I also applaud the Clintons (yes both of them) for keeping their marriage together. I'm sick of hearing (often from liberal women) that she should have dumped him. Marriage means something. Yes Bill broke his vows, but that doesn't mean you just throw it all away. And they didn't just stay together for Chelsea--if that were the case, they'd be divorced by now. Some say she stayed with him just for political power, but I really see something in them together. I think they really do have a deep love for each other. Maybe I'm just a romantic, lol.
Posted by CG at October 23, 2007 06:17 AMEri, you're confusing Huckabee's very gracious acknowledgement of the Clinton's marriage with politics. His comments over the weekend were not about her marriage, but her stances on many other issues. And his August comments were more to disparage his opponents and the state of their commitments. Obviously, they don't consider Obama, Edwards, or Richardson as having any possibility of being the Democratic candidate November next. Are they picking your candidate for you? Or is she becoming the next "Howard Dean"?
Posted by peter at October 23, 2007 06:44 AMshow me a politician without naked ambition and I'll show you one who lost the first election he/she ever entered and faded from the scene. That said, there are levels of naked ambition - jerks like DeLay and Gingrich being at the top of the scale and guys like Gore toward the bottom. I'd say Hillary is in the upper range, but not at DeLay level.....As for Bill and Hillary...people with a super marriage typically live in the same house.
Posted by T2 at October 23, 2007 06:47 AMAs for Bill and Hillary...people with a super marriage typically live in the same house.
People who are married typically live in the same house. Come to think of it lots of people who have shitty marriages live in the same house. Using your logic one could assume that typically married couples living in the same house have shitty marriages. I mean, a lot of domestic abuse happens between married couples living in the same house. Maybe Clinton beats him too?
Posted by snark at October 23, 2007 07:22 AMEvery marriage hits a rough patch at one point or another. The Clintons just had to deal with theirs in an extremely public way. The fact that they stayed together speaks volumes to the love and respect they have for one another and I for one will NOT sit in judgment as to why or how they did it.
It's not my place to pass judgment on others - especially when it comes to something so personal as this.
I will say that in looking at the pictures of them together, and in hearing them speak of their love and respect for one another, I truly believe theirs is a marriage others can look to as an example on how to get through the rough times together. The republicans got nothin' on the Clintons when it comes to family values!
Posted by Alegre at October 23, 2007 07:24 AMeriposte, I can't believe that you would want to touch on this hot potato. Not that I'm quite sure what the point is that you were trying to make. That Hillary deserves praise for staying with the asshole? And I can't believe what short memories some of the rest of you have. May I quote Wiki?
"Gennifer Flowers (born January 24, 1950) is one of three women who have claimed to have had affairs with U.S. President Bill Clinton. She is the only one of the three who claims to have had a child by Clinton, a son whom she later gave up for adoption.
She came forward during Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign claiming that she had had a twelve-year affair with him. When Clinton denied having an affair with Flowers, she held a press conference in which she played tape recordings she claimed were of secretly recorded intimate phone calls with Clinton. Hillary Clinton, for the first time, made the media rounds to rebut sexual allegations against her husband. When asked why Clinton and Flowers called each other "honey" in the tapes, Hillary explained that this was how people talked in Arkansas. At least two Arkansas state police officers who had formerly guarded Clinton when he was Governor backed up Flowers' story. Also, Clinton apologised to Mario Cuomo, governor of New York, for speaking about him on the tapes....."
There's more to the piece, but I had to cut it off somewhere.
Tell me again...what kind of woman with independent means continues to stay with a man who continues to mess around on her? Loving marriage, my ass.
Oh, and before any of you dismiss this as just political intrigue and attention-getting, the Wiki piece goes on to say about Flowers and Bill:
"...In his autobiography My Life, Clinton acknowledged testifying under oath that he had sexual relations with Flowers on one occasion only...."
Right, one occasion. You have to wonder if he finally admitted to the one time because there is a boy out there somewhere with Bill's DNA as proof.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 08:08 AMYou are tough Julie. In my opinion she needs him a lot more than he needs her.
Posted by JohnT at October 23, 2007 08:48 AMTough doesn't even begin to describe how I would have been, in her shoes, by the time Monica rolled around, JohnT. I would have cut his balls and handed them to him along with the bloody divorce papers.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 08:53 AMSo Hillary Clinton is a better person than you Julie. Big surprise.
Posted by snark at October 23, 2007 09:21 AMHate to say it but a lot of people cannot afford a divorce. Some people with huge political ambition cannot afford a divorce. Or others who literally cannot afford a divorce.
Let's not forget commitment in a marriage folks. Sometimes we forget the simplest reason people stay together, commitment to kids.
Posted by Seven of Six at October 23, 2007 09:37 AMSounds like the kind of comment that could come from a person who likes to mess around on his/her mate, snark.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 09:38 AMwhat kind of woman with independent means continues to stay with a man who continues to mess around on her?
One that cares more about the guy than where his dick might be at any given time? It's not as unusual as you might think.
Takin' this kinda personally, though, aren't you Julie? But you aren't the first to do so. There are more things in heaven and earth, Julie, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Some folks can get through stuff like the Clintons have done with their relationship stronger than before.
But I gotta wonder why the woman is always the bad guy whatever the circumstances. I'd say cultural conditioning would have a lot to do with it, but I'm kinda muzzy from a week of flu, so I'm not in any shape to try to explain it.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 23, 2007 09:47 AMHow does your inclination to violent criminal behavior in any way inform about my relationship with my wife Julie?
Posted by snark at October 23, 2007 09:47 AMWell, I will admit to almost being sorry for Hill, iamcoyote. Or I would be if I had an inclination to believe that she isn't sticking with him for ambitious reasons. And you're right, if it had been Hill messing around, she would have been history. But it just seems to enhance a guy's reputation.
I guess I'm still totally pissed about having had to defend Bill, a man who trashed the position of the presidency so bad that we've had to put up with a retard for the last seven years. Everyon wants to blame Nader for Bush winning the election, but it really was Bill's doing. What a joke the presidency has become.
And it isn't just that Hill stuck by her man, she actually went around demeaning herself by trying to clean up after him, appearing on interviews to deny the Flowers allegation. Then what does Bill do to thank her? He cigars Monica. Jesus. It's obvious that Bill will lie at the drop of a hat, but if Hill knew and still did his cleanup, then she lies easily, too. Even if she stuck by him, why do his cleanup, too?
I don't know, there's just something about the woman that I don't trust. And the issue that's most important to me--getting us OUT of Iraq--is the one issue that I trust her the least on, and I think I have plenty of grounds for that.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 10:27 AMTakin' this kinda personally, though, aren't you Julie?
And I'll also admit that eriposte's posts defending Hillary have been getting under my skin lately, so I let it fly this time.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 10:38 AMWell, make that eriposte AND Jeff together.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 10:43 AMThe BIG DOG is so popular that he will probably get his wife elected president. President Clinton would have won in 2000 and 2004, and would win 2008 by such an outlandish majority that it makes the 25% of the population who hate so mad they can not abide it!
The question answer is D, as in BIG DOG!
Posted by Captain Dan at October 23, 2007 11:34 AMAnd I'll also admit that eriposte's posts defending Hillary have been getting under my skin lately, so I let it fly this time.
See, Julie, I don't see eriposte's posts about Hillary as supporting her. Though the results of his research about the misinformation surrounding her campaign tends to exonerate her from the most aggregious labels she's been given, eriposte's series has been more of an indictment against the people pushing those labels, despite the evidence to the contrary. So it's not about Hillary, really, it's about how easily people accept negative story lines when it's about someone they can't stand.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 23, 2007 11:49 AMWell, then let's ask eripost who s/he is supporting.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 01:04 PMWell, then let's ask eripost who s/he is supporting.
No need to ask.
He has already answered that.
Posted by snark at October 23, 2007 01:18 PMWell, knock me over with a feather, it's a he.
Posted by Julie at October 23, 2007 01:57 PM