Hillary Clinton - Why the hate?

[DrunkBomber]

So fighting to save a marriage and keeping the family together is a bad thing? I wonder if you have analyzed the other candidates marriages, which ones are the best, which couples are the most in love?

I was waiting for something like this. In my original post I CLEARLY stated that this is my prerogative and I personally dont respect someone that would let their spouse walk all over them. I also said it has nothing to do with how I feel about any other candidates or past presidents. The thread is about Hillary and what people dont like about her. I know you didnt quote my post but the one quoted was in reference to mine.

[iamshack]

So fighting to save a marriage and keeping the family together is a bad thing? I wonder if you have analyzed the other candidates marriages, which ones are the best, which couples are the most in love?

 

Oh I didn't mean to say that at all. But don't pretend like this is just some theory I conjured up here. It's quite a common theory that these two work as a "team," and that most important is that they do so for the benefit of both of their political careers.

 

And there is nothing wrong with fighting to save a marriage. But when the husband is out philandering all the time, it starts to appear that maybe he isn't too concerned about the marriage himself...there is a difference in fighting for something and being simply blind or stupid. And I don't think anyone will ever accuse Hillary of being blind or stupid...

[Texsox]

A marriage as a team helping each other out. Wow, that is terrible. Marriage should be about hurting each other's careers. Dumping him would have appealed to more voters. To believe your theory, you have to believe that the majority of voters think she did the right thing staying together. I don't think that was the case.

[Misplaced_Sox]

Listen carefully - you just called another poster "a real ignorant person". You need to tone it down, or you can just stop posting in here. Your choice.

 

Back to your material information... as you have pointed out, the projects were a really poor design for everyone involved. Now we have the new plans, in great part pushed by Mayor Daley, to integrate income levels in housing. I am sure that is no perfect solution, but, be honest here - are you really saying its not an improvement from the cell block-like projects?

 

 

You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now.

 

You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have.

 

So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there.

 

He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises.

 

I am done with this thread.

[Texsox]

What you are promised in this country is a chance. You are promised a college education. You are promised as close to an equal chance as everyone else. You are even promised food and shelter if you can not provide it for yourself. Sorry if the accommodations are not to your liking. I believe it was mixed income. Improve the income (I know it takes work) and move back.

 

I am one of the biggest supporters of these programs anywhere. But when I see someone who thinks of these programs as the end and not the beginning or even the middle, I am disappointed for the system.

 

I would be applauding your efforts to get out, not your efforts to stay there.

[iamshack]

You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now.

 

You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have.

 

So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there.

 

He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises.

 

I am done with this thread.

 

We have piss-poor attitudes? You've walked into this thread and by now, probably offended nearly everyone in here with your closed-mindedness. It's either "see it my way" or don't bother debating the point.

 

Now I understand you have a really hands-on experience with this particular issue, but that doesn't mean if others don't agree with you they are simply ignorant or they are in favor of hosing down poor people with firehoses.

 

I worked for the City of Chicago in the Mayor's Office, and I did a lot of work with Section 8 housing as well as programs for ex-offenders (many of which are poverty-stricken). Now the systems aren't perfect by any means, and certainly never will be, but certain poor people have a sense of entitlement that I find somewhat repugnant myself.

 

You keep on telling us that "we" don't understand, but maybe you don't understand either. I can't just live wherever I want to live either. I have to live with the laws of supply and demand and by the housing market and the general economy as well. I can't just demand that I be allowed to live in housing in areas where I cannot afford, whether that means I can't live by my family, or by my job. There are plenty of people you would not assume are experiencing similar symptoms of poverty that you may have experienced or witnessed, simply because they are not involved in many of the government programs or because they are in the suburbs as opposed to urban areas or wherever. But believe me, they do exist, and they face similar issues, and they aren't allowed to demand to live in a certain area or in a certain building either. They get evicted, and have to go elsewhere.

 

Why should those that live in government subsidized housing be any different? What rights do they have to live in the same area where the Cabrini-Green projects once stood?

Edited February 7, 2008 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now.

 

You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have.

 

So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there.

 

He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises.

 

I am done with this thread.

No one is suggesting silencing everyone who is poor. And its fine to disagree with someone's assumption. Just don't make it a personal attack.

 

Look, if that was your life, then I have some idea why this would be a very sensitive topic for you. And I think you might find some people here willing to have an intelligent conversation with you about it. But that won't happen if your reponses will all be so full of bluster.

 

Here is a question for you - how did the leap occur from everyone supporting the mixed housing plan, to only 15% being in them? Where did the other people go? Why did they not elect to be part of the new housing, or were they not allowed to for some reason?

 

[iamshack]

A marriage as a team helping each other out. Wow, that is terrible. Marriage should be about hurting each other's careers. Dumping him would have appealed to more voters. To believe your theory, you have to believe that the majority of voters think she did the right thing staying together. I don't think that was the case.

 

Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post.

 

I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea.

 

I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post.

 

I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea.

 

I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons.

I dislike the Clintons quite a bit, but even I would have to guess that their marriage may have stayed together at least in part for Chelsea. Especially when she was younger, and when Bill was off filandering. I'm as fairly certain they both care for Chelsea quite a bit.

 

[iamshack]

I dislike the Clintons quite a bit, but even I would have to guess that their marriage may have stayed together at least in part for Chelsea. Especially when she was younger, and when Bill was off filandering. I'm as fairly certain they both care for Chelsea quite a bit.

 

I don't disagree that they both care for their daughter. Any parents would. But when was Bill thinking of his daughter when he decided to mess around with an intern as probably the most scrutinized and powerful person on the face of the earth? What could he have possibly been thinking?

 

Now I'm not going to be naive and suggest that other Presidents haven't done the same, that other powerful men and women haven't done the same. We all make mistakes. And we all don't always consider the true implications of our actions prior to doing them.

 

I also certainly don't expect the Clinton's to air all their dirty laundry for the American public to see, either. But the way she's using Bill...they way they behave in public together, and attempt to paint this picture of themselves as the Cleavers or the Brady's, well, I just find it disgusting.

 

And that's just my personal opinion. Nothing else.

Edited February 7, 2008 by iamshack

[whitesoxfan101]

During their watch the terrorist threat grows dramatically, and despite people screaming that something needs to be done before it's too late, only piecemeal steps are taken to deal with the growing threats. A few missiles are lobbed, but a firm plan is never created to go after the people who attacked us in 1998 at the embassies, the Middle East is allowed to dramatically move towards fanaticism, U.S. troops are kept in Saudi Arabia for seemingly no good reason, Pakistan destabilizes, and the Taliban takes over Afghanistan. While they did some good, i.e. stopping the Millennium threat, the 9/11 commission report has more than enough blame to go around.

 

I guess my whole critique on the first Clinton administration is that they didn't really lead. They went along with the ride in a lot of cases, too timid to really make a dent in the issues that were on the horizon. Without their timidity on issue after issue, the disaster that the Bush years have been might have been lessened or even avoided.

 

VERY well said. That, in essence, is why I could never vote for her. And to all the people (including Hillary), that say she is a different person than Bill.......... . I don't think people realize just how much of the terrorist problems that led to 9/11 and the Bush presidency disaster were caused by ignorance/ignoring problems by the Clinton. In fact, I think the Republican party would be smarter to focus on THAT than focus on the "we've been safe since 9/11" crap. And your thoughts on them failing to lead are also dead on. Bush doesn't deserve to have blame shifted off him for the disasterous last 8 years, but the previous administration set the stage for it to happen.

Edited February 7, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[iamshack]

VERY well said. That, in essence, is why I could never vote for her. And to all the people (including Hillary), that say she is a different person than Bill.......... . I don't think people realize just how much of the terrorist problems that led to 9/11 and the Bush presidency disaster were caused by ignorance/ignoring problems by the Clinton. In fact, I think the Republican party would be smarter to focus on THAT than focus on the "we've been safe since 9/11" crap. And your thoughts on them failing to lead are also dead on. Bush doesn't deserve to have blame shifted off him for the disasterous last 8 years, but the previous administration set the stage for it to happen.

 

And no more was there a better example of this than on August 21, 1998 when we bombed factories in the Sudan, that were linked to Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. This was just a few days after an August 17, 1998 hearing regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when Bill gave his infamous "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" statement.

 

I remember many people thinking "he's doing this to deflect attention" from the Lewinsky scandal- this is absolute bs. And while part of it may not have been bs, and part of it may have been, it makes it absolutely clear the magnitude of the events that were happening then and where his state of mind probably was.

 

This is probably actually my numero uno problem with the Clinton's, even before the issues I have with their "marriage."

Edited February 7, 2008 by iamshack

[Rex Kickass]

You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now.

 

You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have.

 

So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there.

 

He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises.

 

I am done with this thread.

 

If you want to talk to some people who Obama did help to make a difference in their lives, talk to the residents of Altgeld Gardens. When he was organizing in the 1980s, they were removing asbestos from the manager's office. Yet none of the apartments would be affected. The city wouldn't even reveal if Asbestos was used in these apartments, and Obama helped the residents of that community get the answers they needed, and get that health hazard removed from their homes.

 

I think it's great that you see something wonderful in Hillary Clinton that deserves support, but be careful. For every skeleton in Obama's closet, there's one in Clinton's. It's very easy to make the argument that Clinton who supposedly spent decades "fighting for poverty" also sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a company whose strategy is very much about prolonging and continuing poverty in the towns where they operate.

 

What I've really grown to hate about politics lately is that it isn't enough to be for someone or something anymore. It seems like you have to be so against the other person that hate has to be a factor.

 

Personally, I won't stand for that this year. There are good qualities to all three major candidates remaining. Although I can not support the GOP candidate based on policy differences, I do have respect for John McCain. Hillary is not my candidate either, especially since her push for equal rights doesn't generally include all people. Obama has become my candidate because the horse I was riding went lame somewhere in New Hampshire. Although he may have several failings, I feel that what he represents is important for the country to have. It's about returning this country to a political system that isn't entirely slash and burn. At this point, he may be the only candidate able to do just that.

 

[Texsox]

Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post.

 

I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea.

 

I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons.

 

Your point is, and it gets to the heart of why some people hate Hillary. You *know* why they are married. Name other candidates that you *know* that well? There are many reasons that couples stay together after affairs, and not all of them are running for President. You also have added the quality of the marriage as a reason to vote for or possibly not for someone. At least in the Clinton's case.

 

Within a healthy marriage the partners should be working to help each others career. So at least in this case, they have a very good marriage, even using your theory. Yet, you find fault in that. Perhaps they do have a crappy marriage in some aspects, but even the area that they do well, you're comfortable labeling a negative. And you are not alone in that. As you mentioned other people share that opinion. And repeated enough, it becomes another "fact" about the Clintons that "everybody knows". It's as if she is the only woman in America that has stayed with a husband who cheats. We accept other reasons in ordinary people's lives but in this case it's because she's a lesbian who wants to be President.

 

It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes.

[StrangeSox]

You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have.

 

Why do they have entitlement? If I'm renting an apartment and my landlord sells it, the new owner can do with the building as he pleases. If he wants to evict the tenants, I'm out. If he wants to level the place, I'm out. If he wants to live there, I'm out. I have no right or entitlment to that property because I do not own. How are section 8 housing projects any different? What gives them entitlement to something they do not own?

Edited February 7, 2008 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes.

 

And where did Rudy's candidacy go? Nowhere. It seems like you're really twisting words here.

[StrangeSox]

It doesnt matter what you think, they dont make laws based on what you and your friends thinks, only the majority of the populace. Go back and google the opinion polls on Iraq after 9/11 into the the Iraq war. You will be surprised.

 

I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors.

 

This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. It isn't majority-rules, and we don't make laws and decisions to go to war based on opinion polls. Politicians in Congress are privy to much more information than the average person gets from watching CNN/ MSNBC/ Fox. They are expected to make decisions based on that information, not on what Gallup says Americans believe. Giving Hillary a pass because opinion polls said to do it is exactly why so many people have a problem with the Clintons - they never met a poll they didn't like.

[YASNY]

Your point is, and it gets to the heart of why some people hate Hillary. You *know* why they are married. Name other candidates that you *know* that well? There are many reasons that couples stay together after affairs, and not all of them are running for President. You also have added the quality of the marriage as a reason to vote for or possibly not for someone. At least in the Clinton's case.

 

Within a healthy marriage the partners should be working to help each others career. So at least in this case, they have a very good marriage, even using your theory. Yet, you find fault in that. Perhaps they do have a crappy marriage in some aspects, but even the area that they do well, you're comfortable labeling a negative. And you are not alone in that. As you mentioned other people share that opinion. And repeated enough, it becomes another "fact" about the Clintons that "everybody knows". It's as if she is the only woman in America that has stayed with a husband who cheats. We accept other reasons in ordinary people's lives but in this case it's because she's a lesbian who wants to be President.

 

It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes.

 

 

"Stand By Your Man" "D-I-V-O-R-C-E"

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, based on what we knew at the time, I reluctantly supported the war effort. But based on what is known now, and how rushed and unreliable the data actually was, I'm against it.

 

But your basic principles for going to war have not changed. The reasons why we were told we went to war changed.

 

I thought if we have people here doing jobs, they should be eligible to the same benefits, now I see that is too expensive and favor a guest worker program with limited benefits, but protections for employers, employees, and society at large.

 

But your basic stance that you want to benefit as many people as possible has not changed...

 

I use to think that Republicans were in favor of smaller government and less spending that was balanced with income. Now I see they want to keep spending more and more no matter what the income levels are. I'm not certain what being fiscally conservative means.

 

Being fiscally conservative has not changed at all. The people who are saying they are is the problem.

 

I use to believe that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they wanted to over public airwaves. Then in twenty five years I've seen just how depraved that speech could be and understand restrictions.

 

I have noticed that this seems to be a pretty reasonable growth of people. It always seems like censorship breaks down by age groups. Younger people more against it, older people more for it.

 

I use to believe that unions benefited the majority of workers, now I believe it is the minority of workers.

 

Like the fiscal stance, it isn't the need for unions that has changed, its the unions themselves.

 

Is this what you mean?

 

Sort of. I am talking about major things. Abortion, what it takes to go to war, death penalty, rules for the economy etc. There is a basic set of principles that make up these things and they really don't change as life goes on.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

VERY well said. That, in essence, is why I could never vote for her. And to all the people (including Hillary), that say she is a different person than Bill.......... . I don't think people realize just how much of the terrorist problems that led to 9/11 and the Bush presidency disaster were caused by ignorance/ignoring problems by the Clinton. In fact, I think the Republican party would be smarter to focus on THAT than focus on the "we've been safe since 9/11" crap. And your thoughts on them failing to lead are also dead on. Bush doesn't deserve to have blame shifted off him for the disasterous last 8 years, but the previous administration set the stage for it to happen.

I wouldn't say "caused by", more like, "allowed to worsen". The seeds were there well before their time, there were many factors outside US control, and things continued to get worse after.

 

 

[Texsox]

And where did Rudy's candidacy go? Nowhere. It seems like you're really twisting words here.

 

It was hardly mentioned, if at all. That was my point. Rudy's campaign went nowhere, but not because of his divorces. yet, with the Clintons, it's an issue. HOw is that twisting any words?

[Texsox]

But your basic principles for going to war have not changed. The reasons why we were told we went to war changed.

 

 

 

But your basic stance that you want to benefit as many people as possible has not changed...

 

 

 

Being fiscally conservative has not changed at all. The people who are saying they are is the problem.

 

 

 

I have noticed that this seems to be a pretty reasonable growth of people. It always seems like censorship breaks down by age groups. Younger people more against it, older people more for it.

 

I use to believe that unions benefited the majority of workers, now I believe it is the minority of workers.

 

Like the fiscal stance, it isn't the need for unions that has changed, its the unions themselves.

 

 

 

Sort of. I am talking about major things. Abortion, what it takes to go to war, death penalty, rules for the economy etc. There is a basic set of principles that make up these things and they really don't change as life goes on.

 

I see your point and it all makes sense.

 

On the biggies, I've flipped on abortion and the death penalty, multiple times. Not certain if this is major, but school vouchers or some form of public funds to private schools is another area I've changed positions.

 

I am thinking that everyone crystallizes their opinions and beliefs at different stages of their life. Perhaps youthful idealism gives way to cranky reality. Perhaps some items occur at different times.

 

And what are your thoughts on the difference between personal beliefs and how an elected official votes? For example, I would like to see abortions extremely rare and only in very specific cases, generally involving rape and the health of the mother. Laws that brought us closer to that would fit my view of an ideal world. I also believe it would be disastrous public policy here in the US to greatly restrict abortions, and if elected, probably would vote with the pro-choice group. Is that the kind of position flopping you would object to?

[iamshack]

Your point is, and it gets to the heart of why some people hate Hillary. You *know* why they are married. Name other candidates that you *know* that well? There are many reasons that couples stay together after affairs, and not all of them are running for President. You also have added the quality of the marriage as a reason to vote for or possibly not for someone. At least in the Clinton's case.

 

Within a healthy marriage the partners should be working to help each others career. So at least in this case, they have a very good marriage, even using your theory. Yet, you find fault in that. Perhaps they do have a crappy marriage in some aspects, but even the area that they do well, you're comfortable labeling a negative. And you are not alone in that. As you mentioned other people share that opinion. And repeated enough, it becomes another "fact" about the Clintons that "everybody knows". It's as if she is the only woman in America that has stayed with a husband who cheats. We accept other reasons in ordinary people's lives but in this case it's because she's a lesbian who wants to be President.

 

It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes.

 

Why do you keep refusing to see the point I'm making?

 

I didn't say I "knew" anything. I said I "believed" or that it was my "opinion."

 

Secondly, "my theory" is not based on the fact that they have a marriage at all. I've repeatedly stated I believe it's a sham. I don't believe it was before, but I believe it is now. Basically an arrangement to stay together to benefit their political careers, not to work together for the sake of their MARRIAGE. So all comments about whether it is good for them or not don't matter, because they aren't making ANY decisions based on what is best for their marriage. They are making decisions based on what is best for their own political careers. And of course, sometimes that comes in the collective version- not just singularly. Why can't you seem to grasp that?

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't usually give a damned what candidates are doing in their personal lives. But for one thing, their sh*tty relationship already put our country through enough, in my opinion. Instead of tracking down Osama Bin Laden, Bill is trying to figure out how best to lie to the American public through semantics. Instead of performing whatever responsibilities she had as first lady, Hillary has people chasing her around trying to ask her constantly about what she is going to do with Bill.

 

Now of course, everything is wonderful again, on the campaign trail. They're all one big happy family again! Well, I don't believe it. I'm tired of it. I don't want them in the White House again, and that's my opinion.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, I don't really care.

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

I see you point, but you are missing mine. You have an opinion about their marriage. Do you have an equally strong opinion about any other candidates marriage? It is not as much what someone's opinion is to my point, but the fact that people have such strong opinions about Bill and Hillary's marriage. You are not the only one that talks about it. People fault her vigorously yet give Rudy G and three wives a pass. That is one of the questions that NSS was getting to in this thread. Why Hillary? and by extension, why Hillary and not the other candidates.

 

BTW, I noticed that in the ten plus years since Monica-gate, there have not been any more whispers of cheating. Do you consider that at all? Perhaps they have repaired their relationship? You find fault that they are committed to helping each other succeed. Perhaps that is a bit old fashioned but I like seeing the spouses support the candidate. It's a rough job as President and having family support, I believe is important.

 

I've been pointing out the double standard that people seem to have with the Clintons. Imagine if the Clintons adopted an African baby. I bet it would get much different treatment than McCain. There would be whispers of it actually being Bill's kid. Reporters tracking his travel schedule during the conception time frame, etc. And that one is easy to answer why Clinton and not the other candidates

 

And as far as looking for Bin-Laden I think we employ people much better at this than the President. They work at agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, various branches of the military. So I don't think our efforts to track down Bin Laden were seriously impaired.

 

And which candidate is not making decision on what is best for their career?

[iamshack]

I see you point, but you are missing mine. You have an opinion about their marriage. Do you have an equally strong opinion about any other candidates marriage? It is not as much what someone's opinion is to my point, but the fact that people have such strong opinions about Bill and Hillary's marriage. You are not the only one that talks about it. People fault her vigorously yet give Rudy G and three wives a pass. That is one of the questions that NSS was getting to in this thread. Why Hillary? and by extension, why Hillary and not the other candidates.

 

BTW, I noticed that in the ten plus years since Monica-gate, there have not been any more whispers of cheating. Do you consider that at all? Perhaps they have repaired their relationship? You find fault that they are committed to helping each other succeed. Perhaps that is a bit old fashioned but I like seeing the spouses support the candidate. It's a rough job as President and having family support, I believe is important.

 

I've been pointing out the double standard that people seem to have with the Clintons. Imagine if the Clintons adopted an African baby. I bet it would get much different treatment than McCain. There would be whispers of it actually being Bill's kid. Reporters tracking his travel schedule during the conception time frame, etc. And that one is easy to answer why Clinton and not the other candidates

 

And as far as looking for Bin-Laden I think we employ people much better at this than the President. They work at agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, various branches of the military. So I don't think our efforts to track down Bin Laden were seriously impaired.

 

And which candidate is not making decision on what is best for their career?

 

No, I don't have an equally strong opinion about anyone else's marriage. But then again, none of the other candidates have been in the White House already, dragging the country through one member's infidelity, have they? Have any of the other candidates or their spouses already harmed the integrity of the office of the President? Have any of the other candidates or their spouses told us that whether he or she was involved in sexual activity with another person depended on what the "meaning of 'is' is"?

 

And obviously, to your points about Rudy- had he ever become a real candidate in this race- someone with an actual chance- his relationship history certainly would have been far more scrutinized. I think the main reason he was given somewhat of a pass was because no one ever really considered him a threat to win. The same with Ron Paul- you don't think had he become a viable candidate that his connections to racially charged literature wouldn't have been scrutinized 100 times greater? Hilary has been anointed "the" Democratic nominee for basically 5 years. Thus, she has been under the microscope much more than some other candidates. Add the fact that Bill was the President 8 years ago, and it makes the spotlight even more intense.

 

As for the fault I find in them being committed to them helping one another succeed- I find nothing wrong in that in genuine relationships. But I don't believe theirs is. And yet, they parade around in the spotlight together, appearing that they are truly devoted to one another, trying to appear to be something they are not for the sake of their political careers. Well, they fooled America once already- when Bill was running the first time these stories of his trysts were flying all over. And they denied, denied, denied. Hillary acted as if her husband would never do such a thing...and then, guess what? He did it again, in the White House of all places, with an EMPLOYEE! He's already ruined her life. I can only imagine how difficult this has all been for Chelsea, let alone Hillary. And yet here they are again, playing the same charade on the American public once again that they did 16 years ago and 12 years ago. The Clinton's have nothing but sincere love for one another- it's really a great marriage...well, sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

Finally, obviously I understand that the President is not out there leading the charge to catch terrorists. But to claim that this distraction, that basically went on for an entire year, did not affect things that should have been being accomplished during his second term is absolute nonsense. A good percentage of his daily life in the White House was devoted to dealing with the Lewinsky scandal, which was unfair to the American people and it's still affecting us to this day.