Feminist Says Hillary Clinton Plays the Victim

[forrestkc]

People put up with so much from Clinton because the economy was good. He was one of the most immoral Presidents we've ever had, and came a hair's breath away from getting impeached!

Probably half of the presidents we have had, have had affairs. Washington, Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ to name a few. In fact there is a lot of evidence that Lincoln had a gay one. Something like 70% of the American public at the time were against impeachment. As to presidential morality, well I guess thats subjective. I along with the majority of Americans think its pretty despicable to veto SCHIP purely because of ideological objections, but thats just me.

But hey, the love of money covers up a lot of indiscretion.

Actually, competence and the ability to form a complete sentence when unscripted makes Americans more willing to ignore indiscretion.

Peace, forrestkc? But at what price?

If Bill had been more agressive in going after Bin Laden, we may not have had a 9-11 tragedy.

I think the 9/11 commission would disagree with you on that one. Furthermore, had the Bush Administration not been completely asleep at the wheel their first 8 months in office, it may well have never happened.

[georgesbluegirl]

why is this turning into a debate about whether bill was a good president? we know he wasn't. a leader should be someone of character and strength, not someone who is a sexual predator, who makes a mockery of the legal system, and who would sell out his grandmother to the highest bidder. we all know that clinton is a womanizing predator who has sought to destroy the lives of the women who dared come forward, and we know that he, as an attorney and as a president, committed purjury.

the question is, is hillary fit to lead our country?

IMO, the answer is a resounding no.

I actually agree with you on your general point - Bill shouldn't be as big of a factor in this decision as people are trying to make him (and I'm guilty of it too, a little bit). Although like it or not, people tend to factor presidential spouses into their decisions, Hillary is the person to be thinking about.

And I will vote for her, regardless of what Bill did or didn't do, if she gets the Democratic nomination.

[forrestkc]

the question is, is hillary fit to lead our country?

Yes. If Guiliani, a guy whose sole qualification to be president was that he was a city mayor and whose own kids don't even think he should be president, then obviously Hillary is more than qualified. After all, her resume is a lot stronger than Bush's was the day he took office.

[EricH]

Actually, competence and the ability to form a complete sentence when unscripted makes Americans more willing to ignore indiscretion.

Form over morality every time

[georgesbluegirl]

Actually, competence and the ability to form a complete sentence when unscripted makes Americans more willing to ignore indiscretion.

Quite true. Glib and appealing. I do miss having a President who understood the English language...I was too young to really understand how good I had it back in the Clinton years!

[JustinM]

the question is, is hillary fit to lead our country?

Yes. If Guiliani, a guy whose sole qualification to be president was that he was a city mayor and whose own kids don't even think he should be president, then obviously Hillary is more than qualified. After all, her resume is a lot stronger than Bush's was the day he took office.

Guiliani was Major of a City that has a much larger population than many of the states in the Union, including Arkansas. NY City is no village. It's a massive metropolis. But, I do understand why you would try to diminish his accomplishments, he's the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's run for President.

What do kids know? Dog the bounty Hunter's kid sold him out to the National Enquirer for $15000.00. Could it be that Mr. Guiliani's children are just as opportunistic? That's a possibility we shouldn't discount.

[JustinM]

Do you really think, that by voting for Hillary Clinton as President, that you will have another Bill Clinton Presidency? If that is what you are hoping for, shame on you. Shame on you for trying to weasel around the balance of powers and the U.S. Constitution, shame on you for taking that document, that hundreds of thousands of true patriots have died to protect, for granted, shame on you for violating the very principles that created the foundation of liberty. You want a 4 term Bill Clinton Presidency and you see the opportunity to use Hillary Clinton as a conduit for that abomination of the very principles for which this country was founded. We lost tens of thousands of Americans in the American Revolution because we no longer wanted to be dictated by a monarchy. They wanted to change that, so that all Americans could have an opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Some have chosen to squander that sacrifice, others despise it and are actively pursuing to destroy that liberty for which millions of proud Americans, men, women and children have died to protect. Shame on you.

[georgesbluegirl]

Do you really think, that by voting for Hillary Clinton as President, that you will have another Bill Clinton Presidency? If that is what you are hoping for, shame on you. Shame on you for trying to weasel around the balance of powers and the U.S. Constitution, shame on you for taking that document, that hundreds of thousands of true patriots have died to protect, for granted, shame on you for violating the very principles that created the foundation of liberty. You want a 4 term Bill Clinton Presidency and you see the opportunity to use Hillary Clinton as a conduit for that abomination of the very principles for which this country was founded. We lost tens of thousands of Americans in the American Revolution because we no longer wanted to be dictated by a monarchy. They wanted to change that, so that all Americans could have an opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Some have chosen to squander that sacrifice, others despise it and are actively pursuing to destroy that liberty for which millions of proud Americans, men, women and children have died to protect. Shame on you.

That's a little melodramatic. I don't think anyone - certainly not myself - is suggesting that by voting for Hillary Clinton you'd GET another Bill Clinton presidency, or that people actually think that voting for Hillary = voting for Bill (well, some people might, but that's lame). It would be that people feel wistful for those days given the general downward turn in the years of the Bush presidency. Nobody actually working to get Hillary elected is going to sell her presidency as "more terms for Bill." That would be both disingenuous and counterintuitive.

And as a point of fact, there wasn't a limit on presidential terms until after FDR, who finished up around 60 years ago. So - while I am emphatically supportive of the two term limitation - it's definitely incorrect to call a 2+ term presidency a violation of original principles of liberty. The founding fathers didn't much have that in mind (actually, Washington was more or less asked to be king. Not necessarily relevant, but interesting).

[Guest LadyC]

justinm, i agree with you on many things, but i have to disagree that rudy is the biggest threat to hillary's campaign. i honestly don't believe he has a chance of winning the primaries. i think he's very qualified in many ways to be our commander in chief, FAR more qualified than hillary. but he won't have my vote in the primaries, and i hope he doesn't become the republican candidate.

i gotta say this though.... it amazes me how many liberals, whether they are politicians or constituents, think this campaign is running against bush. that just cracks me up. they can't campaign on ISSUES, they have to campaign against someone who can never again be elected as president. i bet you find that as amusing and ludicrous as i do, don't ya!

[JustinM]

justinm, i agree with you on many things, but i have to disagree that rudy is the biggest threat to hillary's campaign. i honestly don't believe he has a chance of winning the primaries. i think he's very qualified in many ways to be our commander in chief, FAR more qualified than hillary. but he won't have my vote in the primaries, and i hope he doesn't become the republican candidate.

i gotta say this though.... it amazes me how many liberals, whether they are politicians or constituents, think this campaign is running against bush. that just cracks me up. they can't campaign on ISSUES, they have to campaign against someone who can never again be elected as president. i bet you find that as amusing and ludicrous as i do, don't ya!

I had to mention Mr. Guiliani, because forrest felt compelled to drag him into this discussion. I agree, from watching the Democrat Candidate's debates you would think they were running against President Bush. It is very funny see their campaign based on an anti-bush sentiment. It just tells me, they aren't ready to unite the country as President, they're still bickering over non-issues and are polarizing the rest of the nation. Our nation is strongest when it is united, but if our country were united there's no way any of the democrat candidates would be elected as President. No one wants a socialist as Command in Chief. But, we are voting on divisive principles and not actually voting on the candidate that would serve this country best.

So long as our country remains divided, our Presidential elections will be won by less than a 1 percent margin and our standards will continue drop and be compromised for our principles.

You know, we are allowing a less than 10% minority (atheists, homosexuals) divide our country on issues such as "gay rights," secularism, (PC) and abortion.

Most Americans value liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, about 30 million Americans have us fighting against each other, over issues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why can't we all agree that an abortion prevents a child from being born? Why can't we all agree that civil unions are a fair and legal way for non-married people to have the same rights as those that are married. You know, a civil union doesn't have to be homosexual in nature, 2 heterosexual women/men that never married should be able to spend their lives together as friends and companions and enjoy the same rights when it comes to life and death and hospital visitations and estates.

We are giving homosexuals civil unions, but they aren't happy with that, they want to destroy marriage, and make a mockery of it. They know that if marriage is redefined, then polygamy and marriage to animals can't be too far along. I am sure these activists are dreaming of the day when they will see the first man/woman to marry a pig.

Religion, there is no state religion, or federal religion that exists in the U.S., but I firmly believe that Atheism is taking root in our government. You cannot legislate morality, that's obvious from all the loopholes we have in our current laws. You will never be able to control every situation, or scenario by predetermining it with law.

That is why morality cannot be legislated, it must be learned.