Hillary has never indicated that she’s in an open marriage. Furthermore, she gave quite the opposite indication in 1992, when she went on TV regarding the Gennifer Flowers episode. If posters here believed Hillary, her public position would be the end of the story. She has never indicated that her marriage is open, so we would know it isn’t.
OTOH if she and Bill have an open marriage, the honest thing to do would be to just tell the public. It might cost her some votes, but it would be honest. Barney Frank’s sexuality surely costs him votes, but he’s honest about it.
Furthermore I think is Hillary Clinton’s position vis-a-vis open marriage is the public’s business. Many voters want to know whether their representatives share their values. Wouldn’t the public want to know if a politician belonged to a racially segregated golf club? We wouldn’t say, “It’s just a private matter.”
But did Bill have ‘sex’ (i.e., intercourse) outside of his marriage?
As they say in the South (which includes Bill ‘n’ Hill’s homestate of Arkansas): Eatin’ ain’t cheatin’.
Yes, he admited having innapropriate relations (blowjobs and the whole cigar thing), but did Bill ever admit to penetrative vaginal intercourse with anyone other than Hillary?
I don’t agree that it’s anyone’s business but the Clintons as to whether or not they have an open marriage. The public has no particular right to know that; the analogy to a racially segregated golf club is a weak one at best.
That said, I think the OP is disingenuously suggesting that it’s a more or less 50-50 proposition as to whether or not they have an open marriage, and that without a definitive pronouncement to the contrary, we’re unable to make assumptions.
That’s not so.
The default state for marriage is a monogamous one. There are many open marriages, to be sure, but their number is dwarfed by the marriage in which the notional premise is the the partners are faithful to one another. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I suggest an observer is entitled to assume a marriage is supposed to be monogamous.
But as I said above, it’s really not relevant. Whether Clinton, or anyone, cheated on his wife is of no moment. That’s a private issue between the spouses, and has no bearing at all on anything else.
Absolutely it carries over. I think speculating on the parentage of a child is ugly beyond belief. Next you’re going to be calling Chelsea one of the Clinton family “dogs” like Rush Limbaugh did. It’s shit like this that makes me proud to say I’m a Democrat.
As to the OP, Clinton had “relations” outside of his marital vows. This equals cheating no matter how you personally define it.
Start a gun control thread or take it to the Pit, buddy. Last I checked, this was a thread about the Clinton’s message, in which you were spreading vile and baseless rumors about Hillary fucking Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell and the parentage of the Clintons’ daughter, employing the transparently pathetic excuse that you said slander is okay as long as you say it’s “unsubstanTiated.”
baseless is subjective. There is much to point to many of the rumors being true. What I said was that I did not claim the rumors as fact, as most of you liberals do when impugning Bush or another conservative. I at least stated that they were rumors, not facts. However when it comes to the Clintons, history has shown that where there is smoke, there is fire.
And Chelsea does look like Web Hubble. To me anyway. I have never been one that would bash her for her looks though, I always thought that was wrong. What I am saying is she doesn’t look at all like Bill.
“Where there is smoke, there is fire.” Gee, that’s pretty much precisely the same rationale left-wing nutballs use when they baselessly spread vile lies about the Bush family. That’s a lovely shade of black you’re wearing, Mr. Kettle. So much nicer than Mr. Pot’s filthy black coat.
And anyway, Chelsea is a dead ringer for her mom–IMO she doesn’t look like either man. And I have to say that looking at Webster Hubble, my first reaction is, “Ew.” I mean, say what you will about Hillary, but I think she would have had better taste than that. And even though it was 20+ years ago, still…
This is a thoroughly vile anti-Clinton website, but it was the only place I could find a picture of Web Hubble, he perforce having to take a back seat to the Hubble telescope on Google’s Image search.
Scroll down to official White House photo of all three Clintons together. Also, it’s going to play a tinkly MIDI version of “Stand By Your Man” at you, so you might want to turn your sound off.
What Bill did outside of his marriage was immoral but it was a crime against God, not a criminal matter (except for lying about it). Hillary may forgive or not forgive his wandering, but that is between those two and nobody else. Let’s let God be God and let Him deal with Bill’s soul when the time comes.
So he cheated on his wife and lied about it. Not a good thing, but not exactly earth shattering. Personally, I’d be more worried about someone that refused to answer questions about cocaine use as a young man.
Perfect example of a baseless allegation, thank you. FYI, no one had ever even hinted that GWB was a drug user. The subject first came up in his run for governor when he was asked to comment on Ann Richards’ supposed use years earlier. He said that he didn’t think such things were germaine to the issues, and refused to comment. Of course he was rewarded for his decency by his opponent by having her people find a way to suggest through the media that the reason he must not want to make an issue of it is that he must have something to hide himself. That is it, the whole story. Go look it up yourself if you actually care about the truth.
We’re not talking about “someone else’s marriage”. We’re talking about a Senator and a potential President.
A candidate’s marriage is my business for the same reasons that her segregated golf club membership is my business. It gives me information about how she may vote on related legislation. And, it sets a public example of something I may feel is bad for society.
Notice how many candidates flaunt their spouses and children. They want to show that they’re good, traditional family people. Evidently, this is important to a great many voters. Many voters seem to believe that traditional family people make better leaders. Of course, given the example of Richard Nixon, these voters may be dead wrong.
texican, you must have slept through the part of the 2000 campaign where Bush was repeatedly asked a question to which he could easily have said “No”. Every other candidate got the same question and replied with either a no or a yes-and-here’s-the-details. Every one but him.
Instead, his campaign responded with a series of carefully-worded statements about what periods in time he would have met an FBI background check for working in the White House.
That is “the whole story”, and you would know it too “if you actually care about the truth”. It isn’t an “allegation”; it’s a question, and it isn’t “baseless” if he can’t answer “no”.
Texican you have issues. It took me all of three seconds to find this articleregarding the cocaine issue. I wouldn’t call the allegations totally “baseless”, but they don’t appear to be well founded either.
However, Bush is a public figure. He placed himself in eye of the media. Chelsea did not.
Texican, how can you say that there were no allegations of GWB drug use? I’m no Libertarian, but I find this pretty much on target. He could have answered a simple question but chose not to. Cocaine use was and is a felony. Cheating on your wife is not. You strain gnats and pass camels.
I mean, say what you will about Hillary, but I think she would have had better taste than that. And even though it was 20+ years ago, still…