I wish you did too....sm
Posted By: Can we talk? Correct link on 2008-08-12
In Reply to: I hope you are right - I truly am. - Like a bad nightmare
I would like to begin by saying I am really intrigued by the conflict you are dealing with and hope you are okay with my curiosity. If my questions or comments somehow upset you, please feel free to let me know in no uncertain terms or skip over points you do not feel comfortable responding to. I have a pretty tough hide, am not easily offended and it is not my intent to “stir the pot,” so to speak. Just so that you will know, at the beginning of the primaries, I thought we had 2 good candidates, was okay with either one, with only a slight tendency to favor Obama. By the end of the process, I was pretty turned off by Hillary and my support for Obama was unequivocal, even though policy-wise, I am still okay with her. I just really did not like some of the tactics she used, in terms of the personal attacks and the divisive nature of her strategies.
I do think there are several factors to consider when assessing her behavior during the primaries and that it is always important to put things into context. I am not convinced that who we saw was Hillary “in the raw.” What I mean by that is it is difficult to distinguish how much of her behavior was dictated by her own personality, to what extent was she responding to media coverage and the polls (candidates will be candidates) and how much input from the campaign managers may have influenced her performance. Whatever the case, the last thing we need this election year is for the party to be polarized like it was then. I really think that part of your outrage with the Clintons is coming from that polarization and a fear that it could not only “throw” the race into the McCain’s laps, but also has the potential to inflict some serious and long-term damage on the party.
I am really happy that Obama will be receiving the nomination and hope that her supporters will not make a spectacle of themselves during the convention.
What did you find out about B&H and their plans that bothered you so much? What lies? Are you referring to the sex scandals or something else? When talking about the person he was as president versus the person who ran, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are referring to. How do they make you feel manipulated? Your feelings toward them seem to be kind of stuck within the context of the campaign, or am I missing something here? Do you feel they are manipulative liars outside the context of the campaign, i.e., in the ways he promoted his policies while serving as president?
I think that the credibility that you question so persistently probably is preserved by the fact that, as a president, he was really quite an effective leader. It is important to keep in mind that during his second term, he was dealing with a positively acidic atmosphere in Congress who, for the first time in 40 years, was of a republican majority. These guys were relentless in their efforts to dog him and make him look bad, long before Monica entered the picture and they were pretty good at it. I don’t think they ever really recovered from the fact that Clinton beat out HW Bush in his bid for a second term and were even worse sore losers in 1996 when Bob Dole could not replace him. Politicians are a power-hungry pack of wolves and I remember feeling that many of them were just plain jealous of him because, despite all of their attempts to scandalize BC, they never really could find any way to affect his consistently high approval ratings…65% when he left office, in spite of Ken Starr’s best efforts. He must have been doing something right.
Clinton versus Nixon impeachment perceptions: Clinton’s impeachment stemmed out of his perjury charge and obstruction of justice for statements made during the Paula Jones sexual harassment proceedings when questioned about an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Perjury is illegal, of course. Sex in the oval office, disgusting to be sure. A sex addict? Maybe. Disrespectful of the high office he held? Most definitely. But having an affair and lying about it is certainly nothing new. The original incident was a question of a lack of morality in his PERSONAL life. He was not the first president to have an affair and was not the first man (or woman, for that matter) to lie about having an affair. IMO, Ken Starr’s (Whitewater sour grapes prosecutor’s) relentless and blatantly political witch hunt was equally as obscene. BTW, his investigation was marked by significant conflict of interests, illegalities and improprieties…not the most ethical process. I personally believe that presidents and politicians are entitled to some privacy in their personal lives (democrats and republicans alike) and that the microscopic scrutiny, media feeding frenzies and righteous indignation on the part of the public are inappropriate, at best, and uncalled for, divisive and destructive.
The reality is that they are our leaders, not our husbands. Their sex lives are really none of our business. If we do choose to “go there,” there is plenty of moral indignation to go around on both sides of the aisle. Let’s start with the GOP candidate, Senator McCain and his aspiring First Lady (that cute little home wrecker). McCain, age 43 (mid-life crisis?), met and openly pursued Cindy, age 25, gorgeous, young and rich, while still married to Carol McCain. McCain divorced his first wife (who raised his 3 children while he was in imprisoned in Vietnam) when she was in a wheel chair after a car wreck…and married Cindy that same month. Her money helped bankroll his nascent political career. We could also dig a bit deeper and to find that John and Cindy have their own history of involvement in a failed S&L scandal, along with 4 other sitting senators (The Keating Five). Then there was that problem Cindy had with drug addiction and hustling illegal prescriptions out of an MD who worked for AVMT, one of her charitable foundations. John McCain had a hand in getting her exonerated from any criminal repercussions by arranging for a “diversion program.”
We have Rudi Guiliani, who (while still serving in public office) informed his 2nd wife of his intent to divorce her in a TV news conference. Seems he had openly flaunted one of his mistresses while participating in a televised St. Patrick’s Day Parade (the cat was out of the bag). This came as no surprise to his wife, who labeled him a “serial adulterer” during the divorce proceedings.
Then there was Gingrich. His campaign slogan in 1978 was, "Let Our Family Represent Your Family." His wife later revealed that he was cheating on her at the time. In 1981, his first wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, had to beg and haggle over the terms while in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer surgery (does this sound familiar?). In 1995, another alleged mistress, in an interview with Vanity Fair, said, "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" In 1999, he was caught again at age 56 in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide WHILE CONDUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against President Clinton. Talk about hypocrisy.
Back to BC….The affair itself was not illegal and caused the most harm to himself and to his wife. If I were in the same position and being stalked and hounded like that, I’m not sure I wouldn’t try a little “obstruction” of my own. At least on that level, I can understand what he did. I don’t like being lied to, but on the other hand, I do not think we have the right to demand any explanation from him or anybody else, as to whether or not he had an affair. It has nothing to do with whether or not he can lead the country. Paula Jones and Susan McMillan fit into this same category. In the absence of all the stalking, hounding and political hay, and he had actually been ALLOWED to have a private life, the perjury may have never happened. To me, it was kind of like entrapment and it never rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That is why it failed to reach the required 2/3rds majority vote.
Here are some of the more memorable features of Watergate: Breaking and entering the Democratic National Headquarters and theft by White House employees, Nixon’s famous “enemies and dirty tricks list,” corruption, illegality and deceit on the part of several high–placed officials within the Nixon administration, resignation of White House aides and illicit campaign contributions. The worst part of it was the abuse of power and use of executive agencies to harass his opponents, conduct wire taps, more break-ins, Nixon’s complicity and cover-ups, conspiracy, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, with more lies and cover-ups, hush money, etc. The DNC break-in occurred in July 1972. He resigned in August 1974. For 2 years and 2 months, he dragged this country through his crime spree, as though he had nothing more important to do. For the 10 years prior to his “fall from grace,” Americans had suffered through indescribable loss and turmoil…JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK, civil rights and Viet Nam. We needed a leader in the White House, not a criminal. BTW, for all of this, he was never really impeached. He resigned to avoid impeachment AND prosecution, knowing very well that his VP and successor would extend a full presidential pardon. Pretty slick, huh? Andrew Johnson was the only other American president besides Bill Clinton who was impeached.
I think this may account for the contradictory perceptions of the 2 impeachments. There is a huge difference between an inappropriate act of a personal nature, committed in the “heat of the moment” and the subsequent lie about an affair, versus a 2-year-long orchestrated, organized and deliberate crime and the political dishonesty that brought down the president and those loyal and closest to him. He did not just destroy himself. Before leaving the subject of impeachment, I would ask you this question. Which do you think is a MORE impeachable offense….lying to the country about an affair, or lying to the country about waging a war that so far has produced 107,000+ fatalities (US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians)?
I do not recall “highest taxes.” BC expanded tax credits for low-income workers, extended tax cuts for low-income families and small businesses and increased the minimum wage. He increased taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 also lowered certain taxes. There was a balanced budget within the first 2 years of his presidency, widespread personal prosperity and the economy was stable during the Clinton years.
I will not be remembering BC for impeachment either, or for being “cute.” I will remember his attempts to advance the peace process in Palestine/Israel, the cooperation with NATO to bring crimes against humanity charges against Milosevic for ethnic cleansing, the One America Initiative, AmeriCorps, stricter handgun control and federal assault weapons ban, the Violence Against Women Act (really important to me, having escaped an abusive marriage of 10 years), the Communications Decency Act, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare reform). I will remember him for the initiatives of his foundation in the areas of humanitarian outreach in Africa, the treatment of malaria and HIV/AIDS, global warming and climate change. I will remember the witch hunt. I will also remember Newt Gingrich and the rise in power of the right-wing Christian conservatives. To be honest and fair, I will also remember his 3 biggest boners…NAFTA, Telecommunications Reform Act and the Iraq Liberation Resolution.
This is a much longer reply than I had first anticipated. I am going to post this first part and will post the remainder in a second part.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
