I get a kick out of the big political stories that don’t hit GD right away … seems like they are often stories that there’s no way the libs can look good on. Funny huh?
So many questions to debate …
What got into Bill? His heart attack? Could it be the money? We’re not talking cattle futures money or chinese political contribution money…we’re talking bazillions for giving speeches.
Vanity Fair is just a little liberal wouldn’t you say? What are they doing putting out a piece on a former golden boy like Bill. This guy could have been back in the oval office… maybe still could be. They must really love Obama!
And what do you think of a former President who throws around “sleazeball” and “scumbag” like he does in a sound clip I heard this morning? Here’s the official response .
And, Vanity Fair always writes a great story, but it’s no more than Fox News/National Inquirer for people who can actually read words without looking them up in the dictionary. Not that I don’t read stories there, just that it’s a slick vehicle.
How about a little cut and paste of the issue from your links so we don’t have to go there and read the whole article before we decide if this is an issue? OMG, I read this story-- here’s a link!! That’s not an OP worth responding to, IMO.
There’s some interesting stuff about investments and the uncomfortable way the Clintons tend to mix political ventures with “goodwill” work, like this…
First of all, I’m actually supportive of a lot of things the Clinton Foundation is trying to do - their charitable goals seem pretty worthy, and their projects are very market-friendly in many ways.
That doesn’t mean, though, that lots of the foundation’s funding hasn’t been pretty shadowy - it has been. It has also been used pretty blatantly to help Hillary. When she heads off to South Carolina to hand out a foundation check, the ethical lines get blurred pretty badly.
I think this is something that will need to be looked at in the future.
As for Bill’s personal life - rumors of post-presidential affairs have been around for a while now - and reportedly Obama staffers were ticked off at the media for not investigating these even as Obama’s various personal and professional relationships were examined. So it is easily a question of ox goring sometimes.
In the news today Clinton says he regrets the comments he made. This seems to be a pattern lately - tirades that he has to apologize for later. One of the things mentioned in the article was that Clinton no longer has people around him willing to tell him to stop, slow down, or shut up. Recent rhetorical behavior seems to bear this part out, at least.
I don’t know how true everything might or might not be in the article, but I’d say the odds are slim-to-none that it’s pure wholecloth 100% fabrication, which immediately puts the lie to Hillary’s claim throughout the campaign that she was “thoroughly vetted”. I can only shudder about all the additional dirt (justified or not) that the GOP would’ve continued to dig up on these two if she had somehow managed to win the nomination.
I don’t really understand how licking the ass of the Kazakh leader while in Kazakhstan is notable. That’s boilerplate politics and has been for thousands of years.
Are you seriously getting on our case because we haven’t brought up an opinion article about Bill Clinton, written by a complete nobody, that has exactly zero relevance to anything that has happened in the past 8 years?
I’m searching for a “big political story” here, and all I can find is a bowl full of weiners. Next time you want to make goofy anti-liberal insinuations, bring substance.
Nothing prevents you or anyone else from the right side of the political spectrum from starting a thread that interests them. Making snide remarks about the board based on your failure to act is not going to win you any points.
You call those questions to debate? This could just as easily have been posted in IMHO as a poll asking who believes it. You have not even put forth a proposition to discuss.
Your only source I that have seen rejected has been The Washington Times, the Moonies paper that has been demonstrated to print inaccurate stories on many occasions. And the fact that one poster or another rejects your source does not mean that the general membership rejects that source. There are, indeed, one or two posters who will reject any information that comes from Fox News or the Heritage Foundation. You are free to dismiss complaints from those posters as freely as they dismiss your sources and continue the discussion with other posters.
If you are going to open threads with no purpose and then play martyr from your opening lines, go play in the Pit. This place is contentious enough without people playing games intended to rile up other posters.
I think the story is pretty kind to Clinton in some ways.
As far as the women go, either Bill and Hillary have an “understanding” or Hillary is the most willfully clueless wife this side of Carmela Soprano. Maybe their marriage is all about power; it isn’t the dumbest reason people have stayed married. In any event, the fact that Clinton is a rich and powerful man who loves the pussy and has some sleazy friends can’t really be a shock to anyone.
The more interesting part, to me, is about Clinton’s general demeanor. There’s no question that he has been unnecessarily harsh and has made several outright gaffes on the campaign trail, and it just doesn’t seem consistent with the man they justifiably called “Slick Willy”. Why is that? Is he just getting old and cranky? Was he always like that when he wasn’t “on”, and is he just not used to campaigning in the YouTube era when you’re always “on”?
No, according to the article and several of his associates–it was the bypass surgery that changed him. It’s probably the most charitable explanation for something that can’t really be denied, and I wouldn’t have put it past Clinton to get a story out there somewhere pushing that explanation.
His comments against the story leads me to think he wasn’t behind it, especially since it just proved the story’s point. Calling it the work of Obama’s supporters is the biggest bunch of crap since Joe Lieberman blamed Ned Lamont’s supporters for bringing down his website during the '06 CT primary. And if Obama’s people were behind it, would they have held it until there were only two primaries left in states with a combined population of, like, 50?
I thought it was an interesting story. I thought the following section brought up an interesting issue.
So Clinton has been paid an enormous amount to work as a “liaison between Burkle and various potential investors”. Hillary then takes their money (B&H Clinton’s total pool of funds) and injects it into Hillary’s campaign. Sounds like it would be easy to go around donation limitations through that sort of arrangement.
What are they doing putting out a piece on a former golden boy like Bill. This guy could have been back in the oval office… maybe still could be. They must really love Obama!