Add onto that the fact that she is a stone liar (Whitewater; Rose billing records; vast rightwing conspiracy) and you’ve got the bases covered. She is unreliable and untrustworthy. But then, that didn’t stop the Dems from running Kerry for President, so it probably won’t stop them from running her.
Well, you know, it’s a funny thing…although probably lost on the likes of you…but people tend to think that if someone will lie about one thing, they will lie about another.
It goes toward credibility, you know, and character…both of which are viewed with suspicion when it comes to Hillary, in part because of her comments about her marriage and in part because of the perfectly obvious nature of the marriage itself.
But no, far better to blame a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” for all the difficulty rather than to own up to what was really going on. It’s this kind of dishonesty, combined with the political opportunism involved in trying to blame the right for problems caused by her own marital arrangement (an arrangement she knew would be met with disapproval by the people whose votes she desired, by the way) that are contributing to the criticism being levelled at her now.
Never mind the irony of this coming from a Bush supporter, you’re factually wrong in your assertions that HRC was ever proven to be a lying about anything involving Whitewater or the Rose Law Firm and she was RIGHT about the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” being behind Blow Job Gate, at least to the extent that it was the (desperate) culmination of a concerted, long-time and wide ranging effort to GET BILL CLINTON by any means possible. After many years of fruitless investigation, Inquisitor Starr was forced to resort to the tawdry prosecution of an adulterous blow job but only because he couldn’t find anything else that the Clinton’s were guilty of.
So yes, there was a conspiracy, yes it was right wing and yes it was vast. It’s not like there was even anything secret about it
And in her case, those things would be what? Whose business were they? What wars did she start on the basis of her lies? Who did she torture while lying that she wasn’t?
IOW, you know their marriage is as much of your fucking business as yours is of mine. But don’t let that get in the way of your visceral hatred, huh? Sufficient partisanship lets you justify any damn thing at all, doesn’t it?
Pathetic wanker. 
The conspiracy, btw, would be better described as a “cabal”, and although it certainly must have seemed vast to a person at the focus of Scaife’s millions, it would be better described as “substantial”. But to deny its existence is something only as reflexively thoughtless and hatefilled as yourself could do.
Cite?
…said the guy who voted Bush/Cheney 2004.
There isn’t a :rolleyes: on the internet big enough for that one.
Actually what I’m saying is is that if you’re Hillary, no matter what the truth was, people would have found fault. In other words, lying would be as self-defeating for Hillary as telling the truth. Which is why I call that a catch-22.
It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that Bill did lie to her about his doings with Lewinsky. Certainly she might have suspected he was lying, but just because she chose to defend him instead of running to the arms of Kenneth Starr does not mean she too was being a liar by saying he was innocent. For all we know, she was in the grips of psychological denial and couldn’t handle the truth, as Jack Nicolson would say. We don’t know.
If we were discussing WMDs in Iraq and Bush, instead of the Lewinsky affair and HRC, how would you view a statement similar to the one above?
Debaser:
How do you know what the Clinton’s marriage is like? And who are you to judge it? And perhaps most importantly, why does it even matter what kind of marriage they have? If the Clintons did have a “sham of an open marriage”, I fail to see what bearing that has on Hillary’s worth as a leader.
You’re kidding, right?
No, media said Kerry was winning. Exit polls are not conducted in order to predict the winner, but instead to produce an accurate portrait of why the eventual winner won. They did that this year, as they always have.
This post is just odd.
I got the words “sham”, “open marriage”, and “philanderer” from your post! You wrote those words first, not me. And I was clearly responding to your post. I was illustrating the point that her actions were going to result in controversy (that’s another word you used.) because they were controversial!* You seemed to be bemoaning the fact that Hillary had no way out of a bad situation. Maybe so. But, that bad situation was entirely the result of choices that she made. That’s my point.
Next: You think that even having a sham of an open marriage has no bearing on being a leader? This is just nuts, and most normal people would immediately recognize it as such. Voters tend to be married. It says a lot about someone that they would tolerate a cheating spouse just for political gain. It’s a major factor for most voters if someone is a in an open marriage.
When asked what their most important factor in the recent election 22% said “Moral Values”. This is more than any other issue. More than jobs, terrorism, Iraq, Education, Taxes or Health Care. Of those voters 80% voted for Bush. If you honestly think that someone in an open, sham marriage has no bearing on them as a leader then you are far outside the mainstream.
Debaser, do you really not get it this time either? Apparently not. How spacious are the seats on the short bus, guys?
Okay, then, *you * take a turn: How is the Clinton’s marriage any of your fucking business? How is yours any of mine, for that matter?
Mr. Moto: What “subordination of perjury” are you referring to? Starr’s failed coercion of Lewinsky, while holding her in that hotel room and threatening the Susan McDougal treatment? I’ll happily join you in condemning that. The “use of federal employees” in a personal you’re going to have to explain, unless you’re referring to Starr using his unlimited funds to pry into the state of a couple’s marriage for no apparent reason than humiliation. Maybe you’ll join me in condemning that too.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it, not me. Having an open marriage is not moral behaviour. Lying about your open marriage is not moral behaviour. Tolerating a philanderer husband is not moral behaviour. Moral values were the most important issue of the recent presidential campaign. It was also an area where the repulicans dominated, with 80% of the vote.
My marriage isn’t any of your fucking business because I’m not running for president. Get it?
I don’t know why I’m even explaining this to you. If you don’t already know this, then you never will. Good luck in the next election, schmuck.
So are you gonna get around to explaining WHY a political candidate’s marriage is any of your business? Doesn’t look like it so far, and no amount of invective can substitute for your lack of an argument.
I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss whey HRC is despised by so much of the population. I can understand how you would want to deflect the argument away from her and onto Bush, but this isn’t the time or place. Perhaps you could start a thread.
The fact of the matter is that for a multitude of reasons, Hillary Clinton is perceived as a lying, manipulative, deceptive, smug, arrogant, overly ambitious social reconstructionist whose morals are defined by whatever she can get away with. (The latter would apply to her husband, as well.)
Hey, pal! You’re only from New England, not the real thing. This “wanker” talk isn’t fooling anyone at all.
Debaser, please see John Corrado’s post (#65) which states:
Family values platforms are a ridiculous joke. Really. Who is against families? Who is against people staying married and raising kids? Nobody. And there is nothing on the Democratic platform which would weaken families or family values. You’re entitled to get married, stay married, and raise your kids in the faith of your choosing. You’re just not entitled to tell other people how to do it. And from what I can tell, certain politicians (on both sides) have translated that into either “They want to destroy the American family!” or “They want to deny your right to have the American dream!” What horse shit.
[QUOTE=DebaserNext: You think that even having a sham of an open marriage has no bearing on being a leader? This is just nuts, and most normal people would immediately recognize it as such.[/quote]
Enlighten me, Billy Graham. What the fuck does a person’s sex life have to do with his ability to be an effective leader? Some of the shittiest leaders in history (including the current POTUS) have been faithful to their wives. Some of the greatest leaders ever (Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King) have been adulterers. GWB is ostensibly faithful to his wife and yet Bill Clinton runs rings around him as a leader.
Your polls don’t mean anything, by the way, because we’re not talking about how a president’s sex life affects public opinion but how it affects their actual ability to do the job.
By the way, since you attaching a marital fidelity test to presidents would you say that Newt Gingrich is disqualified to run?
Why, because you say so?
How about some cites for this bullshit? When did you become an authority on what is or isn’t “moral?” What the fuck does that word even mean?
In this election “moral values” was nothing but code for homophobia.
And running for president would not make your marriage anyone’s business.
All this moralizing rings especially hollow and hypocritical coming from anyone who would support the current regime. If you’re going to pretend to be offended a a guy who lies about cheating on his wife then at least try to work up some indignation for a guy who lies his way into an illegal war.
Actually, I would argue that Republican policies targeted at stripping civil rights from gay people (especially the Hate Amendment) are themselves direct attacks on families.
You’ve gotten several answers to this question now. How long are you going to hold onto this pose that it hasn’t been answered?
But, just in case I wasn’t clear in my explanation, let me put it this way: If people will lie and dissemble within the context of their marriage, they will be perceived as people who will lie and dissemble about other things as well.
The Clintons’ marriage is our business in this case because it provides a porthole through which to view their character, and as a result, to make a determination as to whether or not they are people we want to elect to make decisions about, and take action on, issues that affect our lives.
So, there’s your answer. If you continue now to pretend not to have gotten an answer as to why the Clinton’s marriage is our business, I’ll see no further reason to respond as you will have revealed yourself as a muddle-headed dolt who can’t understand even the simplest of answers to the questions you’ve posed.
In the case of Bill, he clearly carried his activities into the job, making it the country’s business. His marriage became the country’s business when he started letting his nookie get in the way of the job - which he did. He got a blowjob in the hallway of the oval office, during working hours. As I recall, he kept people waiting while he did this. Didn’t he even get one while talking to some foreign dignitary on the phone or something?
If I had an employee who was banging someone in his office, making a spectacle of himself, being late for meetings because he was gettin’ some, and all that, I’d have a problem with him. Not because of his personal life or marriage, but because he was showing bad freaking judgement and diminishing the company with his behaviour. So that’s a fair knock on Bill.
How ANY of this reflects on Hillary though is beyond me. Hillary’s “crime” was staying married to the guy. I thought that’s what ‘family values’ conservatives believed in? Or is the lesson of the day that divorce is a good thing? That it would be good for the country for the President to go through a messy spectacle of a divorce?
If anything, Hillary should be commended. We don’t know what she said to Bill in private, but I hope it was vicious. In public, she defended her husband and her marriage, which was pretty damned honorable. She kept her marriage together, kept her family together, and didn’t use her public position to publically humiliate her husband.
It simply baffles me how anyone can use Bill Clinton’s cheating on Hillary as a reason to hate Hillary.