November 2, 2007

"The father-son connection is nothing compared to husband-wife."

Charles Krauthammer on dynastic presidential politics. Bush, father and son, is one thing, but Clinton, husband and wife is quite another:
The relationship between a father and an adult son is psychological and abstract; the connection between husband and wife, concrete and quotidian.
Are Bill and Hillary concrete and quotidian? Put more plainly: They live together.
George Bush, pere, didn't move back into the White House in January 2001....

From day one of Hillary's inauguration, Bill will have had more experience than her at everything she touches....

The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It's President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue. Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?
Well, do we? Krauthammer unintentionally makes it sound kind of fascinating.

127 comments:

Ron said...

I suppose there will be a subsegment of the audience that will watch the Clintons just for the crack-ups -- not unlike NASCAR.

Bob said...

It makes for a lot of speculation. What role would the Secret Service take in squabbles between President Hillary and Bill?

For me, still pissed off over the way Bill disgraced the White House with his furtive trysting, the question for Hillary is one that the MSM dare not ask: how will you control Bill? Will the Secret Service be instructed to monitor his behavior to prevent the inevitable bimbo eruptions?

Tim said...

"Are Bill and Hillary concrete and quotidian? Put more plainly: They live together."

Do they really live together, now?

Undoubtedly they would, again, were she to win. And yes, it could be fascinating, in the way train wrecks or collapsed bridges are. While the press and those who enjoy politics as performance art may enjoy the show, I'm not convinced Americans want all the drama.

tjl said...

"I'm not convinced Americans want all the drama."

I'm convinced Americans eagerly await the drama whose every juicy morsel will be fed to them 24/7 by an ecstatic media.

Drew W said...

I agree that the idea of former President Clinton assuming an unelected partial presidency presents problems for a Hillary Clinton administration.

If Bill Clinton took a teaching post in Government at a college somewhere, a lot of people would think it was for the best. And if it were a women’s college, Bill would really think it was for the best. (rim shot)

rhhardin said...

The Clintons are more of a crime family than a dysfunction family.

Family dysfunction is their cover.

MadisonMan said...

Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?

Well, I suppose it depends on what the other choices are, doesn't it? Thank goodness all the marriages of any opponents are totally harmonious so we won't have to worry about that!

Trevor said...

"Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs"

Is he talking about the former president's footwear? I picture him throwing underwear around. I don't think that's what he meant. Or maybe he did.

Trevor said...

And why is he always "padding"?

Think harder, writers. Find some different verbs.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What role would the Secret Service take in squabbles between President Hillary and Bill?

I'll wager a lot on protective detail will put in for transfer or early retirement.

peter hoh said...

Just wondering if "dysfunctional" means "I don't like them."

The family in "Little Miss Sunshine" was dysfunctional. A marriage that's won a governorship, a presidency, and a senate seat seems pretty functional in comparison.

Sloanasaurus said...

4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush....

It's impossible to imagine Americans voting for 4 more years of Clinton....

Besides, even if a Democrat was elected, it would be nice not to despise that Democrat the moment they are in office. If Clinton gets elected, the unhealthy hatred in this country will continue unabated.

John said...

I think what's more interesting about this article is that Krauthammer seems to take it for granted that Hillary is going to be the next president, or at least that she has a serious shot at winning. A lot of rank and file Republicans are in denial about this -- the same way a lot of Democrats thought there was no way Bush could win one election, let alone two.

When Hillary wins, they'll have to convince themselves that a huge fraction of their fellow citizens must be completely f*****g stupid. People like Luckyoldson have spent the last seven years convinced of that same fact. Perhaps he can start some kind of support group.

MadisonMan said...

If Clinton gets elected, the unhealthy hatred in this country will continue unabated.

I think you should ask yourself why something like that happens.

Richard Fagin said...

Yes, "dysfunctional" means, "I don't like them." However, "dysfunctional" also connotes a justification for the dislike and a well grounded fear of the damage dysfunctional people can do to others.

There are many of us in this world who are marginally talented and who succeed, however modestly, by mere "stick-to-it-iveness" rather than any creative or other genius. Dysfunctional people and/or families are things to scrupulously avoid, lest we get derailed or worse by being around them. Just ask Susan McDougall, rotting in jail. We don't find dysfunctional people interesting because they represent a danger. Truly talented, exceptional people can hang out with the dysfunctional because they are in a much better position to recover from the damage they ultimately are likely to suffer. The rest of us just run and hide.

Or, as Peggy Noonan put it so well in today's Wall St. Journal, "[Sen. Clinton displays] a bias toward the old tax-raising on people who aren't rich, who aren't protected, the old 'my friends and I know best, and we'll fill you dullards in on the details later.'"

This dullard declares, engage the dysfunctional at your own peril.

Balfegor said...

Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?

Wait, isn't that what we got in the 90s? Am I just imagining all the cracks about how Hillary Clinton was secretly pulling all the strings in her husband's administration?

kimsch said...

If she wins the Presidency she will never, ever be sure that she won on her own merits or on Bill's coat tails.

The people of the United States will never know who is making the decisions in the White House, Her, or Him.

Balfegor said...

The people of the United States will never know who is making the decisions in the White House, Her, or Him.

And . . . and we knew before?

kimsch said...

Well at least we could assume that it was him, except for HillaryCare. We did have the twofer issue, but she wasn't a former President at the time.

Do you remember the bumperstickers that said "We voted for Him, not Her" or something to that effect?

Ben said...

I think she can take the shame of it.

Anyway, do any of you think that anyone would put a "We voted for Her, not Him" sticker on their bumper?

Sloanasaurus said...

I think you should ask yourself why something like that happens.

What gives? I see you are already to start now.

In that case, i've copied the top 200 hate lines from Lucky. I plan to recycle all of them if Hillary gets elected.

Liam said...

I think it's going to be more like "Evita". Except without the music. And more bad acting. And maybe a couple of nukes tossed in. You know, when Hillary has to show she's got 'em.

You too?

The Drill SGT said...

Bob said...
It makes for a lot of speculation. What role would the Secret Service take in squabbles between President Hillary and Bill?
..snip..
Will the Secret Service be instructed to monitor his behavior to prevent the inevitable bimbo eruptions?


I think that the SS has very clear instructions that the safety and protection of the dignity of the current POTUS is preemminent. In fact when the safety of the POTUS is an issue, even the POTUS has a difficult time challenging the SS. They tend to go into hedgehog mode. A real world example being that on 9/11, apparently the security detail, grabbed Cheney under both arms, and as he describes it, "my feet barely hit the floor as I was moved to the situation room" (underground)

as for avoiding or fighting bimbo eruptions, I imagine the SS would stomp them out, as they impact on the dignity of the current POTUS.

danny said...

I think it's funny that so many of the people who are claiming the Clintons' marriage is "dysfunctional" are fully prepared to vote for Rudy Guiliani.

former law student said...

Did Rudy's wives cheat on him?

We're used to men tomcatting around, although we are more reluctant to elect them. This would be the first time we elected a public cuckold (cocue?) to the presidency. In many cultures the man who's cheated on is a symbol of powerlessness.

Hill is fine as a Senator, because all she has to do is speak her mind. But as President she will have to gain the respect of others, including foreign leaders. I'm not seeing that.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's impossible to imagine Americans voting for 4 more years of Clinton....

I’m not so sure. I think if Bill was able to run again, he’d pretty much win hands down. Regardless of what people thought of him personally, he did maintain a high approval rating while in office and people will always remember the 90s with a high degree of fondness. We had prosperity and aside from a few sidebar military adventures we were at peace. I personally didn’t care for the guy but the 90s were good for most people and as president, Bill gets the credit by default. I think there is a good chunk of folks who in 2008 are voting for Bill Clinton vicariously through Hillary thinking we’ll be going back to the good old days.

Besides, even if a Democrat was elected, it would be nice not to despise that Democrat the moment they are in office.

Substitute Republican and you’d have the same situation. I think the country is sufficiently polarized that its going to be a long time coming before either side will have a candidate that doesn’t cause the other to fall into fits of fury.

Roger said...

I am sure a candidate's marital status/issues is going to affect some percent of the population; but, for the most part, I think that for a majority of Americans, that issue will not be important at all. As Hoosier noted, Bill Clinton remains highly popular in spite or because of his philandering. The American people knew that when they elected him and relected him, and apparently overlooked it. Just my .02.

Bruce Hayden said...

It would be interesting, seeing how the SS and the rest of the security apparatus operated with the other Clinton in charge. Last time around, the philanderer was the one in charge. This time it would be his wife, who by all accounts is not a fan of her husband's philandering. Indeed, it appears like the two of them had a running war during his presidency to see what she could keep him from doing and he could get away with. Of course, in the end, he won, but that was with his security detail being at some level under his control. What happens when his security detail has firm orders to prevent, or at least report, anything embarrassing to their boss, his wife?

danny said...

At least we know there will still be some folks out there obsessed with Bill Clinton's penis.

Any women out there obsessed, or is it just the Republican men who are focused on Bill's member?

Pogo said...

If Hillary's elected, I'll focus on Bill's cholesterol and risky behaviors. We need to take some things away from him for his own good.

Balfegor said...

Regardless of what people thought of him personally, he did maintain a high approval rating while in office and people will always remember the 90s with a high degree of fondness.

It's worth remembering, though, that despite generally high approval ratings (Clinton I was, after all, famously poll-driven) he never cracked 50% in a national election. Al Gore got a higher proportion of the vote in 2000 than Clinton ever did, and I think Bush II did as well. In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Clinton faced Republicans weakened by generally right-wing spoiler candidates (somewhat as Bush II faced Gore, when Gore was weakened by a Leftist spoiler candidate). I don't think it's "hands down" by any means.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier-
I think if Obama or Edwards or even Dodd or Biden won the election (stop laughing) you'd still see a lot of eye-rolling and name-calling and still plenty of partisan politics. Maybe by year 3 it might work up into a mild frenzy, even. But I don't think it would be as bad as it is now.

OTOH, if The Hill wins it, the other 49.8% of America will have a massive coniption fit from the get go. We'll already have 16 years worth of complaints stored up and ready to go. At least with a fresh face it'll take a little bit of time to get worked up.

Henry said...

Count me as one who likes the idea of the padfoot ex-president having some sway. Give him the treasury and trade portfolios, by all means.

If Hillary turns into a hawk (she's definitely leaving herself the wiggle room), it's a perfect setup.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

A marriage that's won a governorship, a presidency, and a senate seat seems pretty functional in comparison.

Uh-huh. Whatever. So long as Hillary can guarantee the females on her staff won't be passed over for promotion for not giving Bill a blowjob [Jones], won't jump ahead of their peers by getting interviews with Revlon and the UN in exchange for sex [Lewinksy], and won't be sexually assaulted while interviewing for jobs in the Oval Office.

Not that Hillary enabled that during Bill's governorship or presidency... Snicker.

Because we KNOW the Left is "so concerned" about sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace. So much so that the Chief Enabler is polling at 50% after prostituting her "values" for political gain.

Its just about Sex! Ha. Same old "liberalism" - The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About

Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

and won't be sexually assaulted while interviewing for jobs in the Oval Office.

Forgot to add, that one was Wiley... not that any of Hillary's fans here give a damn. They only embraced the 1994 Crime Bill as a way to feel good about themselves: "We care about women subject to sexual predation in the workplace... no really we do". Ha. What a farce.

Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...

I like to think of the Clintons as the Isis and Osiris of American politics.

Of course Republicans already know Bill Clinton as the god of the Underworld, but consider his wife's attributes as Isis, as described in the Book of the Dead:

    She who gives birth to heaven and earth
    She who knows the orphan
    She who knows the widow spider
    She who seeks justice for the poor people
    She who seeks shelter for the weak people
 
There seem to be some commenters who are ready to attribute the first one to her, while to others the third seems more apt.  You can make what you will of this list, but I'd only start to worry when, instead of a library, Hillary has a temple erected after her Presidency.

You might want to amuse yourselves by mapping Bill Clinton onto Osiris.  I am not going there just now, however, because all the unpleasantness around Osiris makes it difficult to discuss Bill in a rational, calm way.

Of course, all the unpleasantness around Bill makes it difficult to discuss Bill in a rational, calm way.

Eli Blake said...

Well, one thing that has apparently rubbed off on Hillary from her husband is his popularity in the band of border states that were critical in his two election victories.

IF she is the nominee then the following head-to-head polling might suggest that any inroads the GOP makes in more liberal areas could be offset by Clinton successes in states where the Clintons were pretty popular but haven't been as supportive of Gore or Kerry.

Recent polling shows that Hillary Clinton holds a big lead against any Republican in Arkansas (not a big surprise there), and ahead by a statistically significant margin in Missouri.

would be in statistical dead heats with leading Republicans in Kentucky, Tennessee (except obviously against Thompson), Virginia, Oklahoma and North Carolina.

Also throw in yesterday's Florida poll.

Every one of those states George W. Bush won twice, and except for Florida pretty much without breaking a sweat. However, Hillary's husband won all of them twice except for Virginia (which has moved sharply to the left since then) and Oklahoma and North Carolina (where they just don't seem to like 'damnyankees.')

And oh, yeah-- think that Rudy will bring New York to the GOP? Only if he's matched against John Edwards. He loses by 24 to Clinton and by five to Obama.

Hoosier Daddy said...

IF she is the nominee

Do you honestly believe she ISN'T going to be the Democratic nominee?

Eli Blake said...

The two states missing in that crescent of 'near South' and border states I just listed are Louisiana and West Virginia. That's not to suggest that the GOP is stronger against Hillary in either than they were against Bill, it's because no one has done any head to head polling in either state regarding potential Presidential matchups.

MadisonMan said...

fen, when was the last time the right gave a damn about a balanced budget? Sure, they'll give it lip service, but push comes to shovel, and push in those earmarks. Why even that Bright paragon of Genuine Republican Good Ol' Family Values Senator WideStance Craig from Idaho -- all his earmarks for Idaho are floating up to Bush for his signature.

Hypocrisy is not a left or right issue.

Eli Blake said...

hoosier daddy:

I believe there is a chance she won't be. Can you say, "Howard Dean?" He was way ahead in the polls four years ago at this time.

Like many Democrats, she is my last choice among Democratic candidates (mainly because of her hawkish military stance and support of laws like the 'Patriot Act.') Right now, the opposition to her is franctionated between Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich.

I personally support Richardson but would rather see any of the above rather than Hillary as our nominee. So yeah, there is still time for the dynamics of the race to change.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

If Mrs. Clinton wins, there's a good chance that Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, et al won't be dominating the tabloid covers anymore.

garage mahal said...

Poor Fen must think of Bill Clinton's cock an unhealthy 10-15 times per day. Or, he desperately needs some new material. I say both.

I can envision Fen meeting Bill, and Clinton forced to quip "Eyes are up here Fen!"....

Luckyoldson said...

Ron said..."I suppose there will be a subsegment of the audience that will watch the Clintons just for the crack-ups -- not unlike NASCAR."

Yeah, those eight years Bill was President were really brutal.

P.S. Fen...have you read a newspaper since 2000? Bill isn't President anymore.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said, in response to: A marriage that's won a governorship, a presidency, and a senate seat seems pretty functional in comparison.

"Uh-huh. Whatever."

How long have YOU been married, Fen? And how many times?

Luckyoldson said...

rhhardin said..."The Clintons are more of a crime family than a dysfunction family. Family dysfunction is their cover."

Sounds like you quite a bit about dysfunctional and crime ridden families.

Up the meds, dude.

Fen said...

garage mahal: Poor Fen must think of Bill Clinton's cock an unhealthy 10-15 times per day.

No Garage, but unlike you, I think women should be free of sexual harassment and discrimination, even if the perp is from my party.

Thanks again for demonstrating that The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About. Sexual discrimination of Jones, sex for job interview with Lewinksy, sexual assualting Wiley during a job interview. And these women were all Democrats, from your own tribe. Yet your best defense is that its all some "obsession" with Clinton's cock.

Please don't ever lecture anyone ever again about the "values" of liberalism. Its merely a brand you wear to feel good about yourself. You're a fraud.

Fen said...

LuckyTroll: Fen...have you read a newspaper since 2000? Bill isn't President anymore.

Well, since your an idiot, I'll spell out the relevance slowly for you. Hillary Clinton enabled all of Bill's sexual predations, kept quiet to secure her own position of power. She trashed honest Democrat women who her husband had sexually harassed and assualted, and hypocrites like you are willing to reward her enabling with the nomination. Such hypocrites. Remind us again how much you "care" about women. Weasel.

Luckyoldson said...

Sloanasaurus said..."If Clinton gets elected, the unhealthy hatred in this country will continue unabated."

If anyone here knows about pure, unadulterated "hatred," it would certainly be YOU, Sloan.

And what is it that makes you think people "hate" the Clintons? Bill carried a 60% approval rating through his impeachment hearings, and all the way out of office, and still carries an approval rating at 60%+ and even Hillary, with everything people like you sling around, carries an approval rating that's a hell of a lot better than George W. Bush...as you can see:

*Zogby-September 19, 2007 - Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March.

You're brand of right wing crap is just that...crap.

Chip Ahoy said...

I read that as Charless Krauthammer on dyspeptic politics.

Love the word quotidian, it's better than convivial for a quota of living together and not just togetherness.

I flat do not understand an American tendency to political dynasty. The one that bothers me the most because it appears to simulate royalty in the minds of its adherents is the Kennedy family. ex: While watching Democratic National Convention a friend remarked glowingly about one of Kerry's sons, his family being presented on the stage, and a lovely family it is too, I'll admit, "Oh, he looks like John Boy," still pining for Camelot. I don't like that myth anymore. Pretend royalty is demeaning when you have something better than that. (One of two friends who managed H.S. without having read a single book, a record he maintained until he devoured the Harry Potter series.)

To me the question is, can America take another possible 8 years of an obviously cuckolded president?, and the answer is a resounding "YES".

john said...

Madison Man -

Are you and fen conversing in code? This is what I got so far (bold letters):

fendropthBkey

Except for the last 3 letters, this is pretty tough. Maybe if I write them all backwards.....

I think I got it: it's about how we haven't paid heed to the lesson of the 2004 democratic primary season, you know, the inevitability of the current front runner, that kind of stuff

Regards,

john said...

I should have said "inevitability of the then-current front runner".

Fen said...

Madison Man - Are you and fen conversing in code? This is what I got so far (bold letters): fendropthBkey

He's referring to the title of my next book: The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About

Apparently, Madison is one of the few "liberals" here with a conscience, and facing the truth of that above line is too much for him to bear. Hence the request to drop the bold tags [fendroptheBkey]

;)

john said...

Cute, looks like I forgot the "e".

And, let it be clear, I have nothing against Hillary, but the thought of Bill padding around the WH in a thong is .... a bit too much for my stomach this morning.

Pogo said...

This morning?
Eesh.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jeff said...

"Regardless of what people thought of him personally, he did maintain a high approval rating while in office and people will always remember the 90s with a high degree of fondness. We had prosperity and aside from a few sidebar military adventures we were at peace. I personally didn’t care for the guy but the 90s were good for most people and as president, Bill gets the credit by default."

If Bill was running, I would be tempted to vote for him. Not for any great affection of him, his family or his policies, whatever they might be today, but rather to see how he handles a presidency without the tech bubble to keep the economy running and with the blow back of all the low level terrorist attacks from the 80's and 90's. What sort of president would he make under those conditions?
The President's most of us consider great (Roosevelt(s), Truman, Lincoln) would be despised by 1/2 the country now (assuming we could dig them up and elect them president again) if they followed their own example when they were previously president. Greatness, or failure as a POTUS generally takes 30 years or better. It will be interesting to see how Bush and Clinton are viewed at that time.

Luckyoldson said...

I realize this is off topic, but relating to the tax reform discussions of the last few days, I just read a stat that I found rather incredible:

The top 300,000 income earners in America make more than the bottom 150,000,000...COMBINED.

Maybe dome kind of "redistribution" is in order.

Meade said...

"Maybe dome kind of "redistribution" is in order."

Do you mean dumb?

Luckyoldson said...

jeff said..."I personally didn’t care for the guy but the 90s were good for most people and as president, Bill gets the credit by default."

And that really says it all.

We don't even have to "like he guy or gal"...we just have to approve or disapprove of the job they do while in office.

There were many things Clinton did that I hated, but overall, there's no comparison to his period at the helm and G.W.'s.

During Clinton's tenure, America was widely respected throughout the world, we were at peace, prosperous and most Americans were satisfied with the job being done.

Today...we have a different situation and it doesn't appear to be getting any better.

former law student said...

I voted for Clinton -- twice. He instituted Nafta, which hurt the workers of two countries, and he took welfare away from poor single mothers. If we get another liberal like him we're all fucked.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Today...we have a different situation and it doesn't appear to be getting any better.

Well, actually, by every index, it does.

But I still agree that Clinton handled trade and the economy very well.

rcocean said...

"The President's most of us consider great (Roosevelt(s), Truman, Lincoln) would be despised by 1/2 the country now (assuming we could dig them up and elect them president again) if they followed their own example when they were previously president. Greatness, or failure as a POTUS generally takes 30 years or better. It will be interesting to see how Bush and Clinton are viewed at that time."

Sorry, but Lincoln, Truman, and FDR were hated by large segments of the US while president. Lincoln, of course, was hated by the entire south, and only got 55% of the vote when he ran for re-election.

Truman was so unpopular, everyone thought he would lose in 1948, and in 1952 his approval rating was in the low 30s. Most people thought he was a small man who had blundered into Korean war and didn't know how to get us out. "To err is Truman" was a popular phrase.

As for FDR, he was popular in the 30s but by WW II the country was split 50-50. Probably 40 percent of the country hated him and he only got about 50 percent of the vote in 1944 - outside of the South.

This country isn't anymore split than normal. Only difference, in the last 15 years conservatives can now make their voices heard, and liberals don't like it.

Fen said...

During Clinton's tenure, America was widely respected throughout the world

Ah yes, its SO important that nations like France and Russia "respect" us. They "respected" us so much that they violated UN sanctions to profit off Saddam.

Your comment really goes to show how ignorant the Left is re foreign policy. When was the last time we were able to bank the "respect" or "goodwill" of other nations into anything tangible? Bets you were that kid in high school who sucked up to everyone to be "popular".

Liam said...

Luckyoldson:

I'm sure that this won't go down well, but the best definition of the old conservative/liberal split I've heard is that conservatism preaches equality of opportunity, and liberalism preaches equality of outcome.

I guess it's how well either one works out that is the question...

Cedarford said...

Fen - (Ranting on shocking Clinton-era scandals) Its just about Sex! Ha. Same old "liberalism" - The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About.

Well, you might have a point if the Right hadn't proved itself as much or more hypocritical and corrupt as the Left. And I say this as a disgusted Republican.

1. GOP now stands for Gay Old Peckerwoods.
2. When it is not called the Corruptican Party after the antics of Delay, Abramoff, Lott, and hundreds of lesser Sleazemeisters bestowing Republican favors for pay over at the K street lobbying slop trough for the pigs.
3. Blantant ball-licking to corporatists - even if that means unprecidented deficits while tax cuts for the rich swell, gutting American industry, and complete lack of embarassment as the rest of the country watches millions of illegals intended for the fatcat's enterprises swarm across our Open Borders unchecked.
4. Governing with a big "Fuck You" middle finger extended to Libertarians, Moderate Democrats, Black working class, paleocons, Reagan Democrats.
5. Being led by a man of limited vision and incompetent implementation of what little vision he has.
6. A group that did little or nothing about the energy crisis, rebuilding our military, reducing the great disparities in wealth emerging, had no new ideas on the Medicare, health care crisis other than the massive subsidy to Big Pharma. As the world turned against us and Russia became revanchist. Badly fucked up the wars they waged. China conquering us in most markets while we become indebted to them on a scale Banana Republics used to be to us.

Cap that with two of the 5 leading Republican candidates being "Family values trainwrecks" - Thompson & Giuliani. (What is cold? Having your wife learn you are divorcing her from a friend telling you your husband mentioned off-handedly he was dumping you in a press conference.)One treacherous candidate who regularly backstabs, undercuts,and shows up on stage with his "good friend Teddy". (McCain). And the two that we can count on to not act like Clinton are an Open Borders tax raiser from Hope Arkansas, and a Ned Flanders type that half the Evangelicals are doubtful is a real Christian but a member of a Cult.
********************
Agree with Hoosier Daddy that the Clinton years seem to have been better than the Bush years for most Americans. Perhaps, worst things exist than Bill Clinton with his high intelligence working on the nation's major problems that have been largely unaddressed by the Bushies for 8 years while maybe getting a few "stress relief" BJs along the way...

I like Romney and Huckabee, but think Rudy has major character & temperment issues, and is too much a tool of the neocons to have in office. While McCain is old and untrustworthy. Noting that Fred Thompson and Barack Obama could both be stuffed in the same suit and it would still collapse in pile on the floor.

But the Clintons? What is so horrific about America doing as well as it did in the 90s? Moral squalor? Imagine if Bush had just stopped for a nice blowjob and a chance to pause and think before he nominated Harriet Miers, launched the Teri Schiavo Fiasco, disbanded the Iraqi Army, police force, and threw all the Sunni government employees out of a job.

Revenant said...

He instituted Nafta, which hurt the workers of two countries

Both of which are now mysteriously better off than they were BEFORE NAFTA. That's a funny sort of harm.

jeff said...

"Sorry, but Lincoln, Truman, and FDR were hated by large segments of the US while president. Lincoln, of course, was hated by the entire south, and only got 55% of the vote when he ran for re-election."

What do you mean by sorry? That's my whole point in demonizing Clinton or Bush this soon.

Balfegor said...

During Clinton's tenure, America was widely respected throughout the world.

I don't think this is really true. People say it all the time, but I don't remember thinking, back in the 90s, that the US was particularly respected. After all, Boutros Boutros-Ghali made a bit of political hay exploiting anti Americanism:

I was sure that [Warren] Christopher and [Madeleine] Albright would understand my point of view. I was completely wrong. My words appeared to shock them. . . They didn't speak. . . It would be some time before I fully realised that the United States sees little need for diplomacy; power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy. . . But the Roman Empire had not need for diplomacy. Nor does the United Sttates. Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and a sign of weakness."

See here. Boutros-Ghali is, of course, describing the foreign policy pursued by the Clinton administration here.

French hatred of the United States is also not something that emerged in the past 7 years. It was well-apparent in the 90s. The epithet for overweening American power, hyperpuissance, was introduced by the Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, in 1999.

jeff said...

Not to mention the reaction that these now beloved presidents would get if they were president today.

Revenant said...

Actually, our reputations with India, Russia, Israel, and (I think) China have improved since 2000. The same goes for a number of eastern European and African nations.

On average our popularity has declined, but it isn't all bad news.

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

fen wrote:

Well, since your an idiot...

LOL!

Sorry, but it always cracks me up when I see people write that.

rcocean said...

"Sorry, but Lincoln, Truman, and FDR were hated by large segments of the US while president. Lincoln, of course, was hated by the entire south, and only got 55% of the vote when he ran for re-election."

"What do you mean by sorry? That's my whole point in demonizing Clinton or Bush this soon."

Sorry my I didn't make my point clearer.

"We" looking back in 2007 think these guys Lincoln/FDR/Truman etc. are great. People at time didn't think so. And they were right. And it doesn't matter what people in the future think of our two disasters Bush and Clinton. 20 Years from now most people won't be able to tell you who was President in 2002.

Just off topic, please explain Truman's "Greatness" in the USA involvement in Korea. And I'm glad we ended slavery but maybe we didn't need 600,000 dead Americans to do it.

As for FDR, he whole claim to greatness rests on the A-bomb. Had the A-bomb not come along, we'd be thinking of FDR as the guy who set the stage for WW III with Stalin's USSR.

jeff said...

My point was that during each of those presidents administration there was a significant number of the population that regarded those presidents as horrible presidents. Much like today.
Today, however, general concensus is that they were great presidents. It doesnt matter what you think of them. or what my opinion is for that matter. The majority of historians and the electorate consider them great or near great presidents.
Most would put Roosevelt and Lincoln as 2/3 spots.
T Roosevelt as 5, Truman as 7.

"We" looking back in 2007 think these guys Lincoln/FDR/Truman etc. are great. People at time didn't think so. And they were right. And it doesn't matter what people in the future think of our two disasters Bush and Clinton. 20 Years from now most people won't be able to tell you who was President in 2002."
"We" for the purpose of my post would be the people that keep up on this sort of thing. In this particular case it would consist of 130 professors of history, law, political science and economics. However, I would bet that an opinion poll of the general public would track pretty close.

"And it doesn't matter what people in the future think of our two disasters Bush and Clinton. 20 Years from now most people won't be able to tell you who was President in 2002."
Of course it matters. From the perspective of distance, they will be able to see what policies work long term and what didn't. Looking from the perspective of last week doesn't.

"Just off topic, please explain Truman's "Greatness" in the USA involvement in Korea. And I'm glad we ended slavery but maybe we didn't need 600,000 dead Americans to do it.

As for FDR, he whole claim to greatness rests on the A-bomb. Had the A-bomb not come along, we'd be thinking of FDR as the guy who set the stage for WW III with Stalin's USSR."

You would have to ask a historian about the Korea policy. I would imagine he is highly regarded based on standing up to the expansion of communism, old reruns of MASH not withstanding.

"And I'm glad we ended slavery but maybe we didn't need 600,000 dead Americans to do it."
I would guess the slaves would feel a bit differently, but this isn't about how you feel about Lincoln, but rather pretty much how everyone else does.

As far as FDR, try talking to someone who grew up in the depression. I don't think they will tell you he was great because of the A bomb. Again, I have a different viewpoint of FDR, but I am talking about the general perception of him.

During the presidency of each of these past presidents (with the exception of T Roosevelt) the people of the time would be astounded that these presidents are considered the models for future presidents.
For all I know, 30 years from now Clinton's economic policies might be the gold standard. I doubt it, but we will see in 30 years.

tc said...

All you sadsacks really dont appreciate reality. For, properly understood, the father-son relationship is key. For it shapes a husband-wife relationship.
As for Bill and Hillary ? He has his problems and she has hers. He likes sex -of any kind- with a woman
and Hillary doesn't like sex at all -leastwise with Billy-jo-bob (the fact that she does like kissin' bellies 'n thighs of wimmen is sumpin' else a course; ask Ann to ask her lesbian friends in Park Slope.. about that). As for my bona fides, see below:
a general introduction: allow me to note that I am a connoiseur of sexual intercourse with a woman, having had "it" 30,000 to 60,000 times (I'm an oold man). And anybody who wants to dispute that, feel free; just ask the TBI community about "hypersexuality" in TBI survivors. In addition...
the "mound of Venus" is unique. For it (under and moving under that spot just above a man's prick during sex) creates a spark in a man leading to, amoung other things, cries of pure bliss by that man, sounding like the squeal of a stuck pig, a bull moose or an elephant trumpeting... So it can help women to have a prominent mound as the size affects the spark.

Revenant said...

And I'm glad we ended slavery but maybe we didn't need 600,000 dead Americans to do it.

Explain how, exactly, we could have ended slavery in the South without a war. Be sure to reconcile this belief with the fact that seven slave states left the Union before Lincoln was even sworn in.

Luckyoldson said...

Henry said this about the economy and most things in general...here in AMerica: "Well, actually, by every index, it does. (Appear to be getting better)

Really?

Talk to any home builders, trades people, mortgage brokers, sales people, real estate people, investors in the stock market, people who hold the dollar, people who need gasoline to run their businesses, etc.?

I run a company that is in the construction industry and everybody I know is flat on their ass right now.

Also, I'll repeat the stat I read today:

The top 300,000 income earners in America make more than the bottom 150,000,000...COMBINED.

Fen said...

C4: Well, you might have a point if the Right hadn't proved itself as much or more hypocritical and corrupt as the Left.

Not regarding sexual scandals. When Foley was busted, I said on this very forum that he should be taken out back and shot. I also clarified that even if there was no sex, Foley was harvesting sex partners from the intern program, which is just as bad.

Contrast that with the Left's treatment of Clinton's sexual abuse, after years of lecturing us about sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Didn't mean a thing when one of their own was the perp. And now they're sweeping the Chief Enabler to win their nomination.

Huge diff.

Fen said...

Imagine if Bush had just stopped for a nice blowjob

I think you mean "imagine if Bush had coerced his female employee for a nice blowjob". NOW and the Left would have gone into orbit over that one.

Luckyoldson said...

Balfegor said this in response to my comment that "During Clinton's tenure, America was widely respected throughout the world."

"I don't think this is really true."

Based on what? Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's take?

Clinton was held in high regard throughout the world, as was America. He was the first President since Eisenhower to get a standing ovation at the u.N. and the last time I checked...they represent most of the world.

*And, yeah, yeah, yeah...I know what comes next from Fen and others: WE HATE THE U.N.!!!

I suggest you get used to Bush being an idiot because he is...and just wait until he leaves office and people ca REALLY spill the beans about how inept he REALLY was...as if we don't already know.

Fen said...

but the best definition of the old conservative/liberal split I've heard is that conservatism preaches equality of opportunity, and liberalism preaches equality of outcome.

Conservatism will promote Liberty at the expense of Equality.

Liberalism will promote Equality at the expense of Liberty.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."I think you mean "imagine if Bush had coerced his female employee for a nice blowjob"

Fen, you're a lying sack of shit...and you know it.

Provide one shred of evidence Clinton "coerced" Lewinsky to do anything.

She was and is a "consenting adult."

Fen said...

And, yeah, yeah, yeah...I know what comes next from Fen and others: WE HATE THE U.N.!!!

We don't hate the U.N., we just think it ineffective. 14 toothless resolutions in 12 years re Saddam. Leftist over-reliance on "soft" power diplomatic efforts that accomplished worse than nothing. If the UN was competent as an international organization, we would never have needed to liberate Iraq with military force.

And I don't know why its so important to you that the world "likes" us. This isn't a high school popularity contest. You can't back their "goodwill" for anything tangible.

Revenant said...

We don't hate the U.N., we just think it ineffective.

Speak for yourself. *I* hate the UN.

It is undemocratic, anti-Semitic, anti-American, and hostile to quite a few basic human rights, property and self-defense among them. What's to like?

Fen said...

LuckyTroll: Provide one shred of evidence Clinton "coerced" Lewinsky to do anything.

Not talking about Lewinksy, although its unfair that other hard-working women at the White House were denied job interviews at the UN and Revlon simply because they didn't blow Bill.

I'm talking about Jones - passed over for promotion because she refused to blow Bill.

I'm talking about Wiley - sexually assaulted [breast groped] while she was interviewing for a job.

And these were Democrat women. Are those the "standards" you want your wife and daughter to be judged by when they are seeking a job or promotion? How well they swallow?

The only consensual encounter that didn't involve sexual abuse of subordinate employees was Gennifer Flowers. THAT was "just about sex", the rest were not.

/sigh. Here I am again, explaining liberal principles to a "liberal" who claims to champion women's rights. LOL.

Fen said...

/edit, should be

You can't bank their "goodwill" for anything tangible.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."The only consensual encounter that didn't involve sexual abuse of subordinate employees was Gennifer Flowers. THAT was "just about sex", the rest were not."

"The only consensual encounter that didn't involve sexual abuse of subordinate employees was Gennifer Flowers"???

And you know this...how?

Fen, This is nothing more than the same silly crap anybody can hear every day from your right wing heroes on the radio or the tube.

If you're going to make specific charges...provide evidence.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."Here I am again, explaining liberal principles to a "liberal" who claims to champion women's rights."

Fen, what in the world makes you think Republicans carry the torch regarding "women's rights?"

For every Democrat you name, there's a Republican who's cheated, said things or just made an ass out of themselves one way or another.

-Remember Newt cheating while his wife lay dying of cancer?

-Rudy announcing to the world that he was divorcing his wife...before he told her?

-Vitter spending thousands on prostitutes ever month?

-Livingston immediately retiring when his sexual tapes were about to surface?

Etc., etc, etc...

Do you live on another fucking planet...or do you just not know how to READ??

Luckyoldson said...

Revenant said..."*I* hate the UN."

And yet another moron rears his ugly, uneducated and misinformed head.

Read, asshole...read.

Fen said...

The only consensual encounter that didn't involve sexual abuse of subordinate employees was Gennifer Flowers

LuckyTroll: ??? And you know this...how?

Wait for it... because Flowers didn't work for Clinton. She was never his subordinate employee. Ergo no abuse.

Do I really have to break it down into smaller pieces for you?

Lewinsky: leapfrogged ahead of other women in her workplace who didn't suck Bill.

Jones: denied promotion because she refused to blow Bill

Wiley: Sexually assaulted by Bill during job interview.

Gah. I can't believe I have to explain this to yet another "liberal" who claims to "care" about women's rights.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said..."And I don't know why its so important to you that the world "likes" us."

Fen, You're a fucking Cretin.

Are you actually saying America can merely "go it alone?"

We don' NEED any other country in the world to support our policies...our economy?

Did you or Rev attend college?

I don't think so.

Fen said...

Fen, what in the world makes you think Republicans carry the torch regarding "women's rights?"

I don't. Thats the point. You guys on the Left are the ones who claim women's rights are a central plank in your platform, and yet *I* have to explain to *you* how Clinton sexually harassed and discriminated against women in the workplace, instead of the other way around. The irony is hysterical.

former law student said...

Both of which are now mysteriously better off than they were BEFORE NAFTA.
Sure they are, I guess. Our former inner city factory workers are now making more money selling crack, and their former workers are making more money cleaning our toilets and busing our tables than they ever dreamed of back home.

Fen said...

LuckyTroll: Are you actually saying America can merely "go it alone?"

Nope.

We don' NEED any other country in the world to support our policies...our economy?

I'm sorry, back up please. Are you trying to say that other countries will support our policies because they like us, not because it serves their own interests?

Hysterical. You should join Obama's campaign. He's planning on coming back from Iran with a signed paper in hand, promising
"peace in our time!"

Stay in the shallow end Lucy.

Revenant said...

Sure they are, I guess. Our former inner city factory workers are now making more money selling crack, and their former workers are making more money cleaning our toilets and busing our tables than they ever dreamed of back home.

What a bunch of silly horseshit. Where do you get your economics data from, Klan brochures?

Luckyoldson said...

It's amazing...listening to the wing nuts go on and on and on...about how WONDERFUL things are with G.W....and how HORRIBLE Bill Clinton was.

And I'll wager anybody on the board that Clinton has more friends throughout the world, more people and countries that support him and his policies, and that his approval rating with Americans is at least 30 points higher than the idiot you people continue to support.

It's like a contest to see who will be the last moron standing will be before Bush leaves office.

Right now, Fen and Sloan have the lead...but Rev and others are coming on strong.

tc said...

All you women are really pathetic -you ultra-liberal,feminist "ho's" anyhow. Women are made to be used by men...and then women use men. What could be simpler. But you women fuck it all up by refusing to be women (refusiong to fuck men) and trying to be men...which you can never be.
It is because of you that we have so many god-forsaken perverts, sadists, masochists, faggots... Will you never learn that feminism destroys your femininity ?

Tom

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

Fen wrote:

Wiley: Sexually assaulted by Bill during job interview.

I assume, Fen, that you're referring to Kathleen Willey.

You ought to try to be more precise, not just in reporting names, but in reporting facts. You are repeating an allegation by Willey as if it is fact. At best, your statement is a misrepresentation; at worst, it is dishonest.

It's worth noting that Willey's accusation of sexual assault is contradicted by Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony. Also, Willey's credibility is damaged by the Independent Counsel report that concluded that Willey had lied to the FBI about her relationship with a former boyfriend. (Willey later acknowledged lying to the FBI.)

None of this proves or disproves the sexual assault allegation by Willey. However, your representation of the allegation as established fact reveals the same kind of sloppiness of thought that characterizes so much of rightwing commentary these days.

Revenant said...

You are repeating an allegation by Willey as if it is fact.

Yeah, Fen, cut it out. Next thing you know you'll be saying "Bush lied about WMDs" or "Bush spies on ordinary Americans".

Cyrus Pinkerton said...

Revenant wrote:

Next thing you know you'll be saying "Bush lied about WMDs" or "Bush spies on ordinary Americans".

What a pathetic attempt to try to excuse misrepresentation of the facts.

It would have been a lot smarter to keep that "thought" to yourself, Revenant.

Revenant said...

What a pathetic attempt to try to excuse misrepresentation of the facts.

Good point, "Mr. Grumpy".

Trooper York said...

Shaft: Look, why don't you get rid of that jolly giant over there, so you and I can get down to the finer strokes.
Aleme: Oziot has guarded me since I was a child. Sometimes I think of him as my living chastity belt.
Shaft: Damn! Man that size, baby, that's a whole lot of chastity!
Aleme: I'm still on my first age grade. We call that fareita. No one is permitted to marry while they are in fareita.
Shaft: What do you do for relaxation?
Aleme: I enter chala, my second age grade, this February. And even the emir's daughter may have sex and marry, after my clitoradectomy.
Shaft: Your what?
Aleme: My clitoradectomy. Female circumcision.
Shaft: You mean when they cut off your...?
Aleme: Are you afraid to say the word? My clitoris! Yes! That's what they do in the time of chala.
Shaft: Hell, no wonder the natives get restless!
Aleme: Mr. Shaft, the emphasis in our marriage is not about sexual pleasure, but on the rearing of children.
Shaft: Listen, baby. February is just around the corner. Now how the hell are you gonna know what you are missing unless you give it a little wear and tear before they take it away?
Aleme: Are you volunteering?
Shaft: You damn right!
(Shaft in Africa 1973)

Ann Althouse said...

Trooper York is back!

Henry said...

Luckyoldson said:

hasty generalization, anecdote, anecdote, nonsequitor.

You do read the papers, don't you?

Hey, nice sunset!

amba said...

What a massive distraction it would all be from, like, governing!

Bushes and Clintons have become an unhealthy seesaw addiction, like heroin and cocaine. Let's kick, for godsake.

downtownlad said...

I'm convinced that Drudge wants her to win.

rcocean said...

"Explain how, exactly, we could have ended slavery in the South without a war. Be sure to reconcile this belief with the fact that seven slave states left the Union before Lincoln was even sworn in."

Slavery was doomed in any case. Had we contained slavery just like we contained communism, it would have died of its own accord.

You're naive if you think slavery was abolished in the rest of world due to outside force or "morality". It was done away with for economic reasons. By the late 19th century everyone - even Brazil - realized slaves weren't as profitable as free labor.

rcocean said...

"During the presidency of each of these past presidents (with the exception of T Roosevelt) the people of the time would be astounded that these presidents are considered the models for future presidents.
For all I know, 30 years from now Clinton's economic policies might be the gold standard. I doubt it, but we will see in 30 years."

There's one statement I can't disagree with.

Chip Ahoy said...

I hope I never meet you people.

Revenant said...

Slavery was doomed in any case. Had we contained slavery just like we contained communism, it would have died of its own accord.

What year would it have died in?

Trooper York said...

Valerie Cherish:This* is my comeback. All right,let me take that again... So *this* is my come - Jane, I'm sorry, the, um, camera keeps moving in and out.
Jane: It's always going to be moving, just keep going.
Valerie Cherish: No, yeah, oh, I know, I know, it's just - I didn't know if I should wait for it to settle or... That's right. Yeah. Oh, right. Yeah. This one's always going to be moving, because that one is stationary. Got it. Okay. Here we go. *This* is my comeback! You know, I want to do another.
(The Comeback 2005)

Kirk said...

LOS,

"Based on what?"

Dude, can you read???? Based on the actual words of the UN Secretary-General, which Balfegor helpfully quoted for you right in that very same comment!

Trooper York said...

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
(Randy Newman, Political Science)

Hoosier Daddy said...

LOS said
jeff said..."I personally didn’t care for the guy but the 90s were good for most people and as president, Bill gets the credit by default."


Actually if you scroll back you see that I said that.

Not to be nit-picky but since you're big on READING I thought it would prudent for someone so well READ to quote the correct source.

Thus endeth the lesson

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ann Althouse said...

Trooper York is back!


And not a moment too soon!!!

Gotchty beat on the theme Trooper

Natural law. Sons are put on this earth to trouble their fathers. Road to Perdition 2002

Trooper York said...

Johnny Caspar: You think that I'm some guinea, fresh off the boat, and you can kick me! But I'm too big for that now. I'm sick a' takin the scrap from you, Leo. I'm a' of marching into this goddamn office to kiss your Irish ass. And I'M SICK A' THE HIGH HAT!
[Puts on his hat and coat]
Johnny Caspar: Youse fancy pants, all a youse.
Leo O'Bannion: Johnny, you're exactly as big as I let you be, and no bigger, and don't forget it, ever.
Johnny Caspar: That's right, Leo. You're the big shot around here, and I'm just some schnook likes to get slapped around.
(Millers Crossing 1990)

Balfegor said...

Luckyoldson said:

Based on what? Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's take?

Er, no. Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Hubert Vedrine. I mean, I put the links right up there, you know. Can't you read?

Trooper York said...

Vanessa: You have NO class, Thornton, and I am TIRED of it! I want a divorce.
Thornton Melon: Divorce. I knew we had something in common.
Thornton Melon: [reaches in his coat and takes out papers] Here, sign these.
Vanessa: [scoffs] Oh! Oh, I'm afraid it's not gonna be that easy, honey. This is gonna cost you - PLENTY!
Thornton Melon: [chuckles and takes Polaroids out of his pocket] Oh, yeah? Vanessa, let's talk about class for a minute, alright? Here's you and Giorgio in the guest room. A little classy, isn't it? Here's you and Giorgio in the rumpus room. Another classy one, huh? Ooh, this one, I can't figure out. There's you, there's Giorgio... What's with the midget over here?
[Vanessa throws down the divorce papers and storms out]
Thornton Melon: Hey, wait! I've got more!
(Back to School 1996)

Fen said...

LuckyTroll: And I'll wager anybody on the board that Clinton has more friends throughout the world, more people and countries that support him and his policies

Uh-huh, Clinton was so popular that his "friends" supported his policy of sanctions against Saddam? Lucky, you're an amateur - no nation forms its policy on whether they "like" America or its President.

Luckyoldson said...

Cyrus Pinkerton said this about Fen's charge that Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey:

"...your representation of the allegation as established fact reveals the same kind of sloppiness of thought that characterizes so much of rightwing commentary these days."

It's more than a mere misrepresentation of evidence...it's a bald-faced lie.

Something Fen specializes in.

Luckyoldson said...

Balfegor,
So...if someone at the U.N. says something negative about Clinton or his policies (merely an opinion)...you believe it...but...overall you hate the U.N., think it's ineffective and not worth our time to deal with?

Is that the way it works?

Fen said...

LuckyTroll: It's more than a mere misrepresentation of evidence...it's a bald-faced lie.

How is Wiley's testimony that Clinton sexually assualted her a "bald-faced lie"?

BTW, there are tapes of Lewinksy asking Tripp to lie about Wiley being sexually assualts, and to lie about the existence of any relationship between Lewinksy and Clinton.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Cyrus: It's worth noting that Willey's accusation of sexual assault is contradicted by Linda Tripp's grand jury testimony.

Tripp claims Willey wanted to be Bill's girlfriend. Is that your "contradiction"? Its okay to sexually assualt a campaign volunteer if she's seeking a relationship with you?

Next you'll be telling us she deserved it because her skirt was too short...