacing him with a Republican. In furtherance of that goal, they'll use whatever looks like it'll work.

Look at Vietnam. In 1992 and 1996, we were told it was terrible how Clinton had avoided military service and it was unthinkable that anyone would vote for him against a veteran like Bush or Dole. It was a matter of principle not party.

Now go ahead to 2000 and 2004. Were any of those same people saying that it was unthinkable to vote for Bush against a veteran like Gore or Kerry? No, suddenly that principle was not longer important.

It's tough to take a claim of how important and timeless a principle is seriously when you constantly see them being raised and discarded as needed. It'd be a lot more believable if these people would just come out and say "We think you should elect a Republican because we think the Republican Party platform is better. That's what we thought last election and it's what we're going to think next election."

[Recovering Republican]

As a matter of voting, I don't think it makes a difference. Most Americans knew Clinton was a womanizer going in. The people who should have griped about it loudest didn't care as long as he was keeping abortion legal by appointing activists to the Supreme Court.

And you wonder why most women don't want to be called "Feminists" today?

If Clinton had Obama's economy in 1998, he'd have been impeached, and his own party would have joined in the fun.

Now, I don't think Obama will have a "Lewinsky Scandal". Every indication is that he's either a devoted family man, or if he does play around, he's pretty discreet. I do think there is other scandal potential out there for him. How long in prison before Blago or Tony Rezko decide to break bad on this guy?

But his bad economy will probably do him in long before then... so those guys will probably get their pardons in January, 2013.

[Marley23]

I'm not sure where this discussion is supposed to go. All administrations have scandals and controversies, but I don't think Obama is likely to have the kind of personal scandal Clinton did (he had a reputation for skirt-chasing that went back before he was nominated). I don't think people base their vote on the likelihood of a scandal. They base it on the scandals that have already happened.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

How long in prison before Blago or Tony Rezko decide to break bad on this guy?

[Electorate] Who? [/Electorate]

[Chronos]

How long in prison before Blago or Tony Rezko decide to break bad on this guy?

About half a day. Seriously, you think that if Blago had some dirt on Obama, he wouldn't have blabbed it immediately? Now, the fact that he hasn't blabbed doesn't prove that there isn't any dirt on Obama, but it does at least prove that there isn't any that Blago knows about.

[Marley23]

Right. There's never been a serious (non-hyper-partisan) reason to think Obama and Blagojevich were close. Obama always seemed to avoid the guy- perhaps because Blagojevich was an obvious sleaze or perhaps because Blagojevich thought he should be the one with a shot at becoming president, which made them competitors in his mind.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

As a matter of voting, I don't think it makes a difference. Most Americans knew Clinton was a womanizer going in. The people who should have griped about it loudest didn't care as long as he was keeping abortion legal by appointing activists to the Supreme Court.

And you wonder why most women don't want to be called "Feminists" today?

That's Limbaugh-logic, right there.


Anyhoo, the way the American system is set up these days, impeachment rumblings will sound for any president, whether he screws up or not, because impeachment is now viewed as a ploy an opposition congress can use to try to look good to their constituents.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

As a matter of voting, I don't think it makes a difference. Most Americans knew Clinton was a womanizer going in. The people who should have griped about it loudest didn't care as long as he was keeping abortion legal by appointing activists to the Supreme Court.

Other than his wife and daughter it's hard to see who else was entitled to gripe about Clinton's adultery. If other people wanted to, that's their choice obviously. But I don't see why women should have priority over men.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Now, I don't think Obama will have a "Lewinsky Scandal". Every indication is that he's either a devoted family man, or if he does play around, he's pretty discreet. I do think there is other scandal potential out there for him. How long in prison before Blago or Tony Rezko decide to break bad on this guy?

But his bad economy will probably do him in long before then... so those guys will probably get their pardons in January, 2013.

And by the same token, we should acknowledge that there's no evidence that Sarah Palin ever worked as a prostitute.

[miss elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And by the same token, we should acknowledge that there's no evidence that Sarah Palin ever worked as a prostitute.

Well, the evidence is circumstantial. I wouldn't say there is NO evidence, though.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

About half a day. Seriously, you think that if Blago had some dirt on Obama, he wouldn't have blabbed it immediately? Now, the fact that he hasn't blabbed doesn't prove that there isn't any dirt on Obama, but it does at least prove that there isn't any that Blago knows about.

Maybe they've been quietly told that they will get pardons if they keep their mouths shut. Frankly, that's the pattern since Ford, isn't it?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Other than his wife and daughter it's hard to see who else was entitled to gripe about Clinton's adultery. If other people wanted to, that's their choice obviously. But I don't see why women should have priority over men..

Buddy, you don't know IL politics very well. There are no clean politicians here. Obama started here, there's dirt on him, and eventually it'll turn up.


To the point, though, feminists have hounded men out of jobs for leers, jokes, not promoting people, etc. Clinton was a serial harrasser and adulterer, and they have hounded Republican and Democrats out of office for far less-

The short list. - Packwood, Wiener, Ensign, Sanford, Spitzer... I could google and find a whole list more of Republicans and Democrats who left office over something that should have been between them and their spouses. So why did Clinton get special treatment.

1) Impeaching a president is darned difficult.
2) He kept abortion legal.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Maybe they've been quietly told that they will get pardons if they keep their mouths shut.

Maybe Blago was framed by elves. Back in the real world, at some point someone in the cabinet or the White House will get in trouble for something. How it reflects on Obama depends on what happens and how he reacts. To this point, he hasn't hesitated to give people a shove when it looks like they will become a liability - we don't know that he was directly involved with the Shirley Sherrod farrago, but the result made the agriculture department look very stupid. Obama certainly wanted Daschle in his administration, but let him go when the tax thing came up. I'm blanking but I think there was at least one other example. He didn't stick up for Anthony Weiner, but that's a wash because nobody did.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Obama started here, there's dirt on him, and eventually it'll turn up.

He was elected to the U.S. Senate almost seven years ago. We - well, you - are still waiting for the dirt.

So why did Clinton get special treatment.

1) Impeaching a president is darned difficult.
2) He kept abortion legal.

This is a remarkably lazy analysis. The short answer is that once the Republicans starting moving to impeach, they lost the public because most voters did not feel Clinton's offense rose to that level. A longer answer has to include that Clinton was the president, so there were different precedents at work and he had a different power base and a different relationship with Congress. Weiner, for example, was mostly pushed out by Democratic leadership in Congress. They had leverage over him and would have stripped him of committee assignments. They couldn't do that to Clinton.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Clinton had the post-World War II economic expansion;

WTF does post-WWII economic expansion have to do with Clinton?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

WTF does post-WWII economic expansion have to do with Clinton?

I'm guessing that was supposed to say "the largest post-WWII economic expansion."

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think people base their vote on the likelihood of a scandal.

Yes! Correct. People don't base their vote on the likelihood of a scandal; they base their vote on the likelihood that the candidate they vote for will be able to have an effective economic policy during the next four years. Like I said, people will admit that Clinton had an effective economic policy. The question for 2012 is: Why won't Obama?

I hope this isn't lazy analysis:


Any talk of a hypothetical Lewinsky scandal is just a distraction; it's still the economy, stupid.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Like I said, people will admit that Clinton had an effective economic policy. The question for 2012 is: Why won't Obama?

Because the economy in 1995-96 looked good, and right now, it doesn't. Based on how the economy has performed in the last couple of years, he needs to convince people his policies prevented the economy from getting worse and (more important) that they'll lead to improvement in the next few years. Evidence that the economy is really improving would help.

Any talk of a hypothetical Lewinsky scandal is just a distraction; it's still the economy, stupid.

I think most of us would agree with that. Which makes me wonder why you brought up a hypothetical Lewinsky-type scandal.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I think most of us would agree with that. Which makes me wonder why you brought up a hypothetical Lewinsky-type scandal.

Because when I step into the voting booth on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, I will be carrying out the following thought process before casting my ballot:


If I vote for Barack Obama and if Barack Obama wins then Barack Obama will be President for eight years. Barack Obama is the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States. The last President who was a Democrat was President for eight years. Was the eight-year economic policy of Clinton effective? Yes. Will the eight-year economic policy of Obama be effective? Yes. Therefore, I will vote for Obama!

[Marley23]

And if that's your opinion, it's a logical reason to vote for him. I think starting with a comparison to the Lewinsky scandal confused the issue a great deal.

[Chronos]

Maybe they've been quietly told that they will get pardons if they keep their mouths shut. Frankly, that's the pattern since Ford, isn't it?

Yeah, all them Democrats are all alike. Oh, wait.

And didn't the whole investigation begin because Obama wasn't willing to make shady backroom deals with Blagojevich?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Chronos

And didn't the whole investigation begin because Obama wasn't willing to make shady backroom deals with Blagojevich?

That was a big part of it, yes. Blagojevich said at one point that he tried to trade the Senate appointment in exchange for a spot in Obama's cabinet, among other things.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yeah, all them Democrats are all alike. Oh, wait.

Decriptivist theory of names:

1. the man who had an affair with Monica Lewinsky
2. the man who was a member of the Democratic Party
3. the man who was President of the United States for eight years

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

eople don't base their vote on the likelihood of a scandal; they base their vote on the likelihood that the candidate they vote for will be able to have an effective economic policy during the next four years.

I think the majority of voters don't think this deeply. Most people vote based on an emotional reaction to what they perceive as the general zeitgeist.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Buddy, you don't know IL politics very well. There are no clean politicians here. Obama started here, there's dirt on him, and eventually it'll turn up.

Let me clear up a few things you are wrong about.

1. You're not my buddy.

2. It's clear from the posts you've made on this board you don't know a lot about politics. Certainly less than I do. All you do is repeat what you've heard from far too narrow a circle of sources.

3. It's clear that these same sources have nothing on Obama. If they did they'd use it. The fact that they resort to making up lies about his birth and religion shows that they have nothing real to pass along.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Buddy, you don't know IL politics very well. There are no clean politicians here. Obama started here, there's dirt on him, and eventually it'll turn up.

That it hasn't suggests the dirt doesn't exist or Republicans are lazy and incompetent investigators.


Or both, why not?

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Buddy, you don't know IL politics very well. There are no clean politicians here. Obama started here, there's dirt on him, and eventually it'll turn up.

Normally, as a fan of the best sport in town before it became a radio show, I'd agree, but since 2004 you guys haven't landed the lightest hit on OB. It is as if he were untouchable, no matter what you try. He seems even cleaner than Judy Baar Topinka, who dated my freakin' PASTOR.

Okay, not officially clean, but she was clean for a Republican in office.

[Sam Stone]

There won't be a Lewinski scandal. Have you seen the arms on Michelle? And I'm pretty sure she could take him in a fair fight. Mind you, I thought Hillary could take Bill too...

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Maybe Blago was framed by elves. Back in the real world, at some point someone in the cabinet or the White House will get in trouble for something. How it reflects on Obama depends on what happens and how he reacts. To this point, he hasn't hesitated to give people a shove when it looks like they will become a liability - we don't know that he was directly involved with the Shirley Sherrod farrago, but the result made the agriculture department look very stupid. Obama certainly wanted Daschle in his administration, but let him go when the tax thing came up. I'm blanking but I think there was at least one other example. He didn't stick up for Anthony Weiner, but that's a wash because nobody did.

Back in the real world, that clown is out the door in 2012.

Of course, the thing is, since Nixon, the policy has been to let the underling take the hit for the boss. Ollie North, Webb Hubbel, Scooter Libby. Find a sacrificial lamb, send him out to get mauled, everyone moves on. What made Lewinsky different is that Clinton couldn't blame his actions on anyone else there. He got the hummer in that case, and he lied about it in court.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Let me clear up a few things you are wrong about.

1. You're not my buddy.

2. It's clear from the posts you've made on this board you don't know a lot about politics. Certainly less than I do. All you do is repeat what you've heard from far too narrow a circle of sources..

Naw, I've only got degrees in political science and history... and frankly, when you attack the source, it's usually a sign you're losing the argument.

.

3. It's clear that these same sources have nothing on Obama. If they did they'd use it. The fact that they resort to making up lies about his birth and religion shows that they have nothing real to pass along.

First, no one really mainstream is making up stuff about Obama's birth (why did it take him two years to release his birth cert if he had nothing to hide?) or religion. There's plenty to bash him on with his record, really.

Second, usually, it takes a political scandal quite a while to fester. Monica started servicing Clinton in 1995, and he had been fighting the Paula Jones lawsuit since 1994, but it wasn't until 1998 that it hit the fan. And again, I don't think this guy will be around long enough for one of these things that's under the radar now to emerge.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by dropzone

Normally, as a fan of the best sport in town before it became a radio show, I'd agree, but since 2004 you guys haven't landed the lightest hit on OB. It is as if he were untouchable, no matter what you try. He seems even cleaner than Judy Baar Topinka, who dated my freakin' PASTOR.

Okay, not officially clean, but she was clean for a Republican in office.

Well, you see, I don't buy that.

First, the guy was pretty much the accidental senator. The guy who SHOULD have won was Blair Hull. But the Chicago Media sandbagged him by rumaging around his divorce records. So Obama won the primary he should have lost. But then the media gooed all over this clown, so they decided to go digging through Jark Ryan's garbage, too. And old Judy, that cow, decided she needed to get Ryan out of the way so she could run for governor.

I think there is a bit of cowing, too. No one really wants to go after this clown because they don't want to be called racist. I think he's played that card out, though.

Marley-

That was a big part of it, yes. Blagojevich said at one point that he tried to trade the Senate appointment in exchange for a spot in Obama's cabinet, among other things.

And oddly, nobody in Obama's circle reported this to the authorities. Only because Fitzgerald (who let's not forget, was the guy who investigated Scooter Libby for years after he knew someone else outed Valerie Plame) arrested Blago before a bribe was made.

Now consider that. A crime is committed, the potential other party, who is not corrupt, doesn't report it, but the investigator (who has a history of vindictive, long prosecutions) pulls the plug before anyone gets into trouble. Really?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Now consider that. A crime is committed, the potential other party, who is not corrupt, doesn't report it, but the investigator (who has a history of vindictive, long prosecutions) pulls the plug before anyone gets into trouble. Really?

We know you want it to be true. Unfortunately you have no evidence. Sorry.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

We know you want it to be true. Unfortunately you have no evidence. Sorry.

Yeah, okay. So I ask the question.

When Blago approached the Obama team about selling the Bamster's senate seat, why didn't they call someone at the justice department and report it?

I mean, it was a pretty serious deal, right, selling a senate seat....

And why did Fitzfong move then, before he could catch Blago in the act? Why not wait to see if anyone was going to try to pay him for that seat? Why did the prosecution NOT call as witnesses people he had tried to sell the seat to?

But you're right. I have no evidence... just what I see with my own eyes.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I have no evidence.

Thank you. The end.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Thank you. The end.

Guy, you seem to think the world works that you have to absolutely prove something in court to realize it's wrong.

Hey, you know what, I still think O.J and Casey are guilty, despite what the courts said.

And when the foxes are watching the henhouse of justice, I don't expect there to be many hens left. Fitzfong was protecting Obama because it would be a really embarassing thing if he got caught doing something impeachable before he was even sworn in.

Unlike Scooter Libby, where he just kept questioning the guy until he didn't know what he was being asked anymore.

Just keep telling yourself he's a great president and he's not corrupt and he swam through the sea of shit that is Chicago politics and didn't get a fleck on him. Because I know you guys really need to believe that.

[Marley23]

I see flailing, but I don't see facts. Adding more sarcasm will not make your posts more substantial.

[Acsenray]

Fitzfong ... Humiliating nickname to marginalize an otherwise respected public official without ever demonstrating malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. Absolutely reeks of classic propaganda techniques. Good one.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

<snip>
First, no one really mainstream is making up stuff about Obama's birth (why did it take him two years to release his birth cert if he had nothing to hide?) or religion. There's plenty to bash him on with his record, really.

Second, usually, it takes a political scandal quite a while to fester. Monica started servicing Clinton in 1995, and he had been fighting the Paula Jones lawsuit since 1994, but it wasn't until 1998 that it hit the fan. And again, I don't think this guy will be around long enough for one of these things that's under the radar now to emerge.

Your truisms are incorrect. The cliche is that where there's smoke, there's fire. There isn't any such smoke associated with Obama, so there isn't any scandal percolating under the surface with him.

As far as the birth certificate goes, the alleged "delay" in producing birth certificate is bunk and shows nothing. The fact that the official certified Hawaii state short form birth certificate was unacceptable to the birthers shows only that the birthers are unreasonable and not that Obama had anything to hide.

[Bryan Ekers]

I was a little disappointed during the 2008 campaign that Obama didn't make a bigger deal of his Illinois background, i.e. "The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is fond of claiming I am inexperienced. I'd have to tell her that five years in Illinois politics grows you up a lot more than several lifetimes in the hinterlands of Alaska."

[Chronos]

Of course, the thing is, since Nixon, the policy has been to let the underling take the hit for the boss. Ollie North, Webb Hubbel, Scooter Libby. Find a sacrificial lamb, send him out to get mauled, everyone moves on. What made Lewinsky different is that Clinton couldn't blame his actions on anyone else there. He got the hummer in that case, and he lied about it in court.

Or in other words, it's the Republican policy to let the underling take the hit for the boss. Care to give us any Democratic examples?

First, the guy was pretty much the accidental senator. The guy who SHOULD have won was Blair Hull. But the Chicago Media sandbagged him by rumaging around his divorce records. So Obama won the primary he should have lost. But then the media gooed all over this clown, so they decided to go digging through Jark Ryan's garbage, too. And old Judy, that cow, decided she needed to get Ryan out of the way so she could run for governor.

In other words, when the media went looking for dirt on all those other folks, they actually found some. Heck, the political media wasn't even needed to find the dirt on Ryan; Jeri came forward with it herself, and it was all over the Star Trek fansites. So if the dirt was so easy to find on all those other folks, why hasn't anyone found any on Obama, despite the efforts of half the entire country?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Naw, I've only got degrees in political science and history... and frankly, when you attack the source, it's usually a sign you're losing the argument.

That explains why you attack the source so often in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

First, no one really mainstream is making up stuff about Obama's birth (why did it take him two years to release his birth cert if he had nothing to hide?) or religion.

Combining a statement that nobody who's serious questions Obama's birth certificate with a question about Obama's birth certificate. You're making this too easy.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Second, usually, it takes a political scandal quite a while to fester. Monica started servicing Clinton in 1995, and he had been fighting the Paula Jones lawsuit since 1994, but it wasn't until 1998 that it hit the fan. And again, I don't think this guy will be around long enough for one of these things that's under the radar now to emerge.

It was an open secret that Clinton was a serial adulterer when he was running for President. The only question was which specific women he had affairs with. You'd think a guy with degrees in political science and history would have heard about all this before 1998.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It was an open secret that Clinton was a serial adulterer when he was running for President.

'tweren't even that secret. Gennifer Flowers, and all.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

'tweren't even that secret. Gennifer Flowers, and all.

There was even a double-secret Sixty Minutes interview about it early in 1992, as I recall.

[Acsenray]

Clinton didn't become president until January 1993, so they were obviously flying under the radar by running with that interview so early. I mean, who could possibly be paying attention to an interview of a nobody like Clinton nearly a year before he became president? It just goes to show you how devious the Clintons and the Liberal Media really are.

[Little Nemo]

'tweren't even that secret. Gennifer Flowers, and all.

There was even a double-secret Sixty Minutes interview about it early in 1992, as I recall.

That's the open part. What kept it technically a secret was Clinton never admitted the accusations were true.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I was a little disappointed during the 2008 campaign that Obama didn't make a bigger deal of his Illinois background, i.e. "The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is fond of claiming I am inexperienced. I'd have to tell her that five years in Illinois politics grows you up a lot more than several lifetimes in the hinterlands of Alaska."

Yup, he could talk about all the times he voted present.

Or when he voted for a bill to allow aborted babies to die in closets.

The fact is, as a State Senator, the man was pretty much a non-entity. Hell, I pay about as much attention to State Politics here as a normal person can stand (It's really depressing) and I never heard of this tool before 2004.

The only reason we're stuck with him now is the media created him. Otherwise, we'd have Blair Hull in his second term doing a respectable job as Senator.

Oh, yeah, and he was running against McCain, a guy with Decades of accomplishment in Congress and the Military.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Or in other words, it's the Republican policy to let the underling take the hit for the boss. Care to give us any Democratic examples?

Go back to my original statement, where I specifically listed Webb Hubbel. I can also talk about the McDougals, that clown who collected 900 FBI files on prominant Republicans, and what the hell, they tried to call poor Monica a "stalker" and such until she came up with the stained dress. (Oooops).

In other words, when the media went looking for dirt on all those other folks, they actually found some. Heck, the political media wasn't even needed to find the dirt on Ryan; Jeri came forward with it herself, and it was all over the Star Trek fansites. So if the dirt was so easy to find on all those other folks, why hasn't anyone found any on Obama, despite the efforts of half the entire country?

First, they don't WANT to find dirt on Obama. And when something come up, they downplay it, like old Jeremiah Wright.

Second , Jeri Ryan didn't come forward. She fought to keep those records sealed, too. (Probably because she was lying her ass off and the judge didn't believe her.) The Chicago Media SUED to get access to those records.

So they sued to get his divorce records, and dug up Blair Hull's dirt, but oddly, we never heard about Jeremiah Wright and his crazy anti-American BS, which Obama apparently never heard in church. Really.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Combining a statement that nobody who's serious questions Obama's birth certificate with a question about Obama's birth certificate. You're making this too easy.

Well, it would be if you comprehended simple English. I said no one was making stuff up about his birth certificate. He refused to release it until Trump called him on it. No one mainstream would actually touch the issue, and frankly it's kind of irrelevent, because if he had been born in Kenya, he'd still be an eligible citizen through his mother.

But you jokers act like this was a plot hatched in the RNC or something.

It was an open secret that Clinton was a serial adulterer when he was running for President. The only question was which specific women he had affairs with. You'd think a guy with degrees in political science and history would have heard about all this before 1998.

Again, the issue was not just his being an "adulterer". Jones accused him of unwanted sexual advances. (Anyone want to still claim she was lying?) So did several other women. That's not just having an affair. He then engaged in a plot to suborn perjury and hide evidence.

It's a double standard. Why did it take until 1998 for this to boil to the surface. If it was an "open secret" he has an issue here, then why was every woman who came forward immediately savaged in the press?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Fitzfong ... Humiliating nickname to marginalize an otherwise respected public official without ever demonstrating malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. Absolutely reeks of classic propaganda techniques. Good one.

He's not respected. I think that both Republicans and Democrats in this state will just be happy to see this guy go away.

Let's not forget, this is a guy who locked up reporters for not saying incriminating stuff about people he was after. Great day for freedom.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Let's not forget, this is a guy who locked up reporters for not saying incriminating stuff about people he was after.

Prosecutors don't lock people up. A few reporters spent time in jail for contempt of court for refusing to divulge sources. Fitzgerald did support that, but reporters have done jail time for contempt before and it will happen as long as there are conflicts between prosecutors and members of the press. Anyway we're now drifting off the subject of scandals and Obama.