Burying Bill - Clinton that is...

[Agschmid]

Why Hillary Clinton must turn her back on parts of her husband’s political legacy to win in 2016.

[center][/center]

If Bill Clinton had a chief political goal in his two terms as president, it was to win working-class whites and restore the Democratic Party as the home for their concerns. To that end, Clinton and his allies were enthusiastic supporters of legislation such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996—laws that spoke to the cultural concerns of lower-income whites.

Clinton didn’t succeed in luring working-class whites back, but he stopped the bleeding, strengthening Democrats in Rust Belt and mid-Atlantic states, where they were crucial. And while this wouldn’t save Al Gore in his bid for the presidency, it would keep Democrats competitive in House and Senate races and contribute to their huge wins in the 2006 midterm elections.

Now the picture is different. Since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, working-class whites—and whites overall—have left the Democratic Party in droves. At the same time, the party has moved to the left, pushed by an Obama-led coalition of young people, minorities, and socially liberal whites. One result is that, under a more liberal Democratic president, those Clinton-era policies have come under sustained assault. Before the Supreme Court struck its key provision, the Defense of Marriage Act was all but abandoned by the Obama administration, part of the rapid march toward broad acceptance of same-sex marriage. Welfare reform is still law, and the crime bill is still on the books, but as with DOMA, a new generation of liberals has challenged the underpinnings of both, with louder calls for state support of families and children and greater skepticism of the criminal justice system.

The fact of this new coalition puts Hillary Clinton, who seeks to succeed Obama on her own merits even as she’s indelibly tied to the first Clinton presidency, in a difficult place. Her task is to reassemble and re-energize Obama’s coalition, while also winning whites who may have left the party during Obama’s tenure, and even moving some whites (namely, white women) to the Democratic column.

Source.

[NYC_SKP]

1. There are several insurmountable obstacles and Bill is just one of them.

.
She has her following and that's about it.

She won't win over whites who left the party during Obama, she offers nothing to them.

And she's not going to attract any women who aren't already with her.

In fact, her ability to clinch the nomination is fully dependent upon outspending any opposition or, better still, keeping anyone from stepping up.

If she wins the primary, the republicans will sweep the General Election.

This is a very dear price to pay to let a ego maniacal narcissist follow their dream.

[Agschmid]

5. .

To many Democrats that just makes Hillary’s job easier. There is a voter—there are thousands of voters—who loyally voted for white Democrats and would never vote for Obama. Take Obama’s name off the ballot and they swim right back. They might not admit this outright, and more than one former legislator chose to withhold his name after sharing a story about a racial epithet directed his way on the path to defeat. Yet it’s implied.

-

As early as November 2014, the nascent Clinton organization was so confident that it could bring back white Democrats that it helped reporter Dylan Scott build a map of new 2016 swing states. “Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a connection,” explained Mitch Stewart, as he envisioned a Clinton campaign that could win back Missouri, Georgia, and Arkansas. In a December interview with the Wall Street Journal, pollster Geoff Garin said basically the same thing: Clinton had a ”proven track record of building support among white, working class voters in key states.”

The basis for that theory is in 2008’s elongated Democratic primary. Clinton, who made plenty of errors, was felled at last by bad luck. Most of the new-growth Democratic states had voted by the end of March, while most of Appalachia was being limited to the choice of Clinton or Obama. In state after state, Clinton obliterated Obama with white voters—Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana. The non-white voters who might stay home or switch to the Republicans—they’d be overwhelmed by the returning whites.

The trouble with that theory comes when any of the Democrats’ tough 2014 races come under the spyglass. In every one of the tough red states, in federal races, Democrats separated themselves from Obama and ran as members of the coming Clinton restoration. In Kentucky, Democratic recruit Alison Lundergan Grimes challenged Senator Mitch McConnell as a proud “Clinton Democrat.” Two-term Senator Mark Pryor mocked his opponent, Tom Cotton, for making the campaign about the waning Obama presidency. “Who’s there the next four years?” Pryor asked. The answer was obvious: Hillary Clinton.

Source.

[sabrina 1]

16. Maybe it's best to let people speak for themselves. I'm one of those who supported Obama and I won't

be swimming back. I'm also a woman, and am not impressed by those who try to emotionally manipulate women for political purposes. We are smarter than that.

And I disagree with the entire premise of this article.

This article is suggesting that Hillary do things simply to win. That she disavow her husband, regardless of whether or not she agrees with him, just to WIN.

I hate that about politics, more than anything else.

JUST BE WHO YOU ARE and stop hiring PR people, and Think Tanks, and Political Operatives to TELL how you should act and what you should SAY you believe in order to win.

It won't work, Bill is a popular figure. I can't think of worse advice to give his wife than to tell her she has to abandon him in order to win.

Who ARE these so-called political analysts who are so out of touch with Real People, but get paid for their awful advice to candidates?

I would respect her a lot more if she stood by her husband and told this writer to go take a hike.

But it shows the cynicism of politics, the deceptions that are employed in order to 'win'.

She should get rid of all these expensive 'adviser' and just be herself. I don't really know if Hillary is talking or all these people who are advising her.

Maybe that's the problem, not her, but THEM. Let her just say what SHE believes for a change. She might be surprised at the reaction.

[NYC_SKP]

68. The first best advice to a job applicant:

Be yourself, be honest.

I agree with you, she needs to drop the handlers and just be herself.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

100. Would love to see that, but we know that's never gonna happen.

[davidpdx]

135. Stellar advice Sabrina

Politics is about defining yourself or letting other's define you. If she did a better job of defining herself (and her policy views) the media would have less to go after her with.

[merrily]

21. Unanimous jury vote to leave NYC's post

here are several insurmountable obstacles and Bill is just one of them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6547045

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Disruptive. This crap, whatever you think of her, doesn't belong on this board. (along with accompanying post about Bill and Monica. Bill is not Hillary. Poster maybe doesn't understand that husband and wife are not the same person?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 22, 2015, 01:37 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't find it particularly disruptive. Those kind of comments are going to be made over the course of the Presidential campaign. I'm pretty sure Hillary is going to be well prepared to handle whatever they throw her way. The appropriate and mature counter arguments need to be made. The person who sent the alert would be wise to point out their thought that Bill is indeed not Hillary and expound on all the reasons why someone would vote for Hillary.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting is not a substitute for discussion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just respond to the post if you disagree.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an exceedingly dumb comment but I don't see any reason to hide it. Just another bloviater. What else is new?

[Octafish]

46. Censorship is un-Democratic

"Disruptive. This crap, whatever you think of her, doesn't belong on this board. (along with accompanying post about Bill and Monica. Bill is not Hillary. Poster maybe doesn't understand that husband and wife are not the same person?"

Disruptive to whom? Besides, Democracy?

[davidpdx]

136. Well put Octa

[99Forever]

137. The purge is on. n/t

[merrily]

150. Alert stalking and attempts to stop opposition, yes. Whether it becomes a purge depends on

the integrity of jurors.

[99Forever]

158. I don't kid myself.

There are those that abuse the jury system here to silence opposing views. As such, real debate is stifled. I certainly have already refrained from speaking my mind because of it. Anyone who honestly believes that is good for the upcoming election, is only fooling themselves. What one does or says on this forum has nowhere near the importance of what they do and say outside of it in the real world.

"Winning the internet" is for chumps.

[merrily]

176. I don't kid myself on this issue, either.

About the only thing I've stopped myself from saying, though, is outright calling someone a shill. On the issues, though, I say pretty much what I mean. I've had two hides, one of which I totally expected. (That post of mine said, "Fuck you," so.....)

But, I know I've been alerted on more than twice.

[pnwmom]

29. She has a following greater than any other candidate's.

She has already won over whites who left the party during Obama -- she's more popular with them than he is.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Well of course she's more popular with them. She's white.

Let's not pretend that most 'whites who left the party' in 2008 left for any reason other than his skin tone.

[NCTraveler]

60. Nice to see others disagree with skip on this one. nt.

[merrily]

122. You're bragging that she supposedly captured the whites who left the Dem Party over Obama?

[davidpdx]

138. Really she has?

Please remind me when the election was. You are basing your statement on polls that take a snapshot in time based on the current conditions of the race.

[pnwmom]

174. As opposed to people who are basing their opinions on their opinions. n/t

[davidpdx]

175. Since she hasn't decided how she wants to define herself all we can go on is her past record

Also the only two elections she's won as a candidate have been in New York. The population in New York is quite different from other states. At best claiming hat she has won the votes of white women is disingenuous.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. When I was a kid growing up in exurban Florida I loved "rasslin"

I literally wanted to be a professional wrestler. I wanted to be the next Jack Brisco. In fact my friends and I would print flyers and invite our fellow students to watch us wrestle during lunch break at our junior high school, until the principal stopped us...[/i


What does this have to do with anything?

One of the features of professional wrestling was the "loser leaves town match" . Since you are convinced that Hillary is a loser I challenge you to a "loser leaves the board" match.


If Hillary loses I leave the board forever,. If Hillary wins you leave the board forever.


Game

Set

Match

[NYC_SKP]

56. I like rasslin, too!

But I'm a lover, not a hater, and I really don't want to see anyone leave this board!

Hillary Clinton may well win the primary, but the party is going to take an ass-kicking for her insistence that she's qualified and wonderful.

Every attack on her will bloody the party brand. It will hurt US.

In hurting the Democratic brand, there will be repercussions on people and programs that we support.

In the end, while she is yakking about caring about women and children, her self-indulgence is going to hurt them.

SMH.

[Autumn]

93. Just so's ya know, you leave this board

I'm gonna hunt you down and That being said, Bill and Monica were adults and consenting adults at that. We people never should have been put through that long ordeal, neither should they have been.

[NYC_SKP]

94. !

We can share a cardboard box on the street after the 1% are given total control!

[Autumn]

95. Yeah, we might need it

That whole thing was such a republican overreach. Over the actions of two consenting adults.

[Orsino]

181. You can have their Clenis when you pry it from their cold, dead hands. n/t

[BreakfastClub]

2. Bill Clinton never supported DOMA. The republicans

passed it and they had a veto-proof majority. If he vetoed it, it would just be overridden and he feared it would energize republicans and stir up their base enough to get a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. He did the best he could in a very bad situation. It's just so disingenuous to blame Bill Clinton for DOMA, and yet I see otherwise sensible liberals doing it all the time. It's like blaming Obama for the government shutdown. I'm so tired of seeing democrats blamed for republican actions.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is also turned on its head and used against Bill Clinton. DADT was an IMPROVEMENT for gays and lesbians serving in the military. Before it was enacted, you were openly asked whether you were homosexual, and you had to answer. If you said you were, you would be thrown out. DADT was a way of allowing gays/lesbians to serve. DADT has a very complex political history in how it came to be, and it stems from Bill Clinton trying to change the law to allow gays/lesbians to serve openly in the military. And just like DOMA, I guess it's easier to bash Clinton in the head with it then find out the facts. What a joke.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Tell me more.

Tell me about how what happened with his intern(s) was totally misunderstood, that he's really a fighter for respectful treatment of women in the workplace.

[AgingAmerican]

4. Ken Starr?

Is that you??

[HERVEPA]

6. Pretty damn disgusting crap for a Democratic board.

[Agschmid]

7. It certainly happened, but what an odd way to bring it up?

[NYC_SKP]

8. I know, I can't believe people give him a break on so many things and that one thing especially.

Like you, I'm disgusted.

Is Bill so charming that the utter selfishness and misogyny and ego and feeling of superiority that allowed him to use his position to take advantage of a young intern is not a problem, not disturbing?

If anyone else does it, we want them in jail but if Bill does it, no problemo?

Bullshit. Plenty of men DON'T prey on their staff that way.

You said it, pretty disgusting stuff for a Democratic and progressive board.

[Agschmid]

10. I don't think he was given "a break"...

The guys was censured and impeached by congress on some level due to those actions... Hardly seems like a break.

[NYC_SKP]

11. No, not given a break. I refer to his fans who may want to underplay the significance of it.

I think some form of consequences were to be expected, that impeachment was a stretch but that for nothing to have happened would have sent a terrible message.

To me, the behavior is evidence of a serious disorder, one that is sadly common among powerful people, that they deserve the "love" and are a little above the law.

That they so often go on without any signs of remorse is, to me, disturbing.

I was a Jerry Brown and Tsongas fan back in 1990. It was clear who the mean one was in the bunch and the mean one won.

[AgingAmerican]

14. Phony puritanical nonsense

Adults have sex. You may not approve, but it happens every day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Someone should point out their affair started when she showed him her thong...

I am opposed to marital infidelity and sexual harassment but let's not lose sight of the facts.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

[former9thward]

54. Would you say that about a CEO who had sex with his intern?

[AgingAmerican]

96. If they both want to

...and they are both adults, then it's none of my business.

[former9thward]

110. Well the EEOC has a different opinion.

Its called workplace sex harassment when a person of enormous power has sex with person who has none. But you are ok with that type of relationship.

[Unvanguard]

130. No, it isn't.

Unwelcome sexual advances that create a hostile workplace environment are sexual harassment. Tying workplace treatment to sex ("If you don't have sex with me, I'll fire you or demote you&quot is sexual harassment. Consensual, mutually-sought-after sex is not sexual harassment, even if there's a power disparity.

That said, there's good reason for companies to prohibit such relationships, especially when the more powerful person is directly above the other in the workplace hierarchy, which I think was the case with Clinton and Lewinsky. The fact that it might not have technically been sexual harassment doesn't make it appropriate behavior.

[AgingAmerican]

164. No it isn't

It's harassment when there is harassment or pressure involved. She pressured him.

I am OK with consensual sex, yes. Those of us who engage in such activity have no problems with it.

Get off the phony Ken Starr/GOP morality train.

[former9thward]

178. "She pressured him"

Next you will be saying "She had it coming", "She dressed like she wanted it". Were you there in the room? How do you know who pressured who, if anyone??? The idea that an intern can pressure the president of the U.S. into anything is just ridiculous.

[NYC_SKP]

61. "Adults have sex. You may not approve, but it happens every day." Until you're the victim.

You do realize that this is a classic form of sexual harassment in the workplace, don't you?

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/

[AgingAmerican]

97. She instigated it

Sex is a normal thing, seriously, it is. People have it every day worldwide.

Have a good night, Ken.

[NYC_SKP]

101. "She instigated it" That's classic blame the victim ya got right there. nt

[AgingAmerican]

104. She instigated all of it

And admitted doing so, Mr. Starr. There was no 'victim' Mr Starr.

[merrily]

120. Not what she admitted.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Not when she was an adult at the time of sound mind, and she actually DID instigate it.

Jesus, have you been chafing over this thing for the entire time? All the way from Seinfeld to Better Call Saul?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.


You know, a lot of us still like the guy. What did you do when Clinton got on stage to stump for Obama, and was received like a rock star?

[RobinA]

153. Maybe...

If you see her as a victim of Clinton, which I do not. She went big game hunting and she bagged the big one. She was a grown up female who knew exactly what she was doing. Woman can know what they are doing when it comes to sex, you know.

[mylye2222]

28. Right you are.

You pointed it.
The reason for Bills imprudence at the time was that he thought that everything was due to him. Otherwise he certainly could have this affair more discretky.

Bill and Hillary always are and will think they are the center of the universe, and therefore no one can slow them.

[safeinOhio]

32. I wish I was a mind reader

"he thought that everything was due to him", "think they are the center of the universe".

I've heard "what Obama is really thinking" for 6 years and have become tired those mind readers too.

[JaneyVee]

39. Your smugness is unbelievable, its like a parody sometimes.

[LanternWaste]

47. Creative Fristian-style diagnoses...

Javert referred to Clinton's supporters as fans too. It's good branding for a premise lacking any substance-- merely unsupported, bumper-sticker editorials and Fristian-style diagnoses...

[AgingAmerican]

13. Tell us about the xmas card list

...or Vince Foster. Or the Clenis Mafia...

A guy had consensual sex with a woman? Gasp! To the gallows!!1!

In any other country they call that having a 'mistress'. But in the phony USA puritanism, old boy system, they call it illicit Affair!!1!!


I just call it consensual sex between adults. You can call it whatever you like.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. You know, Larry Flynt catches a lot of shit from some people around here...

but I'll never forget how he pulled the mask off the GOP hypocrisy during the impeachment, specifically how so many of these fucks would huff and puff and bloviate self-righteously in the house with pumped-up Clenis-based outrage, and then go back to their DC crash pads with their own mistresses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/flynt121998.htm

[merrily]

26. Does he? I haven't seen any posts here condemning Flynt for his stand on the impeachment.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. There hasn't really been a ton of discussion of the Clinton impeachment in general here

given that DU came into being in 2001.

I didn't join until 2004, so maybe I missed it.

[merrily]

139. If you missed it, why did you post that he catches a lot of shit here?

[Warren DeMontague]

144. I was talking about Larry Flynt.

And yeah, a lot of people can't stand the guy, but he's been a consistent fighter for not just the 1A but also against hypocrisy, as I pointed out.

[merrily]

145. So was I. I haven't seen Flynt catch a lot of shit here.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. You've been here since 2012, huh?

Maybe you've missed DU's many great porn wars. They come around every couple years or so.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Jail? They were both adults.

Spare me the hyperbolic "flag is falling" oh no bullshit, over the blowjob. It was stupid 17 years ago.

It was a bad move, but it was a bad move made by consenting adults.

[merrily]

27. But only one of them was an employer and only one of them committed perjury on national TV,, being

both a lawyer and a POTUS who swore to execute the laws faithfully. And only one of them was married and a parent. And only one of them was elected.

If you want to say that a POTUS pushing 50 is on the same plane as a star struck 21 year old white house intern, in terms of self discipline, foreseeing consequences, etc., fine. Then nothing is wrong with dismissing it by saying they were both consenting adults. But, they were by no means equally matched adults.

[safeinOhio]

33. But, only one person forgave him.

Making her the worlds best Christian.

[merrily]

121. "Christian" is not the word I would have chosen.

[safeinOhio]

152. I was thinking, in a Betty Bowers way.

http://www.bettybowers.com

[merrily]

154. I suspected.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Okay, first off, he didn't "commit perjury on national tv". He lied on national tv, which is not the

same thing.

Perjury can only occur in a court of law. Arguments were made during the impeachment that he perjured himself before a grand jury, but that wasn't on national tv.

Now, I don't think he should have lied. I think instead of wagging his finger about "not doing x with that woman", he should have wagged his finger and said "yes, I did it, if anyone can be mad at me it's my wife, now get the fuck out of my pants and let me do my job"

Are they "on the same plane"? No. But again, they were both ADULTS. And they were both consenting. Lots of sexual relationships happen between adults in all kinds of potentially sticky situations, that doesn't make them criminal. Monica Lewinsky, as far as I know, never alleged that there was any sexual harassment or job-and power-based pressure involved in the relationship. She took responsiblity for her part in it, and she never claimed it wasn't totally consensual.

Either "adults" and "consent" mean something, or they don't. They don't magically stop meaning something when someone decides that the consenting adults aren't "equally matched". 40somethings and 20somethings have relationships all the time. Is that how I roll? No. But it's not illegal, either.

Similarly, lots of married people- even ones with kids- have affairs. Is that how I roll? No. But is it my business, if everyone is a consenting adult? No. It's for them to work out with their spouses and families, or preferably not to enter into a relationship presumably based on trust and commitment if they aren't going to adhere to them. But again, that's for them to work out, not me--- and it has jack diddly to do with the President's ability to do the job he's elected to do.

Should he have done it? No. But should I be in charge of the sex lives of other consenting adults? No. Should he have been impeached over it, should it have been plastered all over the news for 2 years? FUCK NO.

I didn't get morally indignant over it then, I sure as shit am not going to start now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Perjury is a jury question.

But one of the elements of perjury is it must be material. There is a dispute whether Clinton's prevarication about an affair with Monica Lewinsky in a deposition in the Paula Jones action was material to the Jones action for which he was being deposed.


I never understood the basis for his perjury before a grand jury allegation which formed one of the Articles Of Impeachment when he refused to answer specific questions about the affair before the grand jury. He didn't lie about it.


I can't believe we are still litigating this.

[sabrina 1]

71. There was no perjury. That was a Right Wing Noise Machine claim. The judge dismissed that case on

its merits, the 'testimony' they are talking about was given in a deposition, for a case that was ultimately dismissed, and where depositions had no material value. Perjury involves lying about a matter that can effect the outcome of a case. There was no case, so no perjury.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I agree...This is like re-litigating the O J case again and again./NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I agree...This is like re-litigating the O J case again and again./NT

[Warren DeMontague]

74. That is why I used the phrase "arguments were made"..etc

Which is historically accurate.

I felt the whole thing was beyond ridiculous, at the time. Certainly not any of Ken Starr's business.

[merrily]

126. Not one, but two courts held he lied under oath.

If you don't want to re-litigate it, then don't. No one is forcing you. But the facts are the facts.

[merrily]

112. He did commit perjury on national TV. His testimony, under oath, was televised.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. That's not the same thing.

Broadcasting the tape of him in front of the grand jury is not him "doing it on national tv". It is him doing it (at least, as per those who believe it was perjury at all) being shown on national tv, which is not the same thing.

[merrily]

115. He committed perjury. That is what he was impeached for, perjury. What are you quibbling about?

[Warren DeMontague]

118. The House of Representatives is not a court of law.

The House of Representatives can vote to impeach any President they can muster the votes to do so. The fact that they did so, only means the house voted to impeach him. Nothing more.

I'm not "quibbling". If people really want to try to stir up blowjob outrage again, man, good fucking luck. That chapter in US history was a fucking travesty, and it was NOT because a bad mans did a bad thing with his bad thing and then told a bad fib about it and caused the flag to fall the flag is falling catch the falling flag.



Give me a break.

2 years when this country could have been doing a lot of shit to prepare for the 21st century, were wasted on a GOP expedition into one man's underwear drawer.

I'll say this: The people who want someone like me to support Hillary in the primaries, are going to need to do better than "inevitability" and "you have no other choice".

But conversely? The people who want to argue she shouldn't be the nominee are gonna need a lot more than Clenispocalypse redux. A lot.

In fact, short of her actually articulating some solid, specific, and brave policy proposals I could get behind, I can't think of anything that would make me "ready for Hillary" faster, than folks continually trying to bring up Bill Clinton's impeachment. Fucking A.

[merrily]

119. He was also disbarred for lying under oath and that did involve a court proceeding.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Whatever.

I happen to believe that the various SCOTUS decisions that have established a right to personal privacy- Roe, Griswold, Lawrence, etc.- perhaps not coincidentally the same ones the GOP really wants to get rid of- preclude that sort of legally binding fishing inquiry. To wit, everyone was a consenting adult, it wasn't any of the grand jury's fucking business in the first place.

Period. I don't care if he was President of the United States at the time, or that there was a well-funded right wing legal inquisition out to get him.

But I'm not sure what you want to accomplish by rehashing this. The fucking relentless quest to dig up dirt on the guy and destroy his presidency over a consensual affair, made me respect and support him MORE, not less.

And judging by the '98 midterms, I wasn't the only one.

[merrily]

127. Perjury by a sitting POTUS is not a "whatever" for me.

And you moved the goal post from the House of Representatives not being a court to "whatever." Fact is, not one, but two, courts found he lied under oath while President.

If the argument you're making would have flown, I imagine his lawyers would have tried it. A blow job and perjury are not the same things. Neither is a blow job and what allegedly happened with Paula Jones.

But I'm not sure what you want to accomplish by rehashing this

You can pretend I re-litigated this I'm not the one who started this thread. However, if I see a post with which I disagree, I'm probably going to post a disagreement. I disagree that Monica and Bill were on a par in this. Ditto Paula Jones.

And, if a sitting President's perjuring himself made you respect him more, that's your prerogative. His popularity rating doesn't mean he didn't commit perjury, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Which was an excuse for an extended fishing expedition.

Like I said, everyone involved was a consenting adult, it wasn't anyone else's business, paula jones case or no.


If ML had asserted he had harassed her or otherwise even volunteered the information instead of having it dragged out of her, it might be a different story.

[merrily]

129. Regardless, no one forced him to lie under oath. Paula Jones did not consent to anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Right, and she was pretty clearly manipulated from the get-go by right wingers with an agenda.

She admitted as much.

[merrily]

133. How does that negate that he, a lawyer and sitting POTUS, chose perjury?

You've tried to move the goal post on Jones, too, from consent (untrue) to she was manipulated (irrelevant to his perjury)

[Warren DeMontague]

146. If she was a pawn or manipulated, I think it throws her claims into question, don't you?

Whether he perjured himself or not- he wasn't convicted of it, regardless of how the Arkansas bar or the House of Representatives voted on the matter- my position is it wasn't any of Ken Starr's business, beyond that it's been over for a very long time.

He shouldn't have lied, not in my mind. He should have said "yes, I did it, now fuck off". I would have done that, more importantly I wouldn't have screwed around with Monica Lewinsky in the first place. But I'm not him.

What more do you want? He made a mistake, but in the grand scheme of things I don't personally consider it that big of a deal.

And for someone who claims not to be interested in "re-litigating it", you really like to talk about it, it seems.

[merrily]

149. What does that have to do with the court?

And for someone who claims not to be interested in "re-litigating it", you really like to talk about it, it seems.

Well, I've been replying to you. It always puzzles me when a poster to whom I've been replying on a post for post basis says I'm the one doing a lot of "talking." If you're not interested in re-litigating it, why have you been posting about it so much?

[Warren DeMontague]

183. ...

[AgingAmerican]

98. America wasn't fooled by the phony puritanism 'impeachment'

His approval ratings continually climbed while the phony impeachment was going on.



Monica was an adult and wanted to hump and he obliged. Sex is normal. It's what adults do.

I can't believe we have Democrats trying to lecture us with failed, antiquated, far right wing viewpoints.

[merrily]

116. Not sure any actual humping was involved.

[AgingAmerican]

161. It is a generic term for sexual activity

Duh!

[merrily]

163. Not really. It's pretty specific. And, in this case, probably preferable to what occurred.

I tend to think she might have enjoyed what most people consider humping a lot more than a cigar up her whoo ha, but I can't say that for certain.

[AgingAmerican]

167. My Republican brother takes everything literally

Like the townspeople on Green Acres. It makes having a conversation with him pointless. You do the same.

Take your failed GOP talking point, and faux outrage, and go home.

[merrily]

168. Awww, aren't you just adorable?

[awoke_in_2003]

105. And neither on of them...

is running for president.

[Agschmid]

107. This.

[awoke_in_2003]

109. Thank you

I may not be the biggest HRC fan, but the sins of Bill are Bill's, not her's.

[merrily]

114. No one said they were.

Look at the post to which I was replying, and also at the title of this thread.

[NYC_SKP]

64. Are you new here? Do you not have a clue about sexual harassment in the workplace?

"Bad move"????

When the supreme commander of the US military decides to have sex at work, in the whitehouse, with a young intern (or anyone).

It is sexual harassment, one of the worst forms of it, reckless disregard for the impact on others and the nature of the position of power.

Jesus Christ Warren, tell me you're just pretending not to understand this.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Did Monica Lewinsky ever allege that it was sexual harassment? No, sir, she did not.

Please, spare me the huffy-puffy think of the children outrage. It was silly, then. It sure as shit isn't a rationale to go after Hillary nearly some 2 decades after the fact.

He was not leading the US Military into war when he screwed around, he was working late hours in his house which also happens to be the place of work for the President. I'm also fairly sure that's not the first blowjob which has ever taken place in the white house. Horrors!

If ML had ever said that Clinton had used his position or his power to pressure her into doing something she didn't very much herself want to, "harassment" might be relevant- but she did not. And, like it or not, she was an adult- (as much as the demographic majority on DU may have trouble understanding that anyone under 60 isn't a "whippersnapper&quot

All those Millennials who the moral panic penis police were so wrought out of shape over at the time -remember?- because "they're reading about oral sex in the newspaper"- well, they grew up to be the most supportive generation of things like LGBT equality, in US History.

Somehow, the Union survived the Clenipocalypse.

[NYC_SKP]

78. Harassment does not require allegations

You know nothing about the topic, apparently.

He created a hostile workplace.

They did SHIT for GLBT folks.

[NYC_SKP]

80. Hostile workplace to other employees. Consentual or not, it's harassment.

A top director having his way, or even over use of hugs and touching, can make for an actionable hostile workplace environment.

The couple involved might be ok with it but others in the workplace might feel very uncomfortable, even fearful, about it.

Go ahead and dismiss this all you want, you're still wrong as can be.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. If Ken Starr had had a case for that, he would have pursued it.

2 people working off hours in the oval office is not what you would call a standard workplace situation.

Anyway, I thought it had something to do with him being the commander in chief? Maybe he put the troops in danger with his ungodly penile fornication?

I'm not "dismissing" it, it's over, it was fucking ridiculous at the time... if the grumpy morals brigade couldn't convince me to be mad about it in 1998, what are the odds of that line working now?

You want to take it up with Former President Clinton, go right ahead. But he's not even running for anything, his wife is. And she's the one person it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to blame for her husband's dick misbehavior.

[marshall]

142. Lewinsky did get favorable treatment

how many other interns had Vernon Jordan schlepping them around Washington and beyond looking for jobs? Nepotism is one thing--Chelsea or Jenna may get pricy jobs because they are the daughters of a president. And one can assume Malia will get the same favorable treatment. But all the interns did not receive the same benefit. That benefit came as a result of sex in the workplace, and the lack of benefit to everyone is one of the hallmarks of a hostile workplace.

Ultimately I believe we lessen our commitment to social justice when we squelch discussions of matters like this. Sexual harassment is no less damaging to the individual when it comes from one of our own. Time will create distance and we will be more and more able to critique the matter on its actual faults and merits rather than our personal bias. But for some time a frank discussion of this issue will continue to be taboo, at least when it involves the shoe being on our own foot rather than someone else's.

[NYC_SKP]

173. Well said. And the impacts of these affairs is felt by coworkers in that hostile workplace.

People seem to be blind to the significance of this.

[NCTraveler]

63. "If anyone else does it, we want them in jail but if Bill does it, no problemo? "

You have gone so far off the reservation that you don't even attempt honesty anymore.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I DEMAND THAT EVERYONE WHO EVER HAD ORAL SEX OUTSIDE THE SANCTITY OF A CHRIST-CENTRIC MARRIAGE

BE INCARCERATED, IMMEDIATELY!!!


Sincerely yours, Ken Cuccinelli.

[NanceGreggs]

9. Post o' the Day!!!

[NYC_SKP]

12. Yeah, ole Bill! Such a good old boy!

Why he's very charming!

Sickeningly so.

I'll be glad when this dance is over.

[NanceGreggs]

15. He is charming.

He is also incredibly intelligent, eloquent, politically astute, well-read, humourous, accomplished, and respected the world over.

I've always thought presidential sex scandals to be the domain of cheap tabloids, GOP hypocrites, and those who have nothing of substance to say.

[AgingAmerican]

19. "And those who have nothing of substance to say"

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

36. By all accounts, Nixon never cheated on Pat.

No rumors that Dubya ever strayed on Pickles.

If we threw out every US president who had an affair, we'd lose a lot of the good ones, get to keep some of the crappy ones.

It's also worth noting that Hitler supposedly never looked at another woman after he met Eva Braun, AND he was vegan, too!

[DURHAM D]

40. Actually

there were persistent rumors during Nixon's presidency that he was in a relationship with Bebe Rebozo. The media referred to it in this manner - "Nixon is playing drop the soap with Bebe".

I am not kidding about this.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Right.

Geezus, there's a mental image.

[JI7]

70. this post should be hidden

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Why, if it's historically accurate?

Given the stuff Nixon said about Gay men, it certainly paints an interesting picture of hypocrisy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Teddy White who covered every election from 48 to 84 said...

Teddy White who covered every election from 48 to 84 said the only presidents whose fidelity he would attest to was Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Truman is a fascinating figure.

Not just for that reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Isn't there a joke about Bess burning all his love letters?

NT

[Warren DeMontague]

84. If so, I've never heard it.

But I like the part about retiring to MO and relative obscurity. Not the kind of Neil Armstrong-level humility you expect, nowadays.

[merrily]

147. Which doesn't mean he knew of infidelity in every other instance.

Hell, it doesn't even mean he knew for a fact that Carter and Truman were faithful, tho my GUESS is that they were.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. Of course

But it's pretty well established Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby and JFK and LBJ had several affairs...

[merrily]

157. Actually, it isn't.

The claim is that Eisenhower and Summersby never had a physical relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby

Some consider that worse than a physical relationship, but, hell, even Carter said he'd known lust in his heart.

LBJ's infidelity, if any, was rumored, not pretty well established. I'll give you JFK, though. And, FDR. Not sure what FDR was physically capable of, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. Google an individual president's name and affair and make up your own mind.

I found this funny:

Johnson had "an unfillable hole in his ego," Moyers says. Feelings of emptiness spurred him to eat, drink, and smoke to excess. Sexual conquests also helped to fill the void. He was a competitive womanizer. When people mentioned Kennedy's many affairs, Johnson would bang the table and declare that he had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/three-new-revelations-about-lbj/377094/

[merrily]

165. What makes you think I haven't made up my own mind?

[tblue37]

106. And he loved dogs. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Perhaps, just a LITTLE TOO MUCH

okay, fine, I just made that up

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I'll say this: If all the pro-Hillary people have to run on are empty platitudes and "inevitability"

she will have a tough time getting my support in the primaries.

But if the anti-HRC people are seriously going to do shit like try to spin up stale Clenis moral penis panic, man, I'll be sticking Hillary bumper stickers on my car so fast your head will spin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I Know a woman who met him at a 96 fund raiser

She is an accomplished trial lawyer with several eight figure verdicts under her belt. We were discussing her encounter over dinner and she said she was mesmerized and "she would sleep with him", and this was in front of her husband.

The woman who used to cut my hair who met him when he was campaigning in 92 at the Daytona Beach Bandshell...She said the same thing.

Women would have made passes at Bill if he was the Maytag repairman.


It is what it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I know, some of us just have that gift.

I mean, uh.....

[AgingAmerican]

18. Thank you! Thank You!

[NanceGreggs]

20. Ha ha!

Your acceptance "speech" was even funnier than your award-winning post!

[LordGlenconner]

67. Yeah no kidding

What a pathetic OP, but hey no surprise there. if you're that desperate to see a candidate fail you''re going to reach for the lowest lying fruit to justify that even if that fruit smells of GOP snark from the 90s.

Again, fucking pathetic.

What's next, cigar jokes?

[merrily]

17. He did not have to sign it. He did not disavow it, either, until the Obama administration.

Sorry, but it's what you do in office, when you have both power to do right for people and skin in the game, that counts.

BTW, no one knows if a bill actually has a veto proof majority until a veto occurs. An actual veto can change things and has. Two thirds of both houses after a Presidential veto is no sure thing, by any means. Also, there is no guaranty an allegedly veto proof majority would have existed in the first place if the head of the Democratic Party and sitting POTUS had opposed it vigorously from the jump, as he should have.

We heard the same thing about repeal of Glass Steagall--veto proof majority. Poor Bubba, what's a helpless POTUS to do?. Then, it turned out Clinton and Summers were lobbying Congress for those veto proof votes, right along with Greenspan. Greenspan's admitted he was wrong. Bubba and Summers, not so much

Moreover, signing DOMA put a Democratic imprimatur on it that a veto would not have done. America reacts differently to government decisions that seem bipartisan that it does to things that are obviously partisan.

So, please don't excuse his failure to veto so facilely. The veto is in the Constitution for good reason--and Bill chose not to veto for good reason. He didn't want to take the heat and he didn't want to hurt his chances for re-election by taking the correct stand. He can't have it both ways.

Bill also very much deserves to have DADT held against him. Reagan had signed an Executive Order. Bill could have reversed Reagan's order with an executive order of his own. Instead, he triangulated with Dick Morris and Colin Powell and then had Congress pass it, so he would not have to take the political hit for it. That made it harder to improve by Executive Order--or at least so we were told repeatedly after Obama took office.

Gays in the military suffered under DADT.

The whole story doesn't help Bubba one tiny bit.

[closeupready]

52. Absolutely spot on, thank you a million times over.

[merrily]

117. You're most welcome.

[NYC_SKP]

69. Thank you for clarifying this matter.

I was presenting all day yesterday and couldn't respond as well as I'd like to have.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. DOMA is a legitimate criticism of Bill Clinton.

Hammering away endlessly on stale blowjob outrage is just fucking silly, though.

[Mnpaul]

91. But why do the Republicans hate him?

Bill went along with a lot of their crappy legislation. The three Republicans who went after him weren't faithful to their wives. Are they angry because he didn't run up massive amounts of debt? He declined going after Republican crimes during the Reagan/Bush years. Is it because reality popped their "permanent Republican majority."

[Warren DeMontague]

92. They bagged a majority in the house of representatives because of redistricting & political reality.

And have kept it for much of the time since for the same reasons.

1994 really completed a shift of conservative southern districts to the GOP that started with Nixon's "southern strategy", it took them that long to get over Abe Lincoln.

Bill Clinton was not responsible for that.

[merrily]

134. He's a Democrat. They're Republicans. It's part of the game.

[pnwmom]

30. Thank you for the needed history lesson -- too many people seem to have forgotten that context

is everything. As you say, DADT was an improvement on the status quo at the time. And DOMA was supported as a way to take the wind from the sails of the people who wanted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Welcome to DU!

[DURHAM D]

41. Also, marriage equality was not the focus of

the LGBT community at that time - employment was the main focus. It would be several more years before the movement fully evolved into thinking that without marriage equality nothing else would matter much. The discussions/switch in focus caused a tremendous amount of in-fighting. The general public just doesn't know about it.

[closeupready]

177. Somewhat true, & though I detest BC's GLBT record,

advances in marriage equality have happened at a blazingly-fast rate over the last eight years. In retrospect however, America in the 90's was STILL just about as deeply homophobic as it was in the 50's or 60's.

So yes, the GLBT community was atomized in the era when DOMA passed and was signed into law.

[CanadaexPat]

34. He took out ads on small market Christian radi stations

Boasting of signing DOMA.

[DURHAM D]

42. Yes

and thank god he did. Or did you want Bob Dole to win?

Are you a member of the LGBT community and/or were you politically involved at the time?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. That election gave us some good jokes.

Like; After asking Bill Clinton whether he wore Boxers or Briefs, they asked Bob Dole the same question, to which Dole responded, 'depends'

[AtomicKitten]

103. He not only supported DOMA but bragged about it in radio ads in his reelection campaign.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/15/us/ad-touts-clinton-s-opposing-gay-marriage.html

Ad Touts Clinton's Opposing Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14— In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President's signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ''gay baiting.''

The advertisement also promotes President Clinton's work to protect religious freedom and says he wants ''a complete ban'' on late-term abortions ''except when the mother's life is in danger'' or when a woman ''faces severe health risks.''

It refers to Mr. Clinton's support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which the President signed into law last month, to the dismay of many gay rights advocates. Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals.

The White House spokesman, Michael D. McCurry, had earlier criticized Republicans for raising the issue, calling it ''gay baiting.''

The Dole campaign was critical. ''This is a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in the middle of the night so it wouldn't be news, but now he does paid advertising to promote it,'' said a Dole spokesman, Gary Koops. ''This is a President who has never supported any restriction on abortion, but now, 20-plus days before the election, he does ads touting the fact that he now says he supports restrictions.''

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Certainly, the pro-drug war shit has got to go.

I think Debbie Waserman Schultz has, now, discovered that.

"Throw more pot smokers in prison" doesnt play nearly as well in Peoria, as it used to.


Hillary is going to need to give a clear answer on legalization, given that 3 states have legalized recreational cannabis and more are likely to in 2016. The days of pols being able to treat the issue like a giant joke, are over.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. lol, Hillary doesn't give clear answers on anything until it's thoroughly poll tested.

[blkmusclmachine]

25. Hillary runs to the right of Obama, and LOSES.

[sendero]

31. Whoever wrote this..

... is a fool or a propagandist. Obama "to the left"? My ass. Sure, on some social issues, but not on much of anything the 1% cares about. Yeah, pushing for the most sweeping and odious trade agreement in history is "left". Again, my ass. Giving "health" insurance companies a windfall and bankers numerous get-out-of-jail-free cards is "left". My ass.

What a steaming pile of horseshit.

[LiberalAndProud]

45. I thought he was brilliant at making up facts, sans citation.

Sometimes you just have to say "balderdash," and move on. This is one of those moments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. That was then and this is now.

Bill ran the campaign his milieu demanded and I expect Hillary to do the same thing.

[uponit7771]

49. Like Al Gore did? No she shouldn't... Clinton was a good president, the two Bush's were horrible...

... and there's no way democrats should allow the conflation of the two

[NYC_SKP]

59. Clinton was just a "fair" president.

His economic and environmental policies were short-sighted, unsustainable.

That economic renewal under Bill? Smoke and fucking mirrors that came back to haunt us, it was short-sighted by design.

And every time you see a gas guzzling asshole in a vulgar American SUV you can thanks Bill Clinton for not giving a fuck about the environment and caring more about the auto industry profits.

[uponit7771]

65. No he was not, all inclusive with progressive legislation he was good... not FDR not JFK but good...

... and that's what Democrats should present because those are the facts.

Anything else plays into the "they're all alike" narrative...

No they aren't...

Clinton was more than fair overall

[merrily]

155. Telecommunications Act, Repeal of Glass Steagall, ending "welfare as we know it" NAFTA, DOMA, DADT.

Oh yeah, just a wonderful New Democrat President.

[uponit7771]

191. Good /= perfect, and overall is whole picture not 5% out 95%

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Bill Clinton was personally responsible for the SUV?

Wow, that's a new one.

[NYC_SKP]

171. Yes, he was. His failure to utter so much as a peep about it proves it.

Unless you can show me where he addressed Feinstein's bill and other legislation seeking to close the SUV light truck loophole, he's partly to blame.

Interestingly, people who drive a big ass monster truck also think that Monica Lewinski instigated what is commonly called a little harmless fun.

Bill Clinton is a very charismatic man, give the people their trucks, keep the loophole for the automakers, and have a little fun.

We should have a beer some time and joke about all this.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. Your post is funny.

I mean, profoundly funny in several ways that I can't even quite put my finger on. Maybe if I was a keener student of psychology, or even just humanity, as you clearly are, sir.

Here's a picture of my monster truck. I like to drive it to keggers where me and my buds all talk about what a swell guy Bill Clinton is.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

125. What do those lines actually mean?

Because I've got a 95 light truck, and I'll be shocked if it gets anywhere near 20 mpg. Do only some percentage of a given company's vehicles have to meet those standards?

[NYC_SKP]

170. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards hold auto industry to fuel average fuel economy stds

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requires vehicle manufacturers to comply with the gas mileage, or fuel economy, standards set by the Department of Transportation (DOT). CAFE values are obtained using the city and highway fuel economy test results and a weighted average of vehicle sales.

If you look at the line-up over time between 1970 and the present, you might remember the Pinto and Vega and lots and lots of small trucks. These were happy times in terms of an American outlook on sensible vehicle sizes.
A Suburban stood out like a truck and even full size pickups weren't very large unless they were one-ton and larger capacity variants.

CAFE standards were a good idea, but loopholes were found or created that, in a nutshell, killed the station wagon and truly small truck. Here's a good read:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/

And another less complex read here:

THE "SUV LOOPHOLE" is so big that you can drive a truck through it. In fact the loophole is a light truck.

Back in 1975, when Washington passed CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards designed to improve gas mileage in automobiles, lawmakers set a lower standard for light trucks. Automakers later used the loophole to market bigger cars, such as minivans and sport utility vehicles, which fall under the same category. The CAFE standard is 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, but 20.7 mpg for light trucks. Thus, what was supposed to be a break for hard-working farmers and industries became a Yuppie Exemption.

Not to her great credit, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein owns a gas-guzzling SUV, even though she believes in global warming and doesn't want to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, last year the Los Angeles Times reported that she owned three SUVs. Which makes her your perfect "SUV Democrat."

To her credit, Feinstein has been pushing to close the SUV loophole. "We're energy gluttons," said Feinstein. (With her three SUVs, she should know.) Her legislation would require that the 27.5 mpg standard for cars apply to SUVs and light trucks by 2007.

Feinstein's bill is on the money. It makes no sense for Washington to determine that there is a national interest in limiting gas mileage, but only for small, less expensive cars. Especially when light trucks and SUVs account for some 40 percent of new car sales. As Feinstein explained this week, it is a "no-brainer . . . that SUVs and light trucks are passenger vehicles" and should operate under the same rules.

more at: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Close-SUV-Loophole-3316597.php

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

172. Hmmm, actually reading that, I'm not sure I was calling my truck by the right name.

It's not a 'small truck', it's a 'full size', just not one of those 'heavy duty' monsters I typically see toodling around. And it's 'light' only in the sense that the body is mostly rust at this point, with large holes through it.

[NCTraveler]

62. Hillary is very smart.

It would be wise of her to have Bill exhaust himself during the campaign season for her. He is a rock star in America. Except to the Gowdy crowd.

[jwirr]

66. I can't believe this thread. The point of the whole OP was that Hillary would do well to turn her

back on SOME of Bill's policies during his term. No one said she needs to turn her back on him. Yet most of the posts in the thread say not one word about the policies.

Glass-Steagell? NAFTA? These were policies that are connected to the problems we are facing today. How does she feel about them? That is the question in the OP.

The OP also talks about the changed demographics today. President Obama brought in a lot of young and minority voters. The question is then: who is going to be her coalition? What policies are important to that new coalition?

I think the one thing that she needs to remember about Bill's term was the phrase "It's the economy, stupid." And she needs to ask herself what roll the Glass-Steagell bill and NAFTA played in that. She needs to think about these things.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I'm amazed that some people here are still flogging the clenis outrage

I mean, really. let it go. 18 years is far too long to be mad about a blowjob between two consenting adults.

[NYC_SKP]

81. Clinton created a hostile workplace environment and would have lost his job in the private sector...

...or the public sector, at least in California.

You know better than this, Warren.

Even when consensual and not a quid pro quo, such activities create a hostile workplace to other employees.

The assymetrical power balance between the two make such behavior outrageous and, really, unacceptable.

You need to read up on sexual harassment. If you want, I'll post the question in another DU group for input.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. No, I don't "need to read up on" anything, prof.

Like I said, 2 people working late in the oval office is not a standard workplace situation. It's NOT "the private sector", in fact the "job" of President- which includes a nuclear briefcase, a 747, and living in the same place as working- if fairly incomparable to any other job situation on the planet.

People also have affairs with their co-workers. Not always a good idea, but not always an inherent "creation of a hostile workplace", either.

You want to start a big ol DU party about it, fine. Good luck.

But I'm already "educated", pops.

[justiceischeap]

90. He isn't the only President in history to have had affairs

in the White House. I'm not excusing his behavior but at least have the same outrage over Kennedy, Johnson, Harding, FDR.

[merrily]

159. Who says we don't have the same feeling about their infidelities?

But, how are their infidelities relevant to this thread or the upcoming primary?

[justiceischeap]

160. They're just as relevant as Clinton's affair

Hillary Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with her husband's affair (unless people are going to blame her for it) and his affair has as much to do with her campaign as does the President's I mentioned.

Yes, people, mainly Republicans, are going to bring it up but I'd hope Democrats would have enough sense to know Hillary and Bill Clinton are two individual entities and only one of those people had the affair and he is not running for President.

[merrily]

166. That is clearly not true.

[justiceischeap]

169. How is it clearly not true?

What does his affair have to do with her candidacy? Seriously, I want to hear this?

[merrily]

179. It's clearly not true that FDR's affair is just as relevant to Hillary's run as Bill's affair.

For one thing, when I heard she was running again, I didn't say to myself, "Oh no, I'm going to be hearing about Lucy Mercer again!"

And how Hillary handles Bill's affairs is certainly more relevant to her run than Eleanors handling of FDR's attraction to Mercer.

[justiceischeap]

180. The point of the matter, no one should give two shits about Bill's affair

as it pertains to Hillary's campaign. Of course, the Republicans are going to bring it up but that doesn't mean that Democrats should be judging her as well based on her husband's actions. Again, they are two completely separate entities. I don't want to hear any more about Monica Lewinski than the next person but I also know it's dirty ball politics that will bring that up.

[merrily]

182. That's one view.

[BainsBane]

184. Only if Monica had filed a complaint

Still, you're up against a brick wall with this one. EEOC laws are intermittently "radical" or part of an Ed Meese RW conspiracy in his worldview. The key point is that anything related to sex is sacrosanct above all else.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. Right, why bother to talk to me directly, when you can find out everything I think from YOU!

It's amazing. Every day there's some brand new thing I've never said, or even come close to thinking, yet you are dutifully ascribing it to me.

Anyway, EEOC laws? Oh, you mean the laws that would "prevent the display of things like the sports illustrated swimsuit cover in public"--- your assertion, in the context of saying that the SI cover being posted at DU was a violation of EEOC laws...

I think I pretty much shot that one down when I showed that the SI cover was on a billboard 300 feet tall in times square. That's public. So no, the EEOC laws don't cover people posting things on DU.

I never said they were "Radical", nor have I talked about Ed Meese in the context of EEOC laws. Ever.

I've talked about Ed Meese in the context of Andrea Dworkin, which is not the same thing. People want to assert that Andrea Dworkin was on some brave forefront of progressive thought, I will bring up that she palled up with the Reagan Administration.

Doesn't have anything to do with EEOC laws.

Yes, I thought the Clinton impeachment was a huge overreach into the personal lives and choices of consenting adults, one of whom happened to be the POTUS. Is that "radical"?

[BainsBane]

187. I'm so over that shit, Warren

[Warren DeMontague]

188. Well, then why do you drop into random threads to ascribe shit to me that I've never said?

Because it seems to happen every 3-4 days or so.

You pull some position out of thin air that I've never even come close to expressing, la la la, I call you on it, you disappear (the decent thing to do would be to acknowledge it, "yes, you never said that, I just made that shit up, sorry&quot and then a few days later show up in a different thread to do the same thing.

Really, you need new hobbies.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. I think maybe I'll try it some time.

"Oh, you know that Bain, she thinks the US Constitution should be amended to let Chickens vote in Presidential elections"

"....what? When did I say that? I never said that"

[Agschmid]

108. I feel you... didn't go the way I thought it would.

[davidpdx]

143. Well put

As previously stated by Sabrina up thread her views are an important part of how she is seen as a candidate. Some of the policies of Bill Clinton were awful and if she truly disagrees with them she should distance herself from them. As someone who is a huge skeptic it would do a lot to bring me closer to voting for her.

[liberal N proud]

131. I see Bill Clinton as an asset to a Hillary Clinton Presidency

This is just more rubbish from the right to tear down the Clintons. They have been doing it for 20 years.

[Warren DeMontague]

189. I do, too.

He certainly didn't hurt Obama's chances by stumping for him. He was a powerhouse.

[AgingAmerican]

140. The article is delusional

The article states that Obama drove the party further to the left, which is the exact opposite of what happened. Obama is to the right of Reagan Democrats.

[99Forever]

141. Good, bad, or indifferent.

Bill and all of his baggage are part of Hillary's baggage going into the general and cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand by her and her supporters. Like it or not. It IS a huge problem.

[RobinA]

151. This Article

has very little that seems accurate. Have whites left the Democratic Party in "droves?" I don't know, I'd need to see some numbers.

"the party has moved to the left, pushed by an Obama-led coalition of young people, minorities, and socially liberal whites"?????

On what planet did this happen? Certainly not the one I inhabit. DOMA is a bad example of any leftward march. Gay marriage was a hot button issue because the Right made it one. When it looked politically advantageous to be against it, many Dem politicians were against it (Clinton(s), Obama...). This was a "move right." When it became clear that Joe Average Voter wasn't losing sleep over the possibility of gays marrying and there was a well organized lobby in favor, Dem politicians switched sides (Clinton(s), Obama...) It had nothing to do with a leftward change of direction. Their position against it originally was political expedience. Coming back in favor was just a correction once they read the tea leaves (also know as polls). I have no doubt that no Clinton and no Obama had to "move left" to embrace gay marriage. Except as a political posiiton.

And citing the mega-flucky Al Gore situation doesn't prove anything. Al Gore ran a crap campaign, which put him in the position of being knocked out by a hanging Florida chad delivered by a disturbingly political Supreme Court.

That said, Hilary needs to run as Hilary while using Bill as the campaign asset he is.