NationStates Jolt Archive

No, no, no, it's not Hillary. It's Bill. Bill and his legacy.

Nine years ago we learned that the future senator's husband, who then held a high position in the federal government, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent. This came to light when the husband lied under oath about it in a lawsuit in which another woman alleged that he had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Several other women also claimed that the husband either had affairs with or forced his affections upon them. The husband was not indicted for perjury, but he was impeached, though not convicted.

The senator-to-be did not divorce her husband; indeed, in her public statements at least, she not only stood by her man but made him out to be the victim of what she called "the vast right-wing conspiracy." Now, according to the Washington Post, she wants the whole topic to be off-limits:

[New York's junior senator] has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.


The press, as usual, is respectful of taboos when they issue from the political left. Here's an example from this week's Newsweek:

Last December, a Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17313110/site/newsweek/)reporter tentatively broached a delicate subject with a longstanding adviser to [New York's junior senator]: was there a concern in the . . . camp that her husband might somehow embarrass her in the campaign ahead? The reaction was swift and fierce. "If that's what you want to talk about, I'm hanging up right now," said the adviser, who did not wish to be identified even entertaining such a question.

But it is the elephant in the room. [The senator's] presidential campaign can ill afford another scandal swirling around her husband, whose second term in [high federal office] was badly disrupted by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Perhaps the [senator's supporters] are understandably worried that the Republican right will try to create a scandal where there is none or dredge up old history.


Mrs. Clinton's position on this makes a certain amount of practical sense. She is, after all, running for president, and the impeachment raised questions about the Clintons' marriage, and about Mrs. Clinton's character, that every voter ought to find troubling. Best for her if she can persuade her opponents, the media and everyone else that discussing her character is simply bad form. (Good luck!)

You just can't get over the fact that Bill Clinton got elected twice, can you? He's been out of office six years and you people are still bringing him up, like clockwork. Please, get a new harp, that one's getting worn out. :rolleyes:

Seeing how it's Hilary, not Bill running, one has to wonder why this is even being brought up. Sure, she was the victim, since he cheated on her, but, that affair has squat all to do with the upcoming democrat and republican primaries.

Mrs. Clinton's position on this makes a certain amount of practical sense. She is, after all, running for president, and the impeachment raised questions about the Clintons' marriage, and about Mrs. Clinton's character, that every voter ought to find troubling. Best for her if she can persuade her opponents, the media and everyone else that discussing her character is simply bad form. (Good luck!)

I am curious to know how exactly the actions of her husband in 1998:

1) speaks to her character
2) relates to how she would do a job as president in 2008

Yes, it does make practical sense. SHE is running for president. Her husband is not. Likewise, neither of them are running for best spouse awards. What, if anything, this says about her marriage is absolutly irrelevant to her worthiness as president, and frankly, she has no reason to discuss it. It has no baring on the facts at hand.

You just can't get over the fact that Bill Clinton got elected twice, can you? He's been out of office six years and you people are still bringing him up, like clockwork. Please, get a new harp, that one's getting worn out. :rolleyes:

This is one of those times, where the less said, the better. I didn't issue the ban on questions about Bill. I didn't look like a fool when I said I stood by him and believed in his lies. Her actions did raise legitimate questions about her character and her intelligence. This 'ban' raises questions about what limits a candidate can place on their own scrutiny.

, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent. !)

O NOESSS!!!111!!!!1!!

Would you ever fuck off with yourself? "few years older" my arse.


Several other women also claimed that the husband either had affairs with or forced his affections upon them. !)

"Bill Clinton the womaniser" you can sell, but you'll be be left holding "Bad Bill the Rapist"......

This is one of those times, where the less said, the better. I didn't issue the ban on questions about Bill. I didn't look like a fool when I said I stood by him and believed in his lies. Her actions did raise legitimate questions about her character and her intelligence. This 'ban' raises questions about what limits a candidate can place on their own scrutiny.

No, but you trotted this out, didn't you? Just can't help mentioning Bill when the issue should be Hillary. And as Arthais asked, how does what he did reflect at all on her character and fitness to be President? Compared to the Current Occupant, who was a National Guard-deserting alcoholic coke-hound, standing by your man even when he's cheating on you in the White House seems rather honorable. Silly, maybe, but honorable.

I have a theory about all this foaming at the mouth that the White Noise Machine seems to do over Hilary, because really she's not communist (that was COMPLETELY laughable), or even far left. The 'extreme left wing' of the Democratic party really don't seem to want to have anything to do with her-while all this hubub, bub?

I don't think that this is because they're afraid Democrats will vote for her, all this scare tactics wouldn't influence that vote one bit, seeing how it's comicly off the mark. They're afraid Republicans will vote for her-if they let up on the noise machine screaming about how 'far left' and 'polarizing' she is, they might notice her middle ground and actually think, "Hell, why not."

So while I'm not a Democrat, in the American spectrum I'm most certainly on the left, I feel that I can relax and no longer bother with all this sound and fury, knowing what it signifies.

Nine years ago we learned that the future senator's husband, who then held a high position in the federal government, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent. This came to light when the husband lied under oath about it in a lawsuit in which another woman alleged that he had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Several other women also claimed that the husband either had affairs with or forced his affections upon them. The husband was not indicted for perjury, but he was impeached, though not convicted.


Gosh, just a few years OLDER than the age of consent? What a creep.

Still those allegations of sexual harassment and rape are being thrown around against Bill Clinton. Even after former Republican media insider David Brock revealed that it was all part of a smear campaign orchestrated by Richard Mellon Scaife, the Republican version of Paul Soros, and conservative slanted publications like American Spectator and the Washington Times.

This is one of those times, where the less said, the better. I didn't issue the ban on questions about Bill. I didn't look like a fool when I said I stood by him and believed in his lies. Her actions did raise legitimate questions about her character and her intelligence. This 'ban' raises questions about what limits a candidate can place on their own scrutiny.

Like past cocaine use and alchohalism, or spotty National Guard service, or...

You just can't get over the fact that Bill Clinton got elected twice, can you? He's been out of office six years and you people are still bringing him up, like clockwork. Please, get a new harp, that one's getting worn out. :rolleyes:

But Bill Clinton's the reason 9/11 happened! He did nothing about terrorism!


[/sarcasm]

This is one of those times, where the less said, the better. I didn't issue the ban on questions about Bill. I didn't look like a fool when I said I stood by him and believed in his lies. Her actions did raise legitimate questions about her character and her intelligence. This 'ban' raises questions about what limits a candidate can place on their own scrutiny.

Loyalty to Husband in time of crisis...Vs (for instance) Giulannis favourtism towards Bernard Kerik...

But Bill Clinton's the reason 9/11 happened! He did nothing about terrorism!


[/sarcasm]

:eek: Oh, no!

:eek: Think of the CHILDREN! (Monica practically was one!)

Feh.

$40,000,000 of tax-payer money spent on all that Whitewater crap and who knows how much on the impeachment. And every time a Democrat says something bad about the Current Occupant, it's all "Oooh, you're so unpatriotic! We must support our war-time leader."

:rolleyes:

I say, bugger off.

Yes, this does speak badly for democrats, they will...forgive their partners for their indiscresions and stand by their husbands/wives rather than...I dunno...file for divorce while their wives are being treated for cancer (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/081799.htm)

Yeah, I did like that one.

Of Romney, McCain, Giuliani and Gingrich, only Romney, the Mormon, has only been married once. Take that, family values!

Loyalty to Husband in time of crisis...Vs (for instance) Giulannis favourtism towards Bernard Kerik...

Yes, this does speak badly for democrats, they will...forgive their partners for their indiscresions and stand by their husbands/wives rather than...I dunno...file for divorce while their wives are being treated for cancer (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/081799.htm)

Yes, this does speak badly for democrats, they will...forgive their partners for their indiscresions and stand by their husbands/wives rather than...I dunno...file for divorce while their wives are being treated for cancer (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/081799.htm)

Yep, that kind of thing. I'd sling more muck but being non-American I wouldnt be familiar with various sc..candidates for the Republican side offhand. Theres something about that Giuliani fecker though....A whiff of sulphrous fumes....

Like past cocaine use and alchohalism, or spotty National Guard service, or...

Can we bring aborted fetus into this as well? I'm sure that's one that the righties would love to forget.

I'm not saying Slick Willie was a Saint, but it gets on me nerves a bit one people are so willing to point the finger at the other side, noting indiscressions and faults with them, yet elevate their own as if they are golden saints.

A pile shit, even with a few gold specks in it(Being a bit generous with "gold" considering most politicians) is still a pile of shit.

:eek: Oh, no!

:eek: Think of the CHILDREN! (Monica practically was one!)

Feh.

$40,000,000 of tax-payer money spent on all that Whitewater crap and who knows how much on the impeachment. And every time a Democrat says something bad about the Current Occupant, it's all "Oooh, you're so unpatriotic! We must support our war-time leader."

:rolleyes:

I say, bugger off.

Indeed. I'm not forgiving Clinton by any means, but common on. Impeachment? For getting a bit on the side? Wow, what happened to being impeached for slightly valid reasons, such as denying an act of Congress(Although a rather ruthless Congress at the time), I.E. Johnson? Meh, he never should have been asked in the first place, but he never should have lied. Neither Congress of the time nor Clinton acted in good conduct.

Indeed. I'm not forgiving Clinton by any means, but common on. Impeachment? For getting a bit on the side? Wow, what happened to being impeached for slightly valid reasons, such as denying an act of Congress(Although a rather ruthless Congress at the time), I.E. Johnson? Meh, he never should have been asked in the first place, but he never should have lied. Neither Congress of the time nor Clinton acted in good conduct.

He embarrassed not only himself but the Democratic Party, of which I'm a life-long member. As soon as the Neo-Con Republicans took Congress in 1994, their agenda was nothing except "Get Clinton." He should have kept his damned zipper zipped but they should have STFU. :mad:

No, but you trotted this out, didn't you? Just can't help mentioning Bill when the issue should be Hillary. And as Arthais asked, how does what he did reflect at all on her character and fitness to be President? Compared to the Current Occupant, who was a National Guard-deserting alcoholic coke-hound, standing by your man even when he's cheating on you in the White House seems rather honorable. Silly, maybe, but honorable.

Huh-huh...he said "coke hound"...

You just can't get over the fact that Bill Clinton got elected twice, can you? He's been out of office six years and you people are still bringing him up, like clockwork. Please, get a new harp, that one's getting worn out. :rolleyes:
That's just the way of things, leftists will rant the same about Bush during the 2012 election between Sentient Mold Sample #C-78961 (D) and Kralthus Skullhammer, Destroyer of Worlds (R).
Oh, yes, that decade is going to be one remembered with interest by the people who are still around come 2020.

None of y'all get it yet. This isn't about Bill Clinton, except in an offhand way. This is about Hillary and how she expects to place limits on how she is treated by other candidates and by the press. It's bad enough that she insists on scripted appearances, but it's much worse if she is allowed to place any part of her past off limits. The skeletons in a candidate's closet are fair game. That applies across the board.

No, no, no, it's not Hillary. It's Bill. Bill and his legacy.

Nine years ago we learned that the future senator's husband, who then held a high position in the federal government, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent. This came to light when the husband lied under oath about it in a lawsuit in which another woman alleged that he had made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Several other women also claimed that the husband either had affairs with or forced his affections upon them. The husband was not indicted for perjury, but he was impeached, though not convicted.

The senator-to-be did not divorce her husband; indeed, in her public statements at least, she not only stood by her man but made him out to be the victim of what she called "the vast right-wing conspiracy." Now, according to the Washington Post, she wants the whole topic to be off-limits:


The press, as usual, is respectful of taboos when they issue from the political left. Here's an example from this week's Newsweek:


Mrs. Clinton's position on this makes a certain amount of practical sense. She is, after all, running for president, and the impeachment raised questions about the Clintons' marriage, and about Mrs. Clinton's character, that every voter ought to find troubling. Best for her if she can persuade her opponents, the media and everyone else that discussing her character is simply bad form. (Good luck!)

She makes liberals look ridiculous, and I hate that.

I read "partisan hackery... partisan hackery... whining... persecution complex.. partisan hackery." Is that what you were going for?

I don't get US impeachments: apparently a blow job is grounds for an impeachment, but lying to the American people, starting an illegal war, destabilising the globe, and getting 3,000 US troops killed in the process isn't. :confused:

None of y'all get it yet. This isn't about Bill Clinton, except in an offhand way. This is about Hillary and how she expects to place limits on how she is treated by other candidates and by the press. It's bad enough that she insists on scripted appearances, but it's much worse if she is allowed to place any part of her past off limits. The skeletons in a candidate's closet are fair game. That applies across the board.

We get it just fine.

You foam at the mouth when you hear the name "Clinton."

I seem to remember a candidate from Texas that put his past drug use as off-limits. Wonder whatever happened with him?

I don't get US impeachments: apparently a blow job is grounds for an impeachment, but lying to the American people, starting an illegal war, destabilising the globe, and getting 3,000 US troops killed in the process isn't. :confused:

Impeachments are about how many votes you have in the House of Representatives to pass an indictment, and then how many you have in the Senate to get a conviction. Clinton was impeached not for the blowjob itself, but for lying about it under oath. The Republicans in the House decided that was a "high crime or misdemeanor." So if the Democrats could muster enough votes in the House against W, he could be impeached.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln in 1865, is the only other President tried. He was impeached for firing Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. I forget the details but the Radical Republicans in Congress decided that was actionable. He was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate.

None of y'all get it yet. This isn't about Bill Clinton, except in an offhand way. This is about Hillary and how she expects to place limits on how she is treated by other candidates and by the press. It's bad enough that she insists on scripted appearances, but it's much worse if she is allowed to place any part of her past off limits. The skeletons in a candidate's closet are fair game. That applies across the board.

But, these skeletons are not in her closet. The cheating husband has the skeletons. If anything, she should be applauded for standing next to her husband, instead of getting a divorce. Why should she have to answer for something her husband did? Should I take responsibility for my father's gluttony? See, it doesn't make sense to have to answer for some one else's sins.

None of y'all get it yet. This isn't about Bill Clinton, except in an offhand way. This is about Hillary and how she expects to place limits on how she is treated by other candidates and by the press. It's bad enough that she insists on scripted appearances, but it's much worse if she is allowed to place any part of her past off limits. The skeletons in a candidate's closet are fair game. That applies across the board.

Myrmi, normally I'd join in with the cries of partisan hackery from you given what you usually do, but you actually have a valid point here. Mrs. Clinton is trying to protect herself unfairly to make herself look better. Why, it's almost as if she's acting like a politician!

...oh wait, you don't have a point. Nevermind...hack.

I don't get US impeachments: apparently a blow job is grounds for an impeachment, but lying to the American people, starting an illegal war, destabilising the globe, and getting 3,000 US troops killed in the process isn't. :confused:

No one has ever suggested that a sitting president be impeached for getting his dick sucked by a fat girl in the oval office while he conducted business on the phone.
It was taking an oath later,lying because he thought he could never be caught, then trying to bs his way out of it later,changing definitions etc...

No-blowing presidential loads on a size 16 dress and the oval office carpet and moistening cigars in a girl's vagina shouldnt be part of any impeachment.

unless the cigar is Cuban,of course.

But, these skeletons are not in her closet. The cheating husband has the skeletons. If anything, she should be applauded for standing next to her husband, instead of getting a divorce. Why should she have to answer for something her husband did? Should I take responsibility for my father's gluttony? See, it doesn't make sense to have to answer for some one else's sins.

she still has some serious issues regarding some investments she made in a manner not available to the common man, while she was campaigning against the greed of the Reagan error.

She is mired in double-dealing shit all by herself.

No one has ever suggested that a sitting president be impeached for getting his dick sucked by a fat girl in the oval office while he conducted business on the phone.
It was taking an oath later,lying because he thought he could never be caught, then trying to bs his way out of it later,changing definitions etc...

No-blowing presidential loads on a size 16 dress and the oval office carpet and moistening cigars in a girl's vagina shouldnt be part of any impeachment.

unless the cigar is Cuban,of course.

But then it's about the cigar and not the moistening facility.

I'll go back to what I started this past winter: Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. This thread is Bill Clinton's fault. The snow falling on my daffodils is Bill Clinton's fault.

Impeachments are about how many votes you have in the House of Representatives to pass an indictment, and then how many you have in the Senate to get a conviction. Clinton was impeached not for the blowjob itself, but for lying about it under oath. The Republicans in the House decided that was a "high crime or misdemeanor." So if the Democrats could muster enough votes in the House against W, he could be impeached.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln in 1865, is the only other President tried. He was impeached for firing Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. I forget the details but the Radical Republicans in Congress decided that was actionable. He was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate.

Thanks. :)

You know, I really don't care how badly the right treats Hillary because I'd like to see her go down in flames as well. Besides it's fun when this crap is trotted out on this board and the OP gets trounced. LOL!
I hope they spend billions on crushing Hillary just ot find out that it was all wasted when she doesn't win the primaries anyway.

I don't get US impeachments: apparently a blow job is grounds for an impeachment, but lying to the American people, starting an illegal war, destabilising the globe, and getting 3,000 US troops killed in the process isn't. :confused:

No, lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense. Lying to start an unnecessary, costly, and deadly war is OK.

But then it's about the cigar and not the moistening facility.

I'll go back to what I started this past winter: Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. This thread is Bill Clinton's fault. The snow falling on my daffodils is Bill Clinton's fault.

that moistening facility could put a bloom on the rest of your cigars,unless you ditch it right away.

Nothing like Cohibas with yeast infections.

None of y'all get it yet. This isn't about Bill Clinton, except in an offhand way. This is about Hillary and how she expects to place limits on how she is treated by other candidates and by the press. It's bad enough that she insists on scripted appearances, but it's much worse if she is allowed to place any part of her past off limits. The skeletons in a candidate's closet are fair game. That applies across the board.

god damn it, when will you people learn? Once you seek public office you don't get the right to say "I won't answer that question."

Who does she think she is to think she can just...not answer questions from the media. it's the MEDIA PEOPLE. Obviously if the media asks a question you MUST answer. How dare she not talk about things she doesn't want to talk about?

Why don't you damned liberals understand? The first amendment doesn't apply to democrat politicians!

Or something...

god damn it, when will you people learn? Once you seek public office you don't get the right to say "I won't answer that question."

Who does she think she is to think she can just...not answer questions from the media. it's the MEDIA PEOPLE. Obviously if the media asks a question you MUST answer. How dare she not talk about things she doesn't want to talk about?

Why don't you damned liberals understand? The first amendment doesn't apply to democrat politicians!

Or something...


exactly! It's not like any other politicians have ever avoided talking about issues that could hurt their campaigns.

But then it's about the cigar and not the moistening facility.

I'll go back to what I started this past winter: Everything is Bill Clinton's fault. This thread is Bill Clinton's fault. The snow falling on my daffodils is Bill Clinton's fault.

:eek:

Why is it that Bill Clinton's infidelity is an issue for his wife's campaign, but McCain's and Giuliani's and Gingrich's (assuming he gets in the race) infidelities (and yes, that is plural) don't? It's not like she's ever cheated (so far as we know).

that moistening facility could put a bloom on the rest of your cigars,unless you ditch it right away.

Nothing like Cohibas with yeast infections.

One would assume Ms. Lewinsky would have the common decency to mention her Candidiasis infestation to the President, but yes, one wouldn't want that. In an odd way, the entire Monica scandal may have been Mrs. Clinton's fault. She did forbid the Leader of the Free World from smoking in the White House. If she'd lightened up a little and let him light up a little, none of this might of have happened. Never thought of that.

One would assume Ms. Lewinsky would have the common decency to mention her Candidiasis infestation to the President, but yes, one wouldn't want that. In an odd way, the entire Monica scandal may have been Mrs. Clinton's fault. She did forbid the Leader of the Free World from smoking in the White House. If she'd lightened up a little and let him light up a little, none of this light of have happened. Never thought of that.

I think we found the smoking gun


*snicker*

"Make love not war" has never been more important...

Why is it that Bill Clinton's infidelity is an issue for his wife's campaign, but McCain's and Giuliani's and Gingrich's (assuming he gets in the race) infidelities (and yes, that is plural) don't? It's not like she's ever cheated (so far as we know).

Never said a thing about it. In fact, it's not me that wants to make an issue of Bill. It's the press and the other candidates. Read the Newsweek reference. The press secretary told the reporter that the interview was over, if he persisted in asking about how the campaign viewed the potential embarassments.


was there a concern in the . . . camp that her husband might somehow embarrass her in the campaign ahead? The reaction was swift and fierce. "If that's what you want to talk about, I'm hanging up right now," said the adviser, who did not wish to be identified even entertaining such a question.


See -- ask the wrong questions and you're cut off.

Never said a thing about it. In fact, it's not me that wants to make an issue of Bill. It's the press and the other candidates. Read the Newsweek reference. The press secretary told the reporter that the interview was over, if he persisted in asking about how the campaign viewed the potential embarassments.



See -- ask the wrong questions and you're cut off.


My question to you is: So why do you consider this news?

See -- ask the wrong questions and you're cut off.

and, she should be expected to answer questions unrelated to how she would serve in the office of president......why?

Surely she has the right to be interviewed on her terms, correct? She is not obligated to grant an interview, not required to speak to the press, if she wishes to give an interview she is free to do it on her terms. If the interviewer doesn't like those terms, he/she is free to not conduct the interview.

What, exactly, is the problem here? That she's not talking about something she doesn't want to talk about?

So the fuck what?

Never said a thing about it. In fact, it's not me that wants to make an issue of Bill. It's the press and the other candidates. Read the Newsweek reference. The press secretary told the reporter that the interview was over, if he persisted in asking about how the campaign viewed the potential embarassments.



See -- ask the wrong questions and you're cut off.

Which is a perfectly legitimate way to handle the issue, because it is irrelevant. She wasn't the one who had the affair, so why should it be an issue? Bush did much the same thing back in 2000 when reporters asked about his reported drug use--he was more jovial about it, but the effect was the same. Keep asking the question, and you'll be shut out, you won't get access. And that was about something he'd actually done. This doesn't even involve her as an actor, so why shouldn't she tell a reporter that she won't have it?

Now, if she'd been the philanderer, or if legitimate reports about that surface (and I'm not considering the speculation about her and Vince Foster legitimate), then those questions are back on the table, and she won't be able to avoid them.

And by the way--I didn't mean for that question to be snarky at you--it was a musing about the media coverage in general. Sorry if it came off that way.

Never said a thing about it. In fact, it's not me that wants to make an issue of Bill.

Liar.

It is quite simple really.

Number one, Bill’s impeachment was about lying under oath, not about having a bit on the side. If I were to be caught lying under oath, I would be spending some time in jail. Not to mention he attempted to claim executive privilege to avoid talking about it at all – for those of you who do not know, executive privilege basically means that if he were to answer he would be jeopardizing the safety of the nation. I really do not see how that is anything but an abuse of power. The Clinton spin machine was able to convince people that this was just about having an affair, but it was all about abuse of power. That some republicans used it as a political axe to grind is obvious, but the same can be said of those on both sides of the aisle.

Secondly, the first lady has been a politically significant figure right from the beginning – thus the spouse of a potential candidate is fair game, most especially if that spouse is a former president. Do you really think Bill is going to be completely removed from politics during Hillary’s term? He, and his behavior, is fair game as this election puts him back in the White House.

Thirdly, if you are running for public office you do not get to pick and choose what topics get discussed. You certainly can decline to answer questions, but only if you are prepared to get pilloried in the press by declining to answer. It is early enough that she can get away with it, but there are plenty of news organizations who are not willing to be intimidated into keeping their mouths shut about it.

Trying to bully the press will not work for long, and in the end, will cost you.

It is quite simple really.

Number one, Bill’s impeachment was about lying under oath, not about having a bit on the side. If I were to be caught lying under oath, I would be spending some time in jail. Not to mention he attempted to claim executive privilege to avoid talking about it at all – for those of you who do not know, executive privilege basically means that if he were to answer he would be jeopardizing the safety of the nation. I really do not see how that is anything but an abuse of power. The Clinton spin machine was able to convince people that this was just about having an affair, but it was all about abuse of power. That some republicans used it as a political axe to grind is obvious, but the same can be said of those on both sides of the aisle.
It was all about the Clenis and where the Clenis went. Lying under oath was a sideshow, and the American people knew that, as Clinton's 60+% approval rating on the eve of impeachment showed. The only people abusing their power in that case were Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich and the House Managers.

Secondly, the first lady has been a politically significant figure right from the beginning – thus the spouse of a potential candidate is fair game, most especially if that spouse is a former president. Do you really think Bill is going to be completely removed from politics during Hillary’s term? He, and his behavior, is fair game as this election puts him back in the White House.Maybe to you he's fair game but frankly, making this an issue is a stupid political play. Why? Because he's tremendously popular outside far-right wing circles. Republicans make this about Clinton and they lose badly, because if you ask voters whether they'd rather relive 1992-2000 or 2001-2008, and the answer's an easy one, especially when you add in the nostalgia factor.

Thirdly, if you are running for public office you do not get to pick and choose what topics get discussed. You certainly can decline to answer questions, but only if you are prepared to get pilloried in the press by declining to answer. It is early enough that she can get away with it, but there are plenty of news organizations who are not willing to be intimidated into keeping their mouths shut about it.

Trying to bully the press will not work for long, and in the end, will cost you.
You obviously have a skewed idea of what you can get away with when it comes to controlling the press in a political campaign. I wish you were right, but I've seen enough campaigning in my time dating back to Reagan that I know you aren't. McNamara, the SecDef under Kennedy and LBJ, said it best--Never answer the question you were asked. Answer the question you wish you were asked. And you'll see a whole mess of that for the next two years and beyond.

i don't understand what this thread is about. seems like a whole lot of meh to me.

Which is a perfectly legitimate way to handle the issue, because it is irrelevant. She wasn't the one who had the affair, so why should it be an issue? Bush did much the same thing back in 2000 when reporters asked about his reported drug use--he was more jovial about it, but the effect was the same. Keep asking the question, and you'll be shut out, you won't get access. And that was about something he'd actually done. This doesn't even involve her as an actor, so why shouldn't she tell a reporter that she won't have it?

Now, if she'd been the philanderer, or if legitimate reports about that surface (and I'm not considering the speculation about her and Vince Foster legitimate), then those questions are back on the table, and she won't be able to avoid them.

And by the way--I didn't mean for that question to be snarky at you--it was a musing about the media coverage in general. Sorry if it came off that way.
Why is Bill, or more properly, the potential embarrassment that his antics and old friends might cause the campaign a legitimate topic? Most recently, it's the statements from Geffen -- great guy when he's on your side, but evil incarnate when he backs the other guy. Anyhow, when Geffen starts talking about how Bill is a ticking time bomb, a smart reporter is going to follow up. Is he going to pull the focus away from Hillary? How does the campaign intend to deal with that? All sorts of other legitimate lines of questioning come to mind, but it can't be done.

And regardless of what was allowed or not allowed during Bush campaign press conferences, this isn't his campaign. Nor, is the thread about him.

Why is Bill, or more properly, the potential embarrassment that his antics and old friends might cause the campaign a legitimate topic? Most recently, it's the statements from Geffen -- great guy when he's on your side, but evil incarnate when he backs the other guy. Anyhow, when Geffen starts talking about how Bill is a ticking time bomb, a smart reporter is going to follow up. Is he going to pull the focus away from Hillary? How does the campaign intend to deal with that? All sorts of other legitimate lines of questioning come to mind, but it can't be done.

And regardless of what was allowed or not allowed during Bush campaign press conferences, this isn't his campaign. Nor, is the thread about him.

This is nothing more than the long tradition of tension between press and politicians. Both sides need each other, and neither side can stand the other (until recently, when the press got so sycophantic it was nauseating). When you're a star, like Clinton is, you can tell any individual reporter to go to hell, because there are a hundred clamoring at the gate to ask only the questions the star says she will answer. Bush was the same way, as was Bill Clinton, as is practically any politician at the highest levels of power. Hell, Obama told an entire network to go to hell when they smeared him--he froze out Fox News, and I hope he keeps it up.

The only weapon the reporter has is solidarity with his or her brethren--if they all decide that if a candidate refuses to answer questions, none of them will cover that candidate, then the candidate will have to cave. But can you really imagine that happening in this media world?

So really, this thread is much ado about nothing. Clinton used her leverage--so what else is new? The fact that the issue under question is irrelevant is just lagniappe.

This is nothing more than the long tradition of tension between press and politicians. Both sides need each other, and neither side can stand the other (until recently, when the press got so sycophantic it was nauseating). When you're a star, like Clinton is, you can tell any individual reporter to go to hell, because there are a hundred clamoring at the gate to ask only the questions the star says she will answer. Bush was the same way, as was Bill Clinton, as is practically any politician at the highest levels of power. Hell, Obama told an entire network to go to hell when they smeared him--he froze out Fox News, and I hope he keeps it up.

The only weapon the reporter has is solidarity with his or her brethren--if they all decide that if a candidate refuses to answer questions, none of them will cover that candidate, then the candidate will have to cave. But can you really imagine that happening in this media world?

So really, this thread is much ado about nothing. Clinton used her leverage--so what else is new? The fact that the issue under question is irrelevant is just lagniappe.
In fact, I'm getting tired of it already. I just wonder if Clinton can script this campaign, as she did with the Senate campaign. It'd be a shame to see the press, or her opponents fall for this dodge.

By the way, do people in Louisiana really use the word lagniappe in normal conversation?

In fact, I'm getting tired of it already. I just wonder if Clinton can script this campaign, as she did with the Senate campaign. It'd be a shame to see the press, or her opponents fall for this dodge.She'll certainly try, as will Obama and Edwards and McCain and Giuliani and any other candidates who work their way into the top tier--like Gore, if he gets in, or Gingrich. Bill did a masterful job of it in 1992, so they've got experience on their side.

By the way, do people in Louisiana really use the word lagniappe in normal conversation?
Around New Orleans they do--in the Times-Picayune, the New Orleans newspaper, what is called the Living section in most papers is called Lagniappe.

In fact, I'm getting tired of it already. I just wonder if Clinton can script this campaign, as she did with the Senate campaign. It'd be a shame to see the press, or her opponents fall for this dodge.

Couldn't find anything about the woman and had to go for her husband's sex lie? Bush sent thousands to their DEATHS over a lie.

He did not lie under oath about it. Look at the court's definition of sex. By it, Monica had had sex with Bill, but Bill had not had sex with Monica.

Nine years ago we learned that the future senator's husband, who then held a high position in the federal government, was carrying on an extramarital sexual affair with an employee who was only a few years older than the age of consent.

And then the republican party wasted the time and money which would have prevented 9/11 in persecuting him.

Hillary was on power lunch today.

She's an idiot. She doesn't understand the difference between the government deficit and the current account deficit. Then she babbled something about intellectual property.

Then she babbled some nonsense about china.

It was all about the Clenis and where the Clenis went.

it's not the right-wingers' fault that they find the clenis inherently interesting. and mouth-watering. that's just the way god made them - deeply intrigued by the all-powerful clenis.

Do you ever wonder why more money was given to the whitewater investigation than to the 9/11 investigation?

I bring it up, because we're talking about Bill's history...