While the GOP celebrates and elevates sexual predation.
I like Bill Clinton. But…he doesn’t need to be there.
It’s not been long enough that I can look at Hillary with fondness.
I remember Edward Kennedy’s speech at Obama’s convention and it ‘had’ been long enough.
Maybe Chelsea should speak instead.
Was your OP not written in the context of, as you say, “getting past November 3rd” and winning the presidential election? Bill Clinton is popular, and popularity helps, does it not?
Hillary’s speech should consist of her saying: “I told you so”, drop the mic and walk off.
“Getting past November 3rd” was in regards to Hillary. It’s not entirely fair how toxic she is but they should keep her in the background until the vote. Then maybe she can be given her due.
I’m disappointed in Democrats for keeping Bill so popular, especially now that we (should) know better after Me Too. Bill should be put out to pasture as the anachronism that he is. If he’s necessary to beat Trump then the Democrats aren’t as good as we pretend.
We better execute Clinton then, right? Either we’re serious or we’re not.
Or else, you know, there’s actually a range of choices that fall under “being serious” and feeling like disbarment and other penalties are still pretty serious doesn’t prevent you from caring about the issues.
When you throw your own convention, you can not invite him.
Not nearly as many people are obsessed with that stuff as there are in your bubble.
Yeah, but some of those are arguably who the convention is for. They’re deliberately playing this up as ticket that anti-Trump Republicans can get behind. Biden picked the law-and-order VP, after all.
I’m all about trying to convince my parents that Biden is basically what a Republican was a few years ago. I play up that he’s personally anti-abortion, for example. (He just thinks it’s between the woman, her doctor, and her God, if any. It’s not his right to force her.)
As for Clinton, I agree it would be bad for him to be a distraction. But, due to the circumstances like Broaddrick saying she wasn’t raped and Jones’s family saying she changed her story (plus the one lady who went on Breitbart, meaning there’s little chance she’s legit), it’s hard to say that everyone agrees that he’s a predator. Yes, I know Broaddrick has since said she was pressured into that statement, but it’s harder. And having Lewinsky change her tune about how consensual it actually was doesn’t really work well.
I get believing he’s a predator, and that the left is most likely to be the ones who would assume such. But I’m not sure it’s concrete enough for the Democratic Party to act on.
It is nice that in these divided times both parties can agree that sexual predators are only to be condemned if it helps the win the election.
The GOP only pretends to condemn the behavior so as to have an excuse to continue the behavior rather than trying to be the better party.
I tend to agree that even what we know about Bill’s sexual misconduct over the years is bad enough that I am really not comfortable with him as the face of the party. I am also not 100% confidant that he won’t be implicated in the Epstein/Maxwell shit. Finally, I don’t see any pressing advantage to having him emphasized at the convention. Who are these people that will be motivated to vote by putting the focus on Clinton? Who is a potential Trump supporter, or non-voter, that will be inspired if Bill gives a speech at the conventions?
I see nothing to gain and plenty to lose.
I don’t like the idea of tarring Hillary with that brush–she’s not responsible for her husband’s sexual misconduct. But she’s still part of the old guard, and I don’t see much advantage in making this convention, this campaign, about continuity with that past. Link it to Obama, instead.
I would have said yes to Bill but no to Hillary. Bill gave us 8 pretty decent years. Unfortunately, in 2016 the only battle for the nomination was between the only two Democrats capable of losing to Donald: Hillary and Sanders. When you want to beat someone, you don’t need to hear from someone who couldn’t.
President Clinton will have a five-minute pre-recorded speech and it won’t be shown during the primetime section the networks are covering.
You get that none of this works, right? Your side is the one who pushes the idea that you must have definitive proof or else it’s absolutely horrible to act on anyone possibly being a sex predator. So you can’t pretend to care about Clinton, who lacks that sort of proof.
You’d think you’d be happy that we’re not removing Clinton based on victims who all have, at various points, said it was consensual. But, hey, that would only work if your convictions were real.
You’re condemning your own party with your statement, not attacking ours. You’re supposed to believe your party isn’t helping out sex predators.
My dad was a moderate Republican in 1990. He loves Bill Clinton. He was my dad’s gateway drug into the Democratic Party. There are a still lot of moderates and independents who remember the 90s fondly.
And he did give a really good speech.
She has absolutely nothing to gloat over. Nothing.
Yeah, I admire Bill, one of our very best presidents.
The GOP has tried hard to blacken his name, but the worst is “he is a bit of a horn dog” which is normal for a powerful man. Big deal.
Our best Ex-president. But not so good as a President. Over his head, but he was a honest man and tired.
Monica seduced him. Unlike mr 'grab them by the pussy" and mr “I like to look at the underage girls naked at my beauty pageants”. We have this thing called 'consent".
Sure, he was married and that makes it a little sleazy but Monica/Bill was consensual.
Your side occasionally believes that women who survive rape and other forms of sexual assault should be believed. My side thinks they should be believed if there is proof.