I can’t speak for er but that works for me just fine.
And there may not be any Republicans in this thread citing the adultery-as-exclusion rule, but let’s be honest: there were wide swaths of the GOP base that were mortified by Clinton’s pre-election sexual proclivities, but I suspect all those usual suspects who ranted against Bill are going to stay mum about how John and Cindy “met cute”.
Now, you tried to cover yourself by saying you really don’t care - you’re just pointing out the hypocrisy of others. But frankly, it’s clear you do care, and it is equally clear you’ll excuse plenty of hypocrisy on one side while being hypervigilent on the other.
Personally, I think people ought to vote their preference and take everything they need to make their decision. But that’s just me.
I was 22 years old when Clinton was running for the first time, and while I was a Republican I was hardly a moralistic Bible thumper. If anything, I was amused by his antics in that particular area and his transparent evasions, as a lot of people were.
I didn’t much like using agents of the government and connected wealthy friends to conduct a cover-up later - that was an abuse of power Nixonian in its execution if not its focus, and however you consider Clinton’s record overall honest people must conclude that it was terribly wrong.
Well, I’m definitely not voting for Cindy McCain for president now. If only her husband were running instead.
I was a bit older than 22 in 1992. What I objected to with Clinton was exactly what brought him down - not merely his adultery, but his persistent habit of lying about that and everything else. And guess what? It was the lying that brought him down.
That’s as may be, although as a member of the GOP during the relevant period I remember a great deal of talk about Clinton’s dishonesty and relatively less about his zipper problems.
But as far as this thread is concerned, you are trying to blame this on Republicans again, and it still isn’t going to work. No Republican on the SDMB has ever advocated that Clinton should have been impeached for adultery. We have already seen liberals in this thread who made it clear that adultery is OKIADDI, but not with McCain.
You wanna start arguing that adultery is a window into a candidate’s character? Feel free - if you include it as one factor among many I might even agree. You wanna claim it is definitive for Republicans but off-limits for discussion for Clinton? Sorry, no.
Regards.
Shodan
Shodan: Am I the socialist in question? I thought I was just a Democrat or a liberal pinko feminist or something. OK, I’ll be the Socialist for this thread.
I don’t agree that Clinton flunked the Clinton test–he was not the arbiter of the standard, but the “victim” of it. Since I don’t see Reps baying for the blood of McCain and Cindy, even though they are both guilty of cheating on their vows, so I think McCindy do flunk. I also think the Reps are showing hypocrisy re this issue. Oh, I’m sure they’ll say that it’s because McCindy didn’t/won’t bring “shame” on the oval office (as if that office carpet has never seen semen before) or it’s because the adultery is old news now or they didn’t lie about it. You can say it’s the lying that did Bill in all you want. I don’t believe it for a minute–any adult American who thinks that politicians and Presidents don’t lie should go check their closet full of shit for a pony. I find the clinging to righteous indignation on the part of conservatives amusing.
I don’t think what Clinton did was ok, btw. I thought it was despicable, but a private matter between Hillary and Bill. One could argue that this is a private matter between Cindy and McCain and ex-wife whose name I don’t know, and you would be correct, except for see below.
Here’s the thing:* I wasn’t asked to vote for Clinton post-blow job.* I am being asked to look at McCindy and evaluate him as a viable candidate for President. And he flunks the test (one of several, actually) for me.
Obviously, YMMV.
PS-whoever said we were talking about Republicans on this mb? I am talking about Reps in general. The ones I know were incensed at the “desecration” of the office. Funny if how it was all about the lies, these same Reps never uttered a word about Nixon “shaming” the office. I think you’re taking this Cindy stuff kind of personally–it’s not about you or the other cons on this board.
Nope. I don’t care at all. I just find it amusing to rub this in the face of those whp pretended to to be scandalized about Clinton. Beleive me, my vote will have nothing to do with anyone’s sex life. McCain can go underwater and fuck fish for all I care. I just wonder why those who thought Clinton’s blow job was an impeachable offense have now developed such casula attitudes about adultery. The real triuth is not that I care and won’t admit it, but that your side does NOT really care about this stuff and never did.
Yes, Dio–it was an easy weapon to beat Clinton down with. Not a one of them were shocked! Shocked I tell you! that a President was having sex anywhere. I often thought those so outraged were just jealous that Bill was getting some and they weren’t.
Frankly, although Clinton did not act admirably and lost my respect, the whole impeachment thing was the death blow for any respect the GOP had from me. There’s nastiness in both camps, but I prefer the honest smell of manure to the perfumed wafts of sprayed over shit.
That’s me, too, but your comparison isn’t really analogous and you keep shifting the hypocrisy goalposts.
First of all, having some tail on the side is not the same thing as being an active participant in the dissolution of a marriage. Last I checked, the Clintons were still hitched (so obviously, there was/is some kind of understanding between them). I don’t think it’s unfair to characterize the first Mrs. McCain a bit more of a victim of her husband’s philandering than the (admittedly humiliated) Hillary. Why were the GOP marriage-defenders aghast at Clinton’s unfaithfulness when McCain’s was the one that left his first marriage in tatters? Because it’s OKIARDI.
The second is that the consequences of the two situations are totally different. One can still abhor adultery on principle and still think it should be divorced from a legal and political witchhunt. Was the lying under oath and attempts at a cover-up wrong? Of course; I won’t deny that for a second (though to call it “Nixonian” is frankly preposterous conflation). But the only reason it ever got to that point was that Starr came up empty on Whitewater and was fishing for anything he could nail Clinton with. Clinton quite graciously gave Starr enough rope to hang himself with, and the fault there is 100% Clinton’s.
But I didn’t read DtC’s quote as defending the morality of adultery at all (or lying under oath for that matter)–just defending anyone’s right to do anything behind closed doors they want if it’s not hurting anyone. YMMV on that notion if the doors are those of the Oval Office, but Clinton lied about something that was nobody’s business, and while that may not excuse the lying, I remember quite well that the public, chest-thumping moral outrage concentrated on the sex first, the lying second (though obviously, it was the latter that was indictable).
Which is, of course, why we never heard anything about Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers or the anonymous mother of his alleged illegitimate child while he was running for office. Oh, wait–we did! Incessantly. Sure, he was painted as a liar (and sometimes exposed as one as well), but it’s not like the sex angles were buried on page 12.
But you’re ignoring the hypocrisy that everyone is decrying in this thread. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so if it was open season on Clinton (which it was long before the lying under oath), why is McCain immune? If the fundies were so outraged by Bill’s immorality, drug history, and financial “improprieties” (long before he was elected, let alone before anything impeachable transpired), where’s the proportional ire for the GOP’s prospective First Lady? Nowhere, because it’s OKIARDI
I never said any such thing–nor ever remotely implied anything of the kind–and never will. My indignation is that now that the shoe’s on the other foot, the self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of morality on the Right have gone mysteriously AWOL.
He testified under oath. Bush and Cheney refused to. Big difference.
I don’t think I understand this - I thought the “Clinton test” was “could Clinton have gotten away with this”. Clinton did get away with it - he was elected even though he was adulterous.
Again, the righteous indignation about adultery you claim to see is coming from liberals. And we have seen an example (supplied by Diogenes) who flip-flops with the agility of long practice from excusing behavior by Democrats that he condemns in Republicans. In his case, of course, it is not based on any honest principle, merely expediency.
Well, I agree about the “several factors” part. But are you saying that, if you had known that Clinton was an adulterer, you would have considered this a reason not to vote for him? He basically admitted to it on Sixty Minutes (larded over with a lot of calculated bullshit, as was pretty much every statement he ever made).
No, I’m not taking this personally. And as I mentioned, those Republicans I talked to included a lot more than adultery in their condemnations of the disgrace of a sleazeball like Clinton in the Oval Office. Sure, cheating on your wife is kind of sleazy, although it happens. Add to that getting your knob polished while on the phone with foreign dignitaries, sexually harassing your subordinates, sticking cigars up an intern’s unmentionable, selling pardons for money, getting people fired so your wife’s cronies can make money, lying under oath, trashing the White House, stealing the furnishings, etc., etc.
Dumping your wife for a newer model? Sure, that sucks. But those who claim it sucks for McCain but not for Kerry are often arguing for reasons other than a commitment to marital fidelity as a hallmark of moral character.
Regards,
Shodan
Uh, no. Because if that were true, then people would have been a lot harder on John Kerry, who was such a dick to his first wife that she wrote a book about her painful divorce, and who indeed dated lots of women before that divorce was final.
It was a complete nonissue in that campaign. And for good reason - it really didn’t matter. And it wouldn’t have mattered with Clinton either had he not made an issue about it himself.
I can understand people not agreeing with the impeachment - that’s perfectly fair. But the people behind it were pretty forthright in what they were impeaching Clinton for, and it was for an abuse of power, not a sex act. Hell, one of the larger Democratic-affiliated groups today got its name because they wanted the Congress to censure and move on. Why would they have stated it that way if they thought Clinton totally innocent?
I have not condemned McCain’s adultery. That is a false accusation. I am consistent in my opinion that it doesn’t matter. That does not mean that I can’t comment on the obvious hypocrisy of the other side in forgiving in a Republican what they condemned in a Democrat.
There is a parallel here with the hypocrisy that was exposed in '04. In the last election we learned that the right wing’s expressed reverence for military service was a fraud and a sham when they chose to denigrate and lie about the service of a decorated combat veteran while embracing a wartime deserter.
This year we are learning that they don’t actually care about their so-called “family values.” The Democrat is, by all appearances, an exemplary family man and sincere Christian while the Republican is a family abandoning, heiress chasing adulterer with a cynical faith of convenience.
The McCainanites can say those things don’t matter, and I would agree with them, but I also said they didn’t matter when it was a Democrat in the docks. The Republicans are the ones who have reversed their positions, not me. All I’m doing is observing that political conservatives don’t actually care about what they say they care about. That’s fine with me, but let it be understood that, just like Republicans have forever lost the credibility to say they care about military service, they have now forever surrendered any credibility in saying they care about monogamy or family values.
Anyone else get a chuckle out of Shodan appealing for fairness in the treatment of political figures?
Are there no odds available? I’ll not take less than 4/5 for Michelle!
I have to say I’m a little disappointed in the attacks against Cindy McCain. I wasn’t voting for her husband anyway, but this is how I perceived it playing out - and maybe it didn’t, maybe it was the order I heard it in.
I heard (somewhere, don’t remember where), the Republicans won’t go after Michelle because their are worse things in Cindy’s closet (hint, hint) with no mention of what the worse things were (tease).
Then I hear, well, these things are in Cindy’s closet, so they shouldn’t go dissin’ Michelle (at this point I haven’t heard more dissin’ than the fist bump thing), but now we’ve got it out there - are we clever?
Then I hear “well, they went after Michelle” - but I never really heard them go after Michelle. Maybe I haven’t been aware, but most of the press I’ve seen on Michelle has been positive, or hasn’t stuck.
But, on the other hand, if you are going to make a run for President in this day and age, and you watch them tear into Hillary when she was a candidates wife, and tear into Kitty Dukakis, and repeated bring up a tragic accident Laura Bush had - and you know drug abuse, infidelity, and theft from a charity are in your background (or your spouses), there is some sort of implied consent.
When did I ever claim it was relevant to choosing a candidate?
Lets see…child molesters…rapists…murderers…I can think of some pretty awful human beings but Cindy McCain is not the first one that comes to mind. Perhaps a junkie or a dunderhead.
Which charities did Ms. Ford and Ms. Dukakis steal from to get their fixes?
She stole from a charity.