Speculation on the Democratic Nominee vs McCain

[MoonWater]

Date: 5/10/2008 6:51:31 AM
Author: mimzy

Date: 5/9/2008 7:40:08 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 5/9/2008 3:04:14 AM


Author: FrekeChild


I don't think that he can take a backseat to her. I think that if they were to make it through a term or two with her in the oval office, I'm thinking they might just get a divorce in the end, unless they decide to suffer through it until the end. I think at this point it's very much a marriage of convenience. I never see any soft looks between the two like I do with other political couples. Their relationship saddens me.

Never gonna happen. Bill has taken a backseat to Hillary all their lives. Or wait, let me rephrase. Hillary has been pulling the strings all along. THAT is why they got married. I don't think it was ever a real marriage. I think she's the brains, and he's the smooth talker. He practically had to beg her to marry him (I think he asked 3 times before she said yes). They are a power couple. They gain more together than apart and a divorce will not work in their favors so a divorce will not happen. To be honest, looking at how their relationship works and how him cheating doesn't seem to bother her, it really makes it easy to believe those lesbian rumors. It would all make complete sense.

oh seriously you guys!


debating and discussing facts and history are great, but don't take it down to that level. to even begin to speculate on someone's marriage relationship is totally pointless - lots of political couples who gave each other 'loving glances' or whatever have ended up divorced or in therapy or whatever. maybe it just makes them more authentic. and to say that 'cheating doesn't seem to bother her' - just because she didn't divorce him doesn't mean it didn't bother her. sure they are a public figure collectively and speculations will be made, but to buy into those types of assumptions is just absurd. none of us know two sh*ts about their relationship.


the same goes for the idea that she is just 'in competition with Bill'. god forbid a woman be ambitious! no! she MUST have an hidden motive, a secret agenda! and of course it has to do with jealousy and a man. could we stereotype anymore? seriously, where are these ideas really coming from?


i'm not pledging allegiance to either of the democratic candidates, but to accuse hillary of being petty and then making petty allegations like that is just wrong.

There is no doubt Hillary is ambitious. Ambitious people do tend to be competitive. I'm not sure what's wrong with that perception. As far as the lesbian rumors, they've been on going for years but I read something a few months back that made it all the more plausible. And hell, actually made her more likable.

Frankly, and of course this is my opinion, I think if it truly bothered her she would have divorced him. Once, and forgive ok. But three times THAT WE KNOW OF (and don't think for a second it wasn't more than three), while not only staying with him, but joining him in attacking his accusers (vast right wing conspiracy anyone), more than proves to me that it didn't bother her. If you read enough about Bill's history with women it's more than obvious that Hillary was well aware of his behavior. She would be damned if any of these women would be allowed to take him down (and in turn, take her down). She wants to maintain her power and position and Bill is her partner in crime in that regard. That's why I thought it was funny when feminists came out in support of her. Hillary is the anti-feminist in my eyes.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 5/10/2008 8:10:58 AM
Author: ksinger

Amen to that one. I remember back in the blue dress days how some of the women I worked with just got whipped into a freakin' FRENZY against Hillary. 'She should divorce his ass!!', 'She only stays because of (insert unflattering speculation of choice)'.


Having been married once and only weeks away from doing it again, I KNOW that what goes on inside a marriage is not anyone's business, nor do they usually have it right when people speculate. I can't TELL you how many people I know personally who appeared to have good relationships, but as I got to know the couple it became clear that what was presented to the public was NOT the reality. I was one of them, and everyone around us was flabbergasted when my first husband and I divorced.


I would not appreciate people speculating as to my personal motivations (although I will concede that she IS a public figure and it's almost inevitable), but that said, to think you know or even have a CLUE is deluding yourself in my opinion. And speculating as to her sexual orientation is...well...who the freak CARES? Is it germaine to ANYTHING??


I do know one thing, a 30+ year marriage is pretty damn durable, if for no other reason than force of habit, raising the kids, and shared time on the planet.

I suppose one of my biggest issues with the Blue dress era (and the times before it in Arkansas) is that Hillary knew full well Bill was a cheater and, whether it bothered her or not, choose to lie to the American public and claim a vast right wing conspiracy. What's more is that they used OUR money to fight these accusers who weren't even lying!!! Of course, if discrediting them didn't work out, they just provided them a nice cushy job. What the hell?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 5/10/2008 5:49:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule

FrekeChild: I really just wanted to post because I wanted to tell you how impressed I am with your ability to articulate in the written word. I am not as eloquent and have been paralyzed by a written response I have to write wherein I need to balance ''taking the high road'' while ''setting the record'' straight. It''s maddening. Can you sprinkle some writing fairy dust my way?

DITTO! Freke rocks.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 5/10/2008 6:46:59 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 5/10/2008 5:49:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule
FrekeChild: I really just wanted to post because I wanted to tell you how impressed I am with your ability to articulate in the written word. I am not as eloquent and have been paralyzed by a written response I have to write wherein I need to balance ''taking the high road'' while ''setting the record'' straight. It''s maddening. Can you sprinkle some writing fairy dust my way?

DITTO! Freke rocks.

Why thank you! I think you guys rock too!!

 

[ksinger]

…"I don''t think that either Moon or I need to be reprimanded for discussing it. , thats my opinion, and I''m certainly entitled to it, and definitely free to say it."…

Yes indeed you are entitled to say what you said and discuss what you like. What you are NOT entitled to is automatic agreement. And you were not "reprimanded" - no one here is your mother - rather you had a couple of people say they didn''t agree with speculation about what motivates people to stay married. While I''m not always the most agreeable, I pretty much stay out of the reprimand business - I leave the reprimands on this board to the people who think it is their right to make uninvited and un-asked-for observations and speculations about people''s relationships based on what diamonds they purchase. (And before you take that as a personal affront, NO, I''m not gigging YOU, I wasn''t taking names when I read threads that have gone that way, but I''ve already read a surprising number that have, so I feel safe in referring to that state of affairs that pops up from time to time.)

You know, it''s good to remember from time to time that in the past, marriage was not at all viewed as this smarmy hearts-and-flowers, romance proposition, but as much more pragmatically; pretty much a business arrangement. Marriage was either for progeny and continuing the family name, dynastic reasons (produce that heir and a spare and then take all the lovers you want as long as you''re discreet), or simple survival - and was mostly arranged. And divorce was right out. Which makes all the screeching I heard, mostly from good Baptist women, for Hillary to divorce Bill, all the more ironic. If there was any demonstration of just how far we''ve moved from "stand by yer man", I haven''t seen it. And here''s one for ya…why oh WHY is it always HER job to do the divorcing?? I mean yeah, he''s cheated on her, but if she''s the ball-busting lesbian psycho-bitch of long rumor, then surely HE has good reason to divorce her? Why is he not held in the same contempt as she for staying with a person HE doesn''t love? Double standard maybe?

Have I thought about their situation? Of course. Do I/did I talk about it? In spite of overhearing the pretty much prurient discussions that went on ad nauseum about the Lewinsky scandal, honesty, no. This is pretty much the first time I''ve been sucked into any discussion of Bill and Hillary''s love life in donkeys'' years. I WILL tell you I see them as a "dynastic" marriage. But since I think it''s OK for people to get married and stay married for any number of reasons that aren''t googly-eyed love, I really don''t give a rat''s ass why they stay together.

Do I think Bill is a person of stellar reputation? No. Hillary? No. But I don''t need to know what goes on in their bedroom to figure THAT out. I don''t think their character flows FROM the bedroom, but permeates all they aspects of their actions, INCLUDING the bedroom. But the sex aspect just is so much more fun than their actual policies or stances on issues. And so the whole country becomes obsessed. It may BE human nature, but it sure isn''t productive, and is a distraction from the stuff that DOES matter. And most Europeans pretty much thought we''d all gone nuts, worrying about our leaders'' sex lives to the degree that we did…and DO.

 

[diamondfan]

When one enters into a public arena, especially political, it seems all is fair game. The sex scandal involving kinky stuff or illegal stuff, a long standing sexual relationship with someone other than the spouse...this is as old as time. Kennedy was known for his escapades. So were Presidents farther back. One difference to me, since it is not a new phenomenon, is our computer savvy global information in the click of a button world. Do something, it can end up on Youtube in a moment. Also, at least in Kennedy''s day, the press felt his proclivities were off limits as far as the general public was concerned. The press corps left it alone, and while certainly quite a few people close to him knew the score, it was not made news. Today, nothing seems sacred.

I am not saying that if decide to run for public office that your third grade report card should become public information, but there is a certain amount of dirt digging or muck raking to be expected. It is sort of naive to think otherwise.

Many people have married and stayed married but not been madly in love. They forge a partnership based on mutual needs and while it is not the type of marriage I have or would be happy to have, it works for some people. I think of arranged marriages where people did not even know each other but grew to have a relationship that worked, though it did not begin as a romance. I am happy that we now mostly have the choice to fall in love and pursue that, but it is not the case for everyone. If Bill and Hillary were never in love and only married for gain or power, I feel sorry for them on one level. They would be missing out on something that can be great. But I was not there when they met, and I do not know what drew them to each other. He was bright, as was she, but I am not sure this path was known back then, even if they wanted it they had no guarantees it would occur. Now, would I stay with someone who was cheating on me all of the time, especially if I were in the public eye and it was all over the news? Likely there would not be a second time. But maybe she really loves him, maybe they work well together otherwise and she deals. They are still married so somehow it functions for them. I can look and say I do not like someone''s choices, but I am not in their daily life, so I am not really holding all the information. Rumors about them have swirled for years, and sexual issues have felled many people, people viewed to be righteous and above reproach until someone discovered they were visiting hookers or had a girlfriend stashed away somewhere, or were wiggling their toe under the stall of the next men''s room. I guess if I thought she would make a great President, her marital choices just would not really be part of my decision, unless I really thought it called her general character into question. I do not know the truth and I am certain few people do, other than the two of them.

 

[FrekeChild]

Blah. I think I''m going to go watch Fiddler on the Roof and learn about arranged marriage, because frankly, I think this is going no where.

BTW I think Bill needs Hillary. I don''t think Hillary needs Bill. Thats why I see her doing the divorcing, if anyone at all.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 5/11/2008 1:17:55 AM
Author: FrekeChild
Blah. I think I''m going to go watch Fiddler on the Roof and learn about arranged marriage, because frankly, I think this is going no where.

BTW I think Bill needs Hillary. I don''t think Hillary needs Bill. Thats why I see her doing the divorcing, if anyone at all.

LOL! My point exactly. Since speculation about their marriage has been going on for the better part of two decades, it should be pretty clear by now that NOTHING is going to break it, so why hash it out any longer? It simply IS. At my age a great percentage of my friends have been married for close to 30, or 30+ years, so I KNOW how durable a long marriage really is, even if it is what I would call bad. I"ve listened to some amazing litanies of things that I personally would not stand for, but you know what? It''s their marriage, and their choice. Having my own list of relationship failures, I am personally uncomfortable pointing the finger at others and analyzing what they should or shouldn''t do in theirs. I also know what a waste of time it is. And by that you may assume that in the past I''ve tilted at THAT particular windmill too. Try not to do that anymore either.

Of course it IS fun, and that''s the REAL reason that people can''t get enough of it, and it''s particularly good at distracting people from their own issues and failures, and allows them to feel superior to someone if even for a moment....but of course no one ever wants to admit that. So, If you''d have come back, said, "Karen..HELLO..this is FUN!! Let me and Moon have some fun fer cryin'' out loud, OK???", I probably would have been so taken aback by it, I''d have fallen down laughing, and said, "Oh....OK".

 

[mimzy]

Freke-

i wasn't reprimanding you.... you and moon have had good things to contribute to these political threads and i was just commenting so that the discussion didn't go south. frankly a person seems less credible when arguments against someone include items that are based on speculation, especially when they are items of personal nature. i'm sure that you wouldn't stand for someone to come in here and start ripping on Obama citing things that are based on rumor or speculation.it's probably been happening right now with the pastor thing - and i'm sure you are quick to put people in their place, as you totally should (sorry if i'm making an inaccurate assumption here). it doesn't matter who you support - you should have the same standard and uphold the same scrutiny when looking at the facts and figures of all candidates.

of course i remember the scandal and all the buzz it caused - you would have had to be in a coma to not!

i'm sure you don't care if hillary is a lesbian or not. but being interested in rumors like that doesn't help your case of being a well informed citizen.

of course you're entitled to your opinion and blah blah blah. i was just trying to prevent this thread from becoming an exchange of "OMG do you know what I heard?!?!" . because it is just unintelligent banter that ultimately does more damage than good. of course this is the internet and you are entitled to all the banter you want, so whatev

not sure how what you said made me assuming, but sorry if you took it that way. i'm just curious, but under what circumstances could hillary run for president and it be totally kosher in your book? or is she just pretty much screwed because her husband did it before her? i'm not asking to be a B or anything i'm just curious! but i'll understand if you don't want to get into it and would rather let it go (again not saying that to be a B i just don't want it to breed any hostility!)

 

[MoonWater]

I don't think the rumors about Obama compares to the issue of Bill and Hillary's marriage. But maybe that's because the two of them have already been in the White House and we know how the issues in their marriage has had an impact on the ENTIRE COUNTRY (and world for that matter. I could go on about the strategic bombing of other countries during the Lewinsky scandal but I digress). When I brought up the lesbian thing, it was hardly "omg do you know what I heard" because a) I've heard about it since I've heard about Hillary Clinton and b) the most recent and most believable information was released last summer. But considering the issues with this marriage and the methods of this power couple, it would make far more sense to me, and give an inkling on how Hillary's mind works, if it turned out that she was a lesbian. I really don't think Hillary, as strong as her personality seems to be, has so little self respect. I also do not believe that Bill would disrespect her so frequently (and hell, openly) which is why I believe they have a deal with each other. It is also why I believe his infidelities actually do not bother her unless they come out in the open and threaten to ruin their political clout. Sure, it's all speculation. But until you folks go after everyone discussing celebrities and their marriages, I say tough. They are political celebrities and what they do in their private life has a much higher chance of influencing (and already has influenced) what happens to us in our lives than say, Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon.

By the way Freke. The first person to claim Hillary was a lesbian was Gennifer Flowers, Bill's mistress of 12 years. In her book she had a quote from Bill telling her this. You can do a google search to find it, among other things. I'll be a good girl and not speculate further about it here.

 

[FrekeChild]

It's funny because after I got done reading your post Mimzy, I went on to read Moons, and she was saying exactly what I had been thinking. So ditto to Moon!

First let me clarify a couple of things: I am a divorce attorney's daughter. I have worked in his office. I have seen more people in the worst places in their lives than you can sniff at. I have seen relationships literally falling apart in front of my eyes, and I have seen couples like Bill and Hillary who (in my opinion) very obviously don't love each other. I am also a psychology major concentrating on family and relationships. At one point I considered being a marriage counselor but decided that grad school would not be for me. I have also always been fascinated by human relationships. Over the years I have been able to decipher from watching people interact (mostly couples who are not married) and what kind of standing they are at in their relationships. I have accurately predicted breakups. And while that is all silly, and mostly just educated guesses, I still continue to watch and learn from all of the people I'm surrounded with.

I am an Obama supporter because I like the man. Also because I don't like who Hillary has become while battling against him. She was clearly the front runner when this mess began, but as soon as she began to see signs of her losing, desperation came out and it made her ugly. That is probably at which point I became a real Obama supporter. Another thing that stood out to me about Obama that all of my parent's ultra conservative friends were saying that they would vote for Obama over McCain. I think that is pretty significant. I think Obama and Hillary have a lot in common by way of policies and whatnot, so that never really made a difference to me. As far as McCain-he's old, he's cranky, and he's of ill health. And everyone knows this unless they live under a rock. It's funny, he and my dad are about the same age, but McCain looks so much older because of how unhealthy he is. Sorry, that was a random observation.

Moon is right in saying that political romantic relationships do have an effect on us as citizens and on the rest of the world. If they didn't, all of the news stations and media outlets would not have been paying attention to it 24/7. If they didn't, Elliot Spitzer, James McGreevey, Larry Craig, etc would probably not have stepped down from their government positions. Bill Clinton is the one politician who had a media frenzied affair that did not step down from his elected station, and continued to have a successful political career.

As a response to your post Mimzy, if someone came in here ripping on Obama, I'd have to listen to what they had to say, and then let Moon take over, because I am not nearly as politically educated as I should be, but I'm far from being a political scientist (don't get me started on the terminology with that one) or as politically savvy as I should be. From what I can tell, the Rev. Wright thing is over. I just turned on the TV to see what is going on in the news, and ended up turning on Top Chef because it's not news, its just a bunch of Mother's Day stuff (not raggin' on moms, just not I was looking for on news stations). Contrary to your belief of not being a well informed citizen AND being interested in rumors-I think that's a little bit contradictory. I consider being well informed as knowing as much as I can, including rumors and speculations. Often, at least from what I can tell, rumors have a significant basis in truth. So I never dismiss rumors or speculation.

As for Hillary running for President? I don't have a problem with her running for president as she is. In my ideal world if Hillary had divorced Bill after Monica or the other women, or told him to lay low during the campaign, or had distanced herself from him as much as possible very early on in the race instead of leaning on him (South Carolina, anyone?) she would have been more viable as a candidate. If she had risen to these heights, by herself, she would have been completely kosher in my book. But I don't know that she could have done it without Bill. No one does. That is also speculation. There are probably hundreds of situations that I could come with in which case she could have done better, or been the ideal candidate, or at least just come off better than she has.

Lol Moon. I'll have to look that up.

I've already written too much, so I'm going to go get some laundry done and continue watching Top Chef. (Tom Collichio rocks, FYI, and if you go to NYC-or live there,you lucky ducks-you should go to Gramercy Tavern.)

 

[ksinger]

Freke, I''m really NOT trying to be mean here, but saying that "political romantic relationships have an effect on
us as citizens and on the rest of the world. If they didn''t, all of the news stations and media outlets would
not have been paying attention to it 24/7" doesn''t make much sense. Presidents in this country have been having
affairs for literally centuries. Neither this country nor the world was impacted one iota. Apply that critical
people skill of yours and ask the question, first who stood to gain from revealing this, and does it REALLY affect
things or have you been manipulated into BELIEVING that who a person has sex with will bring down society, and
then in turn ACTING as if it does?

Several questions here: First, why DID Bill''s sex life become a policy-worthy matter? Was it genuine concern for his sexual mores and that he could be revealing state secrets in the thoes of passion? Or could it be that the nearly bottomless bucket of money showered on the Republican appointed special counsel and his politcal fishing expedition, failed to find any evidence of good enough quality to prosecute the Clintons for suspected business improprieties? That the only high-quality dirt that money bought was Bill''s sex life? Ah HA! Question him about it under oath! It''s not what we wanted but HEY! Anything will, do and if he lies, we''ve got an IMPEACHMENT!!! (And no one ever questions their right to ask or the propriety of asking him about his sex life under oath) And believe me, better men that Bill Clinton have lied about sex, as you should know as the daughter of a divorce attorney. Another question: How could this have impacted the country so much if the press AND the citizenry not been slavering away for the next juicy little tidbit? What was it I said about a prurient interest? The press pandered to the collective worst of our let-it-all-hang-out-I-have-a-right-to-know-what-TP-you-wipe-with society, and it played right into the political motives of the people who despised Bill the most and the most to gain politically from seeing him roast. Is it any wonder then that stuff happened, or legislation got passed that should have been scrutinized more closely? Yeah, we ALL get to take a big ol'' bite of THAT s*** sandwich. Bottom line, it would NOT have affected the country if we all weren''t harlots for the next blob of mud. If we agreed that even presidents have a right to a bit of real privacy, it would have been handled like presidential affairs of the past, quietly. No one the wiser.
The press has MUCH to answer for, and I bet we ALL agree on that one!

And I laughed pretty hard to hear that Flowers quoted Bill as saying Hillary was a lesbian. Well, D''uh!! What man tells the woman he''s targeted as his potential mistress, "You know darlin'', my wife is just this hot, terrific lay...".

You have to understand that at their ages now, and even 10 years ago, sex is NOT the driving factor of their lives, not even Bill''s really. It does NOT loom that large. Power is what drives them both, and the unique part of this, the important part of this is not that Bill had an affair, (see, Jefferson, Lincoln, Johnson, Eishenhower, FDR, Bush I - whose mistress lived in the WHITE HOUSE no less, and maybe even Washington - there are some letters to the wife of a best friend that are scandalous even by today''s standards, to name but a few), or that Hillary being a lesbian would reveal how she thinks, (which it wouldn''t, but that''s another discussion), but that there are married people aspiring to the same office. Who''da thunk? Not the founders certainly. Even if they we''re the most loving couple, it would not guarantee their ability to govern. Why people insist that the bedroom is the microcosm for everything else is beyond me.

I think it would be best if there was a law that spouses could not both be president and still be married. It would solve the
two presidents in the White House dilemma. Can you even IMAGINE who would want to be Hillary''s veep?? With Bill in the room?
Run! Hide! Save yourself!

 

[FrekeChild]

ksinger-you keep saying things that I completely agree with, but you seem to think that I'd disagree. I would even go so far as to say that I agree with your whole post. Even the self-fulfilling prophecy part.

However, I don't think that in todays society where EVERYTHING celebrities (including politicians)do is under a microscope, can truly be compared to past centuries where media consisted of men on horseback. In today's truly global society it is something entirely different. Politicians are not allowed to have secrets. Period. Why? Because if they don't out the secret themselves, their opponents or adversaries will do it for them. And of course use it against them. With the internet, TV, magazines, newspapers, radio, etc, it is so much easier to make those secrets into worldwide news and have it on the news in France, Japan and Australia within seconds. So I'm not surprised that society is the way it is right now, and I don't think Washington, FDR et cetera, are really comparable to any presidencies since Clinton's.

Being that Al Gore invented the internet and all.

I really don't even know why I'm responding, so I'm going to stop now.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 5/11/2008 5:03:09 PM
Author: FrekeChild
ksinger-you keep saying things that I completely agree with, but you seem to think that I''d disagree. I would even go so far as to say that I agree with your whole post. Even the self-fulfilling prophecy part.

However, I don''t think that in todays society where EVERYTHING celebrities (including politicians)do is under a microscope, can truly be compared to past centuries where media consisted of men on horseback. In today''s truly global society it is something entirely different. Politicians are not allowed to have secrets. Period. Why? Because if they don''t out the secret themselves, their opponents or adversaries will do it for them. And of course use it against them. With the internet, TV, magazines, newspapers, radio, etc, it is so much easier to make those secrets into worldwide news and have it on the news in France, Japan and Australia within seconds. So I''m not surprised that society is the way it is right now, and I don''t think Washington, FDR et cetera, are really comparable to any presidencies since Clinton''s.

Being that Al Gore invented the internet and all.

I really don''t even know why I''m responding, so I''m going to stop now.

Freke, work with me here. I enjoy your posts immensely, and I don''t assume you disagree, the only thing I assume is that I have a viewpoint to offer that maybe you''ve not considered. I assure you I seriously consider yours. You have many good points and made some good ones in the post above. I am (I''m pretty certain) quite a bit older than you, so I admit I don''t always have my pulse on what the college crowd is thinking. That and I live in a virtual intellectual hinterland compared to the coasts, where it seems that a great proportion of posters are. It''s good for me to hear how you think, although I think that you and some of the other younger folks on here in these political threads are probably not be the norm, but quite a bit above it. The vast majority of under 30s I encounter IRL are about as dull as cows, and uninterested in anything other than gaming or acquiring stuff. I could just be my location...

I admit I can be very pointed at times, but that''s just me. I''m picking apart your position or certain statements for what may be the beliefs revealed by them, because without it, we have no discussion, we only have a mutual admiration society. How dull is that? So don''t get defensive when I disagree with you. Skewer me back. I love it! Disagreement helps clarify what you and I think on things. No matter where the viewpoints come from I would rather die than be so ossified I can''t think a new thought or change my mind. I come where the quality of the posts is worth my time. It''s a compliment really, to you and the others here. It''s not personal I promise.

 

[MoonWater]

Karen, you are essentially saying if it weren't for the media's interest in Bill's sex life, if it weren't for the vast right wing conspiracy, he wouldn't have had to use tax payer money to defend himself against his accusers even though he knew they weren't lying. I suppose, due to the Repubs and public interest, he and his wife were also force to pay more of our money to have a little task force whose entire job was to attack and discredit Bill's accusers (again, even though they weren't lying). I suppose he was also forced to drop several bombs during the Lewinsky scandal, timed in such a way to distract from the trial. I also guess that when he had extremely good intelligence on the precise location of Osama bin Laden, he was forced NOT to bomb that time because it served him no purpose as the trial was over.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I understand your point. I just think you don't realize how much his sex life had an impact on the country. I don't care if he cheats or how often he cheats. But I do care how they handle it when our country and our money is at stake. (note: I also care that he's doing it in the freaking Oval Office, what the hell does that have to do with his Presidential duties? I'm not paying his salary so he can experiment with cigars!!) The Clintons believe in self interest above all things. This is precisely why I do not support Hillary or her husband. No one can actually convince me that they care about this country. If a decision does not further their self serving purposes, they will not do it!

As for Flower's quote of Bill. It didn't exactly go like that. I would put the direct quote here but it's a bit vulgar. Basically she approached him saying she heard rumors and he laughed in a "duh" kind of way and confirmed it. I don't think he was attempting to convince her so she'd be his mistress. I haven't read the book, but as the quote is worded, she was already his mistress. Now obviously, her opinion would be biased, but I made mention of it because she has been credited with "confirming" it before these newer rumors.

Also I do think knowing Hillary is a lesbian would reveal how she thinks/works. Much in the same way that her being a woman reveals much about how she thinks/works. It would tell you the type of crap she must have been fighting against during her life and why she developed such a personality (and tolerates Bill's numerous infidelities).

I think it would be best if there was a law that spouses could not both be president and still be married. It would solve the two presidents in the White House dilemma. Can you even IMAGINE who would want to be Hillary's veep?? With Bill in the room?

I couldn't possibly agree with you more there. I actually said that several times early on.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/11/2008 5:03:09 PM

Author: FrekeChild

Being that Al Gore invented the internet and all.

This is a minor point, but I want to digress with it. I had never been terribly interested in whether Gore had ever said he invented the Internet, although it seemed like a fatuous thing to have claimed. Recently I started to hear rumblings about whether it was true that Gore had made this statement. I became interested. From what I gather, Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet and he did have an incredibly important role in its development. I will post a link as well as an excerpt for anyone who wants to start doing some research on the topic.



"Exhibit A is Al Gore. People eager to lie about him continue to portray him as a liar. First lie, that he claims to have 'invented' the Internet. Second lie, that he claims to have 'discovered' the pollution of Love Canal. Third lie, that he falsely claims to be the model for Oliver Barrett IV, hero of Love Story.

Gore never claimed that he 'invented' the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, 'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet'

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of 'inventing' for the actual language.

For a heady while we hoped that the Bush campaign would prove their man to be the champion of honesty and integrity that he pretends to be, especially for those looking for a squeaky clean new White House. A couple of weeks ago the campaign rejected a shoddy commercial showing Gore saying that Clinton never told a lie. Problem was that the clip showed an interview from 1994, long before Clinton ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.

To his credit, Bush scrapped the commercial before it aired. But as I write, his campaign is unloading a new commercial, featuring a sneer at the fragment from the Internet claim, again implying that Gore had nothing to do with the Internet's creation. At least they got the words right; it would be dangerous to doctor the tape.

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, 'The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator.'

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet 'would not be where it is today.'

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore 'was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?'"


Deborah

 

[FrekeChild]

Hahaha AGBF!!I said that facetiously-and I actually looked it up as I was writing it, because I''ve always thought it was funny-and never knew what he actually said. So I looked it up and found something similar to what you posted. Its funny to me how things get twisted around.

Ksinger, I''m 26 and in New Mexico, so I''m a little bit older than then normal college student. My father has had a love affair with politics since he was a kid, I would say that while law is his job, politics is his passion. He ran for office many years ago, and obviously lost, but he''s never let it go-collecting political paraphernalia (including a massive political button collection that he sold a few years ago) and because he''s spent his whole life studying it, he can pretty much predict what will happen in any given election. Because of all of this, I grew up at the Democratic headquarters during elections, my parents had fund raisers at their house, and I''ve had the pleasure of meeting many Democrat candidates from New Mexico, and on the national level. I actually got yelled at by Bill Richardson once(about 6-7 years ago). HAHAHA!!! That makes me happy for some weird reason. Anyway...

Here''s a new question because I''m tired of talking about the Clinton''s sex life-or lack thereof.

Do you think there is any chance that Hillary will drop out before someone official tells her she can''t win? I went to my parent''s house and was talking to my dad about the Democratic nomination and he seems to think that because of all the superdelegates jumping from the Clinton ship to the Obama ship, that Clinton is starting to feel pressured to drop out. My dad seems to think that she''ll drop after the last primaries, even if she wins them, and pull one of those, "I''m doing this for the good of the party, we need to pull together and help bring Obama into the White House."

According to CNN, the superdelegate count is now 273 EACH. So what do you guys think?

 

[ksinger]

Date: 5/11/2008 9:40:10 PM
Author: MoonWater
Karen, you are essentially saying if it weren''t for the media''s interest in Bill''s sex life, if it weren''t for the vast right wing conspiracy, he wouldn''t have had to use tax payer money to defend himself against his accusers even though he knew they weren''t lying. I suppose, due to the Repubs and public interest, he and his wife were also force to pay more of our money to have a little task force whose entire job was to attack and discredit Bill''s accusers (again, even though they weren''t lying). I suppose he was also forced to drop several bombs during the Lewinsky scandal, timed in such a way to distract from the trial. I also guess that when he had extremely good intelligence on the precise location of Osama bin Laden, he was forced NOT to bomb that time because it served him no purpose as the trial was over.

I mean, don''t get me wrong. I understand your point. I just think you don''t realize how much his sex life had an impact on the country. I don''t care if he cheats or how often he cheats. But I do care how they handle it when our country and our money is at stake. (note: I also care that he''s doing it in the freaking Oval Office, what the hell does that have to do with his Presidential duties? I''m not paying his salary so he can experiment with cigars!!) The Clintons believe in self interest above all things. This is precisely why I do not support Hillary or her husband. No one can actually convince me that they care about this country. If a decision does not further their self serving purposes, they will not do it!

As for Flower''s quote of Bill. It didn''t exactly go like that. I would put the direct quote here but it''s a bit vulgar. Basically she approached him saying she heard rumors and he laughed in a ''duh'' kind of way and confirmed it. I don''t think he was attempting to convince her so she''d be his mistress. I haven''t read the book, but as the quote is worded, she was already his mistress. Now obviously, her opinion would be biased, but I made mention of it because she has been credited with ''confirming'' it before these newer rumors.

Also I do think knowing Hillary is a lesbian would reveal how she thinks/works. Much in the same way that her being a woman reveals much about how she thinks/works. It would tell you the type of crap she must have been fighting against during her life and why she developed such a personality (and tolerates Bill''s numerous infidelities).

I think it would be best if there was a law that spouses could not both be president and still be married. It would solve the two presidents in the White House dilemma. Can you even IMAGINE who would want to be Hillary''s veep?? With Bill in the room?

I couldn''t possibly agree with you more there. I actually said that several times early on.

I''m NOT defending Bill Clinton, OK? He''s a hound, and very likely a criminal one. But impeaching someone for what amounts to a lie that a LARGE percentage of people would probably tell if pinned down, (Freke would call it human nature), seems specious to me, and a true national embarrassment that we should impeach our president for a blow job. Should he have lied? NO. Was it truly an impeachment worthy offence? That is up for debate - lying under oath MAY be, but presidents have committed worse offenses and the choice has been made to not impeach. And it IS a choice at the congressional level, NOT an inevitability. And is anywhere NEAR the same yardstick being applied to Bush? NO. Is THAT a vast right wing conspiracy? No. But a double standard, you bet.

And just to put it on record - I said nothing about a "vast right-wing anything". I''m not a conspiracy theorist. Mob psychology believer is more like it. But that Clinton had some pretty hard-ball playing enemies is hardly up for debate. And I don''t blame the press entirely, as I believe I stated when I called us ALL whores for the next salacious detail. Which is why I don''t read crap like that anymore past the first article I see about it. I don''t dwell on it, or give it much of my attention. I"m only one person, but it''s what I think I can do to diminish the unhealthy national obsession with celebrity sexual escapades. I don''t watch anything "reality" either, incidentally, and mostly for the same reason: I''m far more interested in MY life than what sex/emotional state/crisis someone else may be having.

As for not bombing bin Laden, you make THAT sound like a consipracy. I don''t for a second think he didn''t want to. And according to the FI, who says the book is around here somewhere, (a terrifying word to me with the number of books around here....) Wesley Clark said that the strike order WAS given, but just somehow never made it to the ground. I probably COULD elaborate a bit, with book in hand, but I''m trusting my guy for this one. Suffice it to say, Clinton''s relationship - a BAD one - with the military is legendary. From some things I''ve heard from friends who were/are in the army during Desert Storm to the present, the military brass liked thwarting him as much as they could get away with.

And come come now. After all the typing I''ve done on this, and you truly cast doubt on my grasp of how morally outraged all us good Puritans have been by all this? I''m hurt.

And worrying about him using the Oval Office for what amounted (at his age I''m sure) to a not terribly long utilization of the location, in his off time - and yes, even Presidents get time off the clock, is just silly. If he was, well, I won''t be totally crude here, doing a "similar thing with cigars" with Hillary (if they were the lovey couple that all seem to bemoan that they aren''t) in there, it would still be on his off time, and it still wouldn''t be related to his presidential duties, now would it? It helps to keep in mind that Bush The First had his MISTRESS LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE PUBLIC NICKEL. No one worried about THAT, except maybe Barbara, who wasn''t exactly thrilled, naturally. Oh wait, it wasn''t splashed across the headlines day and night because the Bush family had the press intimidated and thus determines FOR US that THIS little sexual pecadilla ISN''T going to "impact" the country. (And yes, if you like I''ll dig out the source on that little tidbit too, but not right now, it''s too late)

The only thing Flowers could confirm is that Bill said it, not that she KNEW it to be true. Nuff said.

And I do hope you have had enough experience with lesbians to be making those assumptions about how they think, because each of the ones I''ve known well enough to discuss the topic with, and there have been several - have each had COMPLETELY different rationales/ideas for why they were one/or why they chose to be one. And on the comment about Hillary''s thought processes being understandable because she''s a woman, well, if you claim to be feminist or simply don''t like being unfairly pigeonholed, you should realize you''re in great danger of being hoist on your own petard on that one.

 

[ksinger]

Ah New Mexico! I''m jealous, I truly am. I live in Oklahoma so I''m not too far away. I love going to Santa Fe for vactions - it''s a mere 8 hour drive. I used to backpack in the Pecos Wilderness up there, before my back blew out on me. I wish I still could. Sigh....

I still get there when I can, only now I stay at the El Dorado, dine at The Old House Restaurant, and visit The TenThousand Waves. I''ve turned into a hedonist.

Will Hillary drop out? I have no idea, truly. This whole thing has been so wacky I can hardly anticpate the next stupid bombshell. It really doesn''t seem to be her nature to do so. Kevin, (my darlin'' man), complained disgustedly that even Nixon had more class. OUCH.

I truly hope your dad is right...

 

[MoonWater]

Wow, there seem to be a lot of hostility in that response and much read into my post that wasn't there.

First, I never made a comment regarding his impeachment because I don't believe anyone should have cared enough to ask about his sexual relationships. My problem, which I thought I made plainly clear, was the obvious LYING which had an adverse impact on the United States and the American public. Essentially, my issue is the enormous amount of Clinton lies. Also, I mentioned the "vast right wing conspiracy" because it was labeled as such by Hillary. I thought that was self evident.

Second, I don't care about the double standard because I would still have the same problem, no matter the person in public office, if their lying and cheating had an adverse impact on the country or the people they were elected to serve. I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring up these other Presidents. My view would not change if it was proven that their cheating had similar consequences for the nation.

Third, I find it hard to believe Clinton wanted to bomb bin Laden but couldn't considering the bombings he did prior. One of which the intelligence did not confirm Osama's presence and I'm pretty sure it was known at the time. It didn't stop him from doing it and destroying what was, I believe, a medical facility of some sort.

Fourth, using the Oval Office to abuse your power and position with a young intern is utterly disgusting to me. You're right, if it were his WIFE, I would not have a problem. I wouldn't consider it an abuse of power on my dime.

Last, yes I do have enough experience with lesbians to make what you call assumptions. I'm not sure if you are intentionally reading more than what's there, but if you don't think being a woman during the time that Hillary was growing up had an impact on her personality, you are deluding yourself. She certainly didn't have the same freedoms that many of us women today now enjoy. The very same can be said for gays and lesbians. If she was in fact, in the closet during that time, I can only imagine how it shaped her world view. Just like how me being black shapes my world view. What's so pigeonholed about it? It's apart of who I am. What you're talking about seems to be in regard to why your friends "are/chose to be" lesbians...huh? ETA: Perhaps I am not being clear enough for you because you are obviously reading my post incorrectly. Dealing with discrimination as a woman during that time, and possibly as a lesbian (and whether you are out or not, it has an impact) during that time could have hardened her. She had to work harder to prove herself. She likely had to put up with disgusting comments from co-workers. I definitely think there is a hardness in her personality. I think that's the reason why people claim she's not human enough. Do you understand now or do you think I'm trying to guess why Hillary became a lesbian?!?! (Which would be hilarious because I believe people are born gay).

AGBF thanks for the Gore/internet info. Very interesting.

Freke she'll probably use her last win as a boost to either be the Senate majority leader or VP. I'm pretty sure she knows she won't win the nom (but maybe there's another Wright out there or Obama).

 

[ksinger]

Date: 5/11/2008 11:52:11 PM
Author: MoonWater
Wow, there seem to be a lot of hostility in that response and much read into my post that wasn''t there.

First, I never made a comment regarding his impeachment because I don''t believe anyone should have cared enough to ask about his sexual relationships. My problem, which I thought I made plainly clear, was the obvious LYING which had an adverse impact on the United States and the American public. Essentially, my issue is the enormous amount of Clinton lies. Also, I mentioned the ''vast right wing conspiracy'' because it was labeled as such by Hillary. I thought that was self evident.

Second, I don''t care about the double standard because I would still have the same problem, no matter the person in public office, if their lying and cheating had an adverse impact on the country or the people they were elected to serve. I''m not sure why you feel the need to bring up these other Presidents. My view would not change if it was proven that their cheating had similar consequences for the nation.

Third, I find it hard to believe Clinton wanted to bomb bin Laden but couldn''t considering the bombings he did prior. One of which the intelligence did not confirm Osama''s presence and I''m pretty sure it was known at the time. It didn''t stop him from doing it and destroying what was, I believe, a medical facility of some sort.

Fourth, using the Oval Office to abuse your power and position with a young intern is utterly disgusting to me. You''re right, if it were his WIFE, I would not have a problem. I wouldn''t consider it an abuse of power on my dime.

Last, yes I do have enough experience with lesbians to make what you call assumptions. I''m not sure if you are intentionally reading more than what''s there, but if you don''t think being a woman during the time that Hillary was growing up had an impact on her personality, you are deluding yourself. She certainly didn''t have the same freedoms that many of us women today now enjoy. The very same can be said for gays and lesbians. If she was in fact, in the closet during that time, I can only imagine how it shaped her world view. Just like how me being black shapes my world view. What''s so pigeonholed about it? It''s apart of who I am. What you''re talking about seems to be in regard to why your friends ''are/chose to be'' lesbians...huh?

AGBF thanks for the Gore/internet info. Very interesting.

Freke she''ll probably use her last win as a boost to either be the Senate majority leader or VP. I''m pretty sure she knows she won''t win the nom (but maybe there''s another Wright out there or Obama).

Moon I''ll say the same to you I did to Freke, there is no hostility. I don''t fall over backwards being sweet. Neither do you for that matter, so I shouldn''t think my style would bother you all that much. If it does I''m truly sorry.

And I''m honesly too beat to reply in any manner at all right now. I''m off to bed...zzzzzz.....

 

[MoonWater]

I THINK it's all the CAPS and the

.

Nighty NIGHT.

 

[FrekeChild]

One point that Moon brought up, that I find very interesting is the hardness that Hillary has. Remember when Hillary cried and her approval ratings went up? Hmmm... She hardly shows any softness at all, and I think that if she did show some softness instead of apologizing for having a weak moment.

And my dad seems to think the biggest indication of Hillary "giving up" is that she's stopped criticizing Obama as much as she has been.

And the caps are a little bothersome, I have to admit.

 

[ksinger]

Well, it certainly highlights yet again the dangers of internet communications, and reading too much into things that may hold less significance than the person doing them is giving them, but in the interests of this thread and any future posts, I will nix the caps. (In any case, I will be taking a hiatus from PS in general, since I really shouldn''t be spending so much time doing this, either posting or reading. I spent rather more time yesterday doing this than I should - and real life is demanding I pay attention.)

If anyone was wishing me bad juju for hostile communciations last night: it worked. The 18-wheeler ran over me while I slept. Several times. With great abandon. God, to live where there is climate instead of weather. It sucks being a barometer.

Later ladies! (and any lurking gents)

 

[FrekeChild]

Oh Karen, I''m sorry you''re not feeling well. I wasn''t wishing you any bad juju, and I knew that you weren''t being hostile, but all of the caps were a little disconcerting.

And you''re taking a hiatus just as I have more time to spend on PS-and watching the news!

 

[Rank Amateur]

Sometimes, maybe more often than not, the askew behavior of an elected official DOES affect the rest of the world and the world should be interested in knowing how and why.

Just recently in Detroit the Mayor and his Chief of Staff were affair-ing and it led to unduly firing police officers and the paying of millions in hush money. All this because the Mayor was married w/ kids and lied and lied about his affairs. What a couple of pieces of crap those two are. I'm embarrassed for them, though they are not embarrassed themselves.

To say private mis-steps don't matter in the real world is just not true.

 

[diamondfan]

I think, as long as it is not illegal, what consenting adults do is their business. I do not condone and would not tolerate cheating in MY life, but I cannot say what makes people cheat or what makes spouses stay with cheaters, assuming they know it is occurring.

What I HAVE issue with is if an important figure''s dalliances put us in jeopardy. A president with a girlfriend while he is in office is possibly setting himself up for an issue, unless he does not care what will happen if it becomes public. If his affair uses taxpayer money or resources OR diverts him from doing his job, then I think it does become a public thing. Most regular couples are not under this scrutiny if they are cheating on their spouse. Unfortunately, people in the public eye must face different things. And while I may end up disliking a celeb who cheats and decide he or she is a hypocrite, I tend to doubt a celeb having affairs would be problematic to our nation. A President is another story, as time invested in cheating and hiding an affair could certainly be best utilized in another way.

 

[movie zombie]

mccain and adultery:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm


movie zombie

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 5/12/2008 10:24:09 PM
Author: movie zombie
mccain and adultery:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

movie zombie

Dude. Ew.

 

[miraclesrule]

I sure hope this whole democractic nominee process is over soon. Our economy is driving Americans to the brink and that means more work for me, with highly volatile emotional people. Blech...

I guess I should just consider myself lucky to be one of the people who can count on a paycheck right now.

Can I just say for the record, that I abhor lying cheaters. Cheating=Weakness and Cowardice in my humble opinion. I just can''t bring myself to vote for some schmuck that doesn''t have the huevos to sit down with the wife, tell her he is no longer in love with her and leave, thus risk being alone, before they sew up a new relationship and then divorce. No, no, no....not okay in my book.