You just haven’t beenlooking.
A few weeks ago, I would have thought that that post was tongue-in-cheek.
Regards,
Shodan
You know, for somebody who refuses to produce anything beyond ‘my unsupported word for what somebody supposedly told my father when he was a chauffeur’ which directly contradicts everyone who was actually in the Washington press corps, you seem a little quick with the cite requests.
But in that spirit, it was not even an open secret that Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones. Everybody knows it.
There. Case closed.
Regards,
Shodan
Only two Presidents have ever been impeached, and Bill Clinton is one of them. Who are these other Presidents that have been treated so much more harshly?
The hilarious thing is that even one of the FReepers wrote “McCain could lease a McDonald’s, and they wouldn’t even have to shut down the drive-thru.” and several others conceded the point.
Keep in mind that “deification” should be treated just like “demonization” is being treated in this thread-- not necessarily a literal comparison to God/Satan, but wild adulation/vilification. AFAICT, no one around here is actually compared Obama to the devil. I actually found a post that did compare Obama to Christ. But I’m certainly not the only one around here who has noticed the over-the-top praise being heaped on Obama by several posters on this MB.
:rolleyes: Nice straw man. The ‘It’ I was referring was the questioning and investigation about Clinton’s sex life, not the disposition of the lawsuit.
Asking a question about your sexual relationship with one subordinate woman is perfectly valid when the person in question is being investigate for sexual harassment from another subordinate woman.
Bush is hated for many legitimate reasons. However, most of the hatred seems to be over the top stuff thought by crazy people who think he is the antichrist, Hitler, or a combination thereof.
The judge didn’t believe it. The judge threw it out of court for lack of merit.
It’s a good thing for Clinton his cab driver wasn’t around to testify…
“Do I hyeah my name being bandied about idly?” — Dr. Smith, Lost in Space
It is already clerar to anyone with a grasp of English.
If you want to whine about Moderation, go to the Pit. If you want to challenge Moderation, go ATMB.
Stop interupting this thread with rule violations and off-topic comments.
[ /Modding ]
I do not get it. Politicians have been horn dogs forever. Eisenhower,Roosevelt, Kennedy and almost every congressman and senator. It is the fringe benefit of power. Jill St. John and Kissinger shows how seductive power can be. If we rooted out the divorced ,those who had affairs , gays etal ,we would have scarce pickings. It is the nature of most pols to conquer . They thrive on ego stroking and winning competitions.
Why are people surprised to hear about the affairs of state?
To what “it” are you referring? Because if it’s the same “it” that Saint Cad and I are referring to, “it” is the Whitewater investigations. That goalpost is over here, so adjust your aim accordingly, please.
Well, yes. I’ve even commented on it (and parodied it, and been Pitted for laughing at it) myself. I am trying to treat as much of this stuff as I can as hyperbole, or people getting carried away.
But sometimes I wonder. It’s like when one of our long-term posters a while back was touting some gay nephew of Sam Walton as the Second Coming of Christ, and I think it was meant seriously. Or some of the threads back in '04 about how Bush was going to cancel the elections and rule as a dictator.
It’s kind of scary when you are reading along, and suddenly you encounter something that is jaw-droppingly bizarre, and the best you can do is say to yourself, “I don’t think he is trolling. I think he really believes this.” And it’s not always the ones who are obvious nutcases. It’s sometimes folks who can speak coherently (sort of) on other topics, and who (if their posts are to be believed) hold down responsible jobs and have actual lives and everything.
Yet somehow or other it is always the Republicans who are the mindless fanatics. 
Regards,
Shodan
The actual question:
and answer
was during Clinton’s deposition for the Jones lawsuit.
For Knorf: And perjury is not illegal? And remember, legality was not the issue. The issue was that a politicians sexual life should be private and have no bearing on their ability to politic.
Craig is a senator until his term runs out, he is not running for re-election. And you two illustrate my point exactly. Forget about left, right, donkeys, elephants, and impeachment. There was no way people were going to vote for Gary Hart in 1988 or will vote for Larry Craig in 2008. Their careers were over as decided by the voters. Yet those same voters seem to forgive Clinton for his pecadillos.
I know you may not think so, but this is NOT an anti-Clinton rant. It is an aknowledgement that some politicians are teflon. No matter what Clinton did, he would give an, “Aww, shucks.” and people loved him for it. Take Sheriff Corona in Orange County, CA. People knew what he was doing but they liked the guy so all was forgiven - at least until he, his wife, and his mistress were indicted on felony charges. How about Barbara (Check Kiting) Boxer and Maxine (Nepotism) Waters? Still elected all this time because their personality appeals to their voters. This list may be Democrat heavy but that is because I’m in California. I’m sure other Dopers can find local Republican politicians who no matter what they do are beloved in the eyes of their constituants.
Getting back to the OP. Obama is very charismatic and in politics like we saw with Clinton, those sort of politicians draw extreme reactions. Clinton was a mediocre president yet he is either a demi-god or Satan incarnate depending on who you talk to and as one side goes more extreme, the other side feel compelled to pull the pendulum more extremely to their side.
For the record, I don’t like Obama at all. I feel he is smug (in a I know more than you sort of way) and too inexperienced to be president. To be honest, there is something that bugs me about him (and no it is not his skin color). I don’t know whether it is arrogance, the idea that he is out of his depth on the issues, or something else, but I truly don’t like how he comes across.
Why do I bring this up? Because it is comment like this that start the pendulum swinging. A pro-Obama doper will now disagree with me and compare him to Abraham Lincoln on the experience issue. An anti-Obama doper will disagree with them and using Rev. Jeramiah, compare Obama to Malcom X. Back and forth it will go until one side ponificates that Obama walks on water and the otherside contends that Obama will single-handedly end western civilization.
I want my president to know more than I do. I seem to get from this, though, that you think that Obama knows less than he lets on, not necessarily more than you- a fair criticism, if one a disagree with. But the idea of not liking someone because they seem smug is anathema to me in voting for a president. I’m not choosing someone to be stuck in an elevator with, I’m electing a leader of my entire nation- I want him smart and I want him to be aware that he is smart.
Our current president has the manner of a seven year old explaining something to a four year old- smug and also clueless. I can’t imagine sitting through eight more years of that- thank goodness that it looks like neither candidate this time around will do that to me.
But being smug also means that he would not be willing to listen to his advisors, and we all see how well that strategy has worked (and I’m a Bush apologist).
Smart, smug, and arrogance may all come from the same place, but often lead in different directions.
Larry Craig was impeached? When did that happen, since you’re comparing him to Clinton? All I recall is that his (mainly GOP) colleagues pressured him to resign, and that he remains in office. Also I note that his home state of Idaho is overwhelmingly Republican. If he can’t win his reelection, it’s Republicans who don’t want him.
Note also that although Clinton was impeached for perjury by the House, he was acquitted of such by the U.S. Senate. Also note that no court of law has found him guilty of anything before or since.
That alone is very different from Larry Craig, who was pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. His attempts to renounce his plea later were rejected.
As for me, I don’t care the slightest about his little misdemeanor. If I lived in Idaho, I would have opposed him and voted against him for plenty of other reasons. His misdemeanor provides amusement, but little more. If I were one of his GOP colleagues, perhaps I would have encouraged him to resign as well, for sullying the moral family purity the GOP supposedly espouses. But that would make me a person other than who I am, so who knows? As it stands I would point and laugh at his wide stance and his “really! I’m innocent!” but that’s about it.