|
||
Is The Primary Making Me Paranoid?
Something has been nagging me about Chelsea Clinton's Lewinsky moment at Butler University. As we all know by now from the infinite news loop, a young man asked her if her mother's credibility had been damaged during the Monica Lewinsky scandal - as in dad was getting busy with interns while she was supposed to be a veritable co-president.
Her reply, again as we all know, was that nobody had ever asked her that before and "I do not think any of that is your business." There were a lot tougher questions to ask in this matter. But the reply had a brilliant precision to it: Imply the young man is slime without saying it, show the hurt, and evade the question.
Then the young man, looking like he came straight from a Nixon-era Young Republicans meeting, jumped into the loop himself, and spent the next two days explaining why he asked the question, but mainly praising Hillary Clinton.
Isn't this all a little too perfect?
I've thought for quite a while the whole Lewinsky thing was going to flow into the campaign like a backed-up sewer drain. The man who is Hillary Clinton's campaigner in chief, let's not forget, is a serial hound dog who abused the trust of parents who sent their daughter to a government internship program, took advantage of a whifty 22 year old, lied to to a grand jury, lied to us, and came within a party-line vote of losing his job.
You can talk about an overzealous prosecutor. You can talk about "vast right-wing conspiracies." But the inconvenient truth is that our man did it.
Sooner or later, the husband of the candidate - the guy out scolding the press for being unfair and Obama for weaving fairy tales - is going to have to revisit one of the most painful periods of presidential history.
To the extent that a Hillary Clinton win would create a co-presidency - which it clearly would - the events, decisions, and delusions of the days of Monica, Paula, and how many other women (former Dick Morris says hundreds) that received gubernatorial and presidential attentions should be part of the campaign dialogue.
And they will.
The more Hillary Clinton touts her time in the White House as being co-joined with the leader of the free world, the closer history pulls her to a vortex of questions about judgment, denial, cover-up, and convenient - maybe cynical - acquiescence: he gets his playtime; I get a shot at my dream job.
Unless:
You take the small pox approach: inoculate with dead cells so the live ones won't kill you. Raise it with Chelsea - nobody wants the kids to suffer because dad has tear-away pants - in a college setting with a non-threatening questioner. And get this: you can then put the kid on TV (make sure he has a nice haircut and a collared shirt) and have him praise Hillary. Nobody gets hurt.
The payoff is that the next insensitive bastard to bring up the Lewinsky trauma isn't raising a political issue. He is stirring up painful family memories for a very likable and accomplished young lady.
Am I giving this campaign too much credit? Or not enough?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Chelsea,
It IS our business.
Monica may have owned the blue dress.
But the taxpayers of the United States all owned the carpet.
Is it wrong for the people of the United States to expect the kind of president who will neither cheat on his wife nor cheat on the populace, in terms of telling them truth?
and what, exactly, does any of this have to do with chelsea? in case you have not noticed, neither she, nor bill, is running for anything! so what in God's name does HIS infidelity have to do with hilary's candidacy? if you want to get your cheap thrills, watch 'oprah' or 'et' or grab the latests tabloid at the checkout line...just leave the rest of us out of it, 'kay? thankee EVER so much...
Of course the Clintons expected this.
Why else would they pimp Chelsea out?
I am truly concerned about the impact of Bill's philandering on a potential Hillary presidency. I find it very difficult to believe he has been faithful for the past 10 years - and will be for the next four. It seems they have reached their our compromises, but any scandal could/would distract the media and the nation from critically important work.
the only way we can be distracted is by allowing ourselves to be so...maybe we, as a nation, need to grow up...and who gives a rip what 'the media' thinks, anyway?
You don't give the Clintons enough credit. Bill Clinton's impeachment because he lied about the Lewinsky affair and later conceding that he did lie under oath:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/clinton.contempt/
are relevant questions. But because the Clintons have "Lewinsky Kryptonite", or as she is also known, Chelsea Clinton, they will keep avoiding the hard yet valid questions about the whole sordid mess.
As a Boomer woman, I'd love to have a female president of the United States, and soon. But please. Let's elect somebody who comes up on her own steam and not as The Wife Of. It works just fine for Argentina (Pres. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner), which is cool with me. But for us, let's have a woman whose strengths, accomplishments and foibles eclipse that of her husband's. Then issues like her hubby's affairs wouldn't even be worth a thought.
On the human issue- the sensitive human issue- this is an innocent child-- hurt at the thought implied by this crass question- and that her mother bravely kept their small family together- is a tribute--
And the meme is out there again: it's not fair to ask Chelsea this question, you creep!
But it is relevant, your honor. Cause Hillary is running WITH Bubbya. He is a liability, both to her campaign and her administration.
nazgul, kindly tell me what office bill is running FOR...questions about lewinsky need to be addressed to HIM! using the lewinsky scandal against the 'victim' is an intellectually dishonest cover for 'getting your jollies' by butting into someone else's marriage...that may play on 'oprah', but as politics, it's vile...and bugging chelsea about it is beyond despicable...when did this nation turn into a 'tabloidocracy?'
Neither one of them has a once of contrition. Bill has never said he was sorry that he drug the Democratic Party through hell. There may have been a great right wing conspiracy, but Bill did not have to feed the monster and he could have said "sorry guys, I screwed up." Hillary is just as bad if not worse. She can't bring herself to apologize for her vote authorizing W to invade Iraq. And if W and Cheney bomb Iran, she will be toast. Bill just humidified his cigar; Hill's vote has cost a whole lot of good people their lives.
My man Nazgul has it in a nutshell with "you can bet the Republicans are dying to flip the switch and hit enough floodlights to broadcast the World Series" on this joke that is the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. So "little run from the snipers" Chelsea IS staging this to try and lessen the blow. Generation X is going to get a crash course in what NOT to do when your president. Back then, me and a most other people stayed out of it because we thought things were good. In retrospect, Slick Willie was instrumental to the economic woes we're now in. Deregulation of Telcos and NAFTA among many others. Thank goodness they really don't have a chance. But I can still imagine the coals the Clintons would be drug through-and it makes me smile.
A Clinton co-Presidency may be the most compelling reason to reject her candidacy. The image of Bill Clinton roaming the White House as an unelected shadow President somehow creeps me out. It gets me asking questions like, "Is this America or some kind of 18th-century France clone with the Sun King and Marie Antoinette calling the shots?"
The reassurance I want from Sen. Clinton is not whether she's ready from day one, but whether she'll guarantee that she alone will be ready from day one. Former President Clinton had his shot, for better or worse. Time either for him to butt out or for the candidate to unequivocally reject the idea of some extra-constitutional dual presidency.
The poor old Constitution has endured enough slings and arrows from outrageous politicians; no more, please.
You would surely get the reassurance you want from Hillary if that is what it took to get her elected. But would it be believable?
I seriously doubt it was a plant or orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. You could visibly see that question got to Chelsea and honestly she shouldn't have to deal with questions that delve into her youth.
On the flip side I think it's a question that Hillary needs to address. Bill is still around and he will be sharing the White House again with Hillary (if she is nominated and wins the general election that is). It directly speaks to her credibility and honestly Bill said it best...
“If a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office. If a football player doesn’t want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn’t put the pads on….
“Let’s just saddle up and have an argument. What’s the matter with that? That’s what America’s about, right? All this moaning and groaning — none of these politicians are gonna have anything like the tough time half the people in this audience have already had for the last seven years. This is about you. Don’t you let anybody take this election away from you.”
I must be paranoid as well. The first thing I thought was "plant"! But my take was that it was time for another round of sympathy votes for "poor Hillary". And...you can never overestimate the ingenuity of the Clintons when it comes to devious tactics.
Well, it seems that its happened again so either the new guy wants some prime time too, or you are right .
Also its weird that it was a guy at all. They couldn't be so hard on a woman who asked the same question. A plant methinks
If it happens a third time and we start to see 'righteous indignation' then I would put odds on you're not paranoid. Remember political manipulation is the (admitted) name of their game.
Sorry, Chelsea is right. This is none of your business.
I think you need to grow up. Human beings are sexual. Adult human beings have sex. There are all kinds of marriages and only one that should concern you is your own.
The criteria for deciding which candidate you'll support should be job performance.
Incidentally, you have to be dead not to notice that there is a right wing conspiracy that is determined use any tactic to remake this country in their image and to their benefit, including making you think that Lewinsky had anything to do Clinton's job performance.
Whether he lied or not is matter of debate.
In Bush's case, it's not a matter of debate. it's a matter of public record. His lies are in the conduct of his office and impeachable.
The GOP mullahs are trying to overturn elections and trick you into voting against your own interests. They think you're dumb enough to think that the most private areas of human conduct are a significant indicator of fitness for office. They aren't.
To the best of our knowledge, Bush hasn't lifted anyone's skirts. However he has murdered a more than a million people, destroyed the wealth of a nation, trashed the constitution, and made the US public enemy number one.
The reverse might be true. Electing a sexually repressed man might well be a danger to democratic vaule and the viability of a nation.
On one hand we need to get on the issues and on the other hand your defending his cheating ways? If Bill took a chainsaw to a room full of baby seals, you'd be saying the damned seals had it coming!
"Adult human beings have sex... The criteria for deciding which candidate you'll support should be job performance."
Sex on the job usually has an effect on job performance.
"Adult human beings have sex."
Forty-nine year old presidents and the leader of the free world do not have sex with twenty-two year old unpaid interns in the oval office while he is on the telephone with a Congressman. If he does, then he is really despicable. You excuse a president's behavior that was and still is unexcusable.
Interesting.
Whatever the truth is, however, Bubbya's sexual issues should be a part of this primary. The fact is, it was a huge liability in his 2nd term and it cost Gore the Presidency. What if he cripples Hillary's administration? This isn't prurient or impertinent. It's a central consideration of her candidacy, even if it isn't directly her flaw; it is indirectly her flaw, since she would be bringing him back into the White House.
This is 900 lb. elephant hiding in the dark of Obama's politeness.
You can bet the Republicans are dying to flip the switch and hit it enough floodlights to broadcast the World Series.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
