Stop being obtuse. You know perfectly well who I am referring to, and if you don’t think that this will come up again you’re sorely mistaken.
If you’re referring to the Senator from New York, she has announced no intention of running and I don’t see why the blow job would have any relevance to her campaign anyway. It had nothing to do with her. I don’t recall it as being much of an issue in her Senatorial campaign.
Reagan at the top, W at the bottom.
Okay, there’s a mental picture I didn’t need! :eek:
Sure, but is that a poor reflection on Senator Clinton (who personally had nothing to do with Monicagate) or the right-wing muckrakers who will dredge it up to use against her?
Remember our bet, Dio. Since it looks like you’re losing, I’ll let you settle if you like. Pay me $98 via paypal within the next 24 hours and I’ll let you out of our $100 bet.
I haven’t lost yet. I won’t admit defeat unless she formally announces that she’s a candidate. Exploring the landscape and posturing in the Senate don’t count. I still believe that the polls will show her (and the DNC) that a large enough percentage of the elctorate is so unreachable for her that she will be dissuaded from running. She does not want to run and be humiliated.
A very important yet generally overlooked part of Eisenhower’s legacy was his administration’s role in the installation of the Shah of Iran. Without that you don’t later get the later rise to power of the theocracy, overthrow of the US embassy, possibly no Reagan presidency, no war between Iran and Iraq, possibly no Saddam Hussein, which means no Gulf War I or II. This was absolutely huge.
If one looks back at presidents 100 years ago, here’s what we remember – war and assasination, then scandals, then presidential charisma, and then successful domestic and foreign policy. So Lincoln is obviously the first (ruled in all categories), then Roosevelt (war hero and perhaps the most boisterous, charismatic president ever), then Grant (war hero, scandal ridden), Johnson (impeached), McKinley (Spanish American War and shot), Garfield and Polk (shot and Mexican-American War), then the rest.
Looking back on this period in 100 years, the legacies will be judged by all except history buffs and presidential historians in a similar manner. Reagan will probably be first (Cold War, minor scuffles of Panama and Grenada, attempted assasination, charisma), then Nixon (Vietnam and scandals), then Kennedy (assasination, Vietnam and Cuban Missile Crisis, charismatic), then GWB (war, 9/11, ?scandals, ?charisma), Clinton (blowjob, impeachment, charisma), LBJ (Vietnam, domestic policy), Ike (war hero, Korea), GHWB (father of GWB), with Carter and Ford at the bottom.
Clinton will be like Arthur or Bejamin Harrison in that nobody will remember the great things he presided over domestically. Like Johnson, he’ll be “the impeached one.” Presidential historians will recognize his contributions, but few else.
I have to agree here. No matter how badly Bush does it does not open the door for her. It the democratic party endorses Hillary they deserve to lose. There is a very substantial chunk of the non- diehard Republican voting electorate that will never be won over to her side.
Eisenhower was also the first president to dip the national toe into that little place called Vietnam.
Can you name one person on earth not named Clinton or Lewinsky that was adversely impacted by Clinton’s affair or lying about it?
You do realize that, whether or not YOU personally think the Prez (a married man and President of the US) getting a blowjob from some intern in the Oval Office is small beans, not everyone has a similar world view to your own…yes? That perhaps a lot of folks WERE ‘adversely impacted’ by Clinton’s very public affair while he was President? That some folks felt that it tarnished the image of the Presidency? That some folk may feel just a bit different about it than you or seemingly the consensus of this board do?
Myself, I didn’t think it was a big deal…but I also felt it dragged down Clinton’s image. To me it was a slap in the face of the Presidency…not that Clinton had an affair but that he was fucking stupid enough to have an affair with a 21 year old intern and put himself and the country in the position where his dirty laundry became public knowledge. I realize that you and others don’t see it that way and simply poo poo the whole thing as a joke…but you should know that not everyone feels the same way about it.
-XT
Come on. The difference between Clinton, Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower is that Bill got caught. Indeed, I wager that the presidents who had affairs outnumbered those that did not. If there’s anyone that thinks our leaders are models of chastity then their disillusionment is inevitable. If you feel personally impacted by the Clinton affair then it’s because you choose to be.
In all of this response I can’t seem to find an answer for how anybody was adversely affected by the blow job. Moral indignation is completely voluntary and non-injurious. It’s really not their business to “see” it any way at all. It’s not their marriage and it doesn’t affect them.
I’d have to agree with others here that Nixon is, at least, the biggest paradox. He really did have some great achievements (among other noteworth accomplishments cited above, I think creating the EPA was a hell of a good legacy for a president). Escalating the war into Cambodia was not at all cool, but LBJ is really the worst offender in the Vietnam Debacle.
And he flushed it all down the toilet with Watergate. A brilliant, even principled, politician, and incredibly insecure, paranoid, and morally flawed man, all wrapped up in one.
Clinton certainly presided over a remarkable period of peace and prosperity, which I think he really deserves at least some credit for. Still too soon to say how the history books will read.
A serious contender for worst, and that is saying much, given Nixon’s failings, must certainly be George W. Bush. The reasons litter this forum. I only hesitate because he’s not in jail yet.
How’s about the woman who’d been suing him for sexual harassment? (Sorry, my mind is blank and I really don’t care enought look it up.) The thing about Clinton’s sexual antics that most annoyed me (I’m not going to address whether it was impeachable or not.) was that he was being sued under a law he signed into effect, and felt that he shouldn’t have to deal with facing the results of his own actions. i.e. Laws for thee, but not for me.
The Paula Jones sexual harassment case was thrown out of court for lack of merit. It was bullshit. He was not found responsible for any “action.”
And she was not affected by the blow job. He was adversely affected by her baseless lawsuit.
Exactly. He got caught. Like I said, I could give a shit who he screws…as long as he (or any president) doesn’t get caught.
Yeah, I know you can’t wrap your head around why some folks would be adversely affected by seeing the president in such a scandal. You have a real blind spot in not being able to see any but your own viewpoint.
As to the second point, you are right…its no ones business but the 3 involved. When you aren’t the fucking president that is. When you ARE the president its still not my business who or what you screw…as long as you don’t get caught doing it. THEN I have a problem. I doubt I’m alone in this either.
-XT
I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would think it’s any of their fucking business if someone else gets a blow job, whether it’s the president or anyone else.
You still haven’t explained how the people who care are adversely affected. You keep SAYING they’re adversely affected, but you won’t explain how. If a bunch of total strangers CHOOSE to be judgemental, self-righteous twats, how is that the fault of the innocent blow job receiver?