Wolfson should be asked about Bills serial association with employes . Like Paula Jones as . The stain on the Clinton grows with this election with HRC resort to the dirtiest style of politics and lies Just You tube Hillarys 4 pinnochio story about Bosnia. It shows a pattern of unethical conduct. Time to turn the page

what is the point of putting a picture of Monica on this story? The connection is tenuous, and it's not like SHE made a comment about herself. you could have put Alf there and it would have served the same purpose.

More and more, I see how this campaign divides Dems right down the middle, at a time when the party should be enjoying an historic, history-altering event.
I'm surprised at the naivete of some of the posters. I perceived this to be cognoscenti site, the best of the well-informed. As to the infamous blue dress, any other sophomore Senator with as solidly middle-of-the-road, gutless voting record as Hill would NEVER get the nod , unless they happened to be spouse to a popular ex-Prez. Were it not for Bill's legendary indiscretions, Hillary would not HAVE a political career. Deals were struck after those Gennifer Flowers,Paula Jones & Monica moments and anyone who believes otherwise probably also still puts out cookies for Santa. Obama opted the high road & made a valiant effort to maintain that, despite viral email campaigns denouncing him as Muslim ( therefore unpatriotic/suspect), and many other dirty tricks from a Rovian school of pol, someone Hill has publicly admired. Hill can't have it both ways; if she wants to wear the Loretta Lynn cape,leaning on the "disappointing and difficult time it was", she & Chelsea ( nearly 30, hardly a child) can cowboy up and answer.It was a missed opp, Chelsea could've turned that into a glorious victory instead of a huffy retort. If the Clintons are headed for the WH again, all questions are fair game for all those on the campaign trail. After all, once a cheater....

Hey - Bill put the stain on the dress while in the White House (a house bought and paid for by the American Taxpayers) - it is a matter of historical fact - and an act that he lied about and got in trouble for - I don't understand what is wrong with stating historical facts. Perhaps if Bill, et al, doesn't want to be reminded of it - Bill should have kept it in his pants.

Good photo of Monica.

Haven't we had enough of a president who wouldn't be president if not for the family he came from, 8 years of Bush is enough! Does anybody in their wildest dreams think that Bush could have made it without his family connections, first to buy part of the Texas Rangers, next as Governor of Texas! Hillary would still be at the Rose Law Firm, if not for Bill, if not for Bill and his affair, she'd not have won her seat in New York. I'm sure Silda could run now and be elected. I wouldn't be surprised if they had an arrangement, and this, her running to be the first woman president of the United States, is that arrangement. If Hillary wins the nomination, the republicans are going to stop wearing flag lapel pins and wear blue dress pins!

All this has left a bad taste in my mouth and the excuses are getting hard to swallow.

I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I have to say that anyone who refers to the Monica Lewinsky situation is way out of line. It's completely irrelevant to Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was Bill's credibility and integrity at issue, not hers, and, furthermore, his qualities as a husband (and that is up to the wife, not anyone else) had and have no bearing on whether he was a good president. Last, the Clinton campaign has been calling everything the Obama campaign says about her "smearing" and "personal attacks," whether it's questioning her admittedly "misspoken" version of the Bosnia trip to noting her wink-and-nod response to Geraldine Ferraro's race-baiting. What idiot would give these otherwise wacko assessments a basis in reality by bringing the blue dress back into play?

What I dislike most is finger pointers!! Opinionated people that puts down other's every
chance they get! A very wise man once said....something like...."Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone"!! It is so very narrowminded, immature, and extremely offensive to
hear after all these years, finger pointers still smirking over the Clinton fling...whatever one
wants to call it!! It is only the business of the Clinton family and not one of any of us!! We do
not have the right to pass judgement and certainly after all these years, it is sickning to still
hear or see it written and this goes for the narrow minded, opinionated, bias media!! You
people need to get a life....Amen!

The blue dress cost the US dearly.
It is not a cheap shot to mention the $80,000,000 blue dress.
From January 1998 to February 1999 the United States spent those
thirteen month on impeachment proceeedings and perjury trials.

Bill Clinton blamed the problem on a "vast right-wing conspiracy"
and so did Hillary.
Those lies had Congress squander 13 months and $80,000,000,
leading to the president's impeachment and being disbarred.

And President Clinton, president during the first
WTC bombing in 1993, should have had national security the number one issue,
with the WTC on the top of the list.
Instead, having to deal with the Monica Lewinsky scandal meant the president,
the media, and the nation,
were so derailed by this sideshow, that everything got thrown off.
Bill Clinton couldn't pick up the intelligence about the
next WTC bombing, that was being planned in plain sight.
Bill Clinton couldn't find bin Laden, when journalists were tracking
bin Laden down for interviews.

Bill Clinton's 'blue dress' created a very sad chapter in American History.
The taxpayers spent $80,000,000 to determine what pathological liars
Bill and Hillary were.

As precious pre/911 time was marching relentlessly forward,
the blue dress got all the attention.

The blue dress robbed us of time we needed so badly.
And at a point in our history, we now know all too well, when we did not have a minute to lose.

Insult and slander? So the blue dress didn't have a stain? Oh, I forgot.......I never had relations with that woman.

If you can't take the comments, don't stain the Blue Dress and then "misspeak" about it.

Just another ploy from the Clinton camp to keep their lies under wraps. Does anyone remember all the LIES from the Clinton Past??? Travel gate,Lewinski-gate, Whitewater, Hsu, Peter Paul, NAFTA, Ireland, Bosnia...shall I go on and on and on?

How quickly the people of America forget!

WAKE UP!!

Doesn't Monica have great hair????

I'm sorry but I don't see this comment as tacky. Hillary has used the Lewinsky affair to her advantage. In one of the key debates before the Ohio/Texas votes, for example, she answered a question posed to both candidates about responding to challenges by giving a knowing laugh and saying "everyone knows I've faced some challenges in my personal life." Her campaign replayed that snippet to great effect afterwards, thinking that it humanized her for voters. If Hillary raises the issue and plays upon it, the issue can't be out of bounds for others to discuss.

The first lady/man, moreover, holds an important position of public trust. Just look at how influential Hillary says she was as first lady! That influence will be even greater if the "first spouse" is a former president. I think the public *should* consider Bill Clinton's character and the Lewinsky affair, just as they would consider the character of any potential first lady. If Michelle Obama, who holds an executive position at the University of Chicago Medical Center, had seduced an intern working for her, then lied about it under oath to a grand jury, I am quite certain that would end Obama's presidential campaign. Why doesn't this apply to Bill Clinton?

WHY DOES SHE KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT????? It's not that "they" are fighting, she's the one fighting and making every comment under the sun FIRST!! When his side does reply it's only to defend or correct. When he doesn't say anything he's too soft. And if he does then he's fighting!!