A question for the conservatives...or whoever

[ripdog]

Why do you hate Bill Clinton so much? I was talking with my dad the other day and he went on this anti-Clinton tirade, but he never gives any facts. All I hear is the name calling that seems so typical of the ultra-conservatives. I'd like to limit the discussion to the pre-Lewinsky days--obviously that was a huge mistake. More specifically, lying about it was the mistake--I never cared that he did it, but I was hugely dissappointed that he lied about it. My stepfather asked my wife and I what we thought of the Clinton scandal prior to the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" lie and we both immediately replied that we didn't care. It wasn't our business and I still don't see how him cheating on his wife is relevant to the presidency of the USA. It makes him a slimeball, yes, but so is GW, so it's a wash IMO. Clinton was hated long before the Lewinsky thing brought him down. Why?

[whiskeytown]

personally, I'm pissed cause he got more tail then me....LOL

RB

[HDPM]

Before Lewinsky Clinto was a lying, draft dodging, rapist who represented everything bad with amoral baby boomers. He didn't have any real convictions and would consistently sell out his friends. There was a belief he was pretty corrupt. His draft dodging and flight to foreign soil to protest the war was bad. He used the Arkansas State Police to help him rape women, not just pick them up. After Lewinsky he was a lying, draft dodging, perjuring, disbarred, impeached rapist.

Clinton always was a POS. It was just more of a TV spectacle after Lewinsky.

[Utah]

How the left cant see that he is a POS is simply beyond logic. The same thing can be said about his slimeball wife. Heck, the same thing can probably be said about the whole corrupt democratic party.

While I an not a republican by a long shot, I like them a heck of a lot better because at least they seem to stand for something and at least the notion of decency seems to matter to them. Example,look at what happened to Trent Lott when he made that racist comment - his party turned on him immediately as his thoughts and behaviors were unacceptable. You simply never seem Democrats act that way.

By the way, the problem is not that Clinton got laid that is the issue. Democrats seems to like to turn to the sex aspect to shield them from the truth. He didn't just commit a "big mistake" as you put it. He committed a felony. He lied to the american people. He abused his power to have sex with a young girl. He attempted to destroy that girl in the press until the evidence was too great. He committed an act that he knew could throw the country into turmoil. Why that doesn't matter to you or democrats is insane. As Mugatu said in Zoolander, "Does anyone not get it. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills".

[Cyrus]

HDPM: "Before Lewinsky Clinton was a lying, draft dodging, rapist who represented everything bad with amoral baby boomers. He didn't have any real convictions and would consistently sell out his friends. There was a belief he was pretty corrupt. His draft dodging and flight to foreign soil to protest the war was bad. He used the Arkansas State Police to help him rape women, not just pick them up. After Lewinsky he was a lying, draft dodging, perjuring, disbarred, impeached rapist."

I for one thank HDPM for his honesty and straight talk. Yes, it's the sex that's behind the conservatives' antipathy towards Slick. Yes, he is actually a draft-dodging, hedonist, lazy no-good, flag-burning, pot-smoking punk who, for heaven's sakes, made it to the Presidency! Talk about worst nightmares coming true.

It's the goddamn 60s bums' triumph!

(Of course, it's all in the minds of the conservatives. Bill Clinton was nothing like the iconoclast rebel or the runaway liberal they had him for. Christopher Hitchens' book pretty much nails it.)

[Cyrus]

"[Clinton] didn't just commit a "big mistake" as you put it. He committed a felony. He lied to the American people. He abused his power to have sex with a young girl. He committed an act that he knew could throw the country into turmoil."

I'm sorry but the above are simply wild conjectures piled upon irrelevancies piled upon legal falsehoods.

"Lying"? OK, we will start with the legal falsehoods! One should read Victor Bugliosi's brilliant expose of how the Supreme Court finangled the 2000 election and handed it over to Dubya. In the same book, Bugliosi, arguably one of the best DAs ever, demonstrates why Starr's actions were illegal and downright unethical, and why ol' Bill acted within his good ol' American rights.

"Abused his power"? "Sex with a young girl"?? "Felony" ??!? Last time I checked they were both consenting adults. And this is not the first nor the last time that a "young girl" will swoon under the aphrodisiac spell of power, now is it? As long as they are both consenting adults, the only question is, Does the sex affect either partner's performance in the job they have been entrusted with? That's the only question. The rest is the same kind of PC thinking that the Left is correctly villified for.

"Throw the country in turmoil"?? Gimme a break. It's the goddamn GOP that tried to do that! And the judge who, incredibly, was ready to allow a civil trial to take place against a President while he was in full active duty! What utter, treacherous, devious crap. A U.S. soldier, while on active duty, cannot be dragged into court, according to the law.

I guess the United States President's job is less important to America than a soldier's.

--Cyrus

[HDPM]

No, the sex isn't it for me. I don't care he cheated on Hillary (anybody dumb enough to marry her can't be faulted for infidelity) I only care when he raped people. He flat committed rape as Governor of Arkansas. And it looks like he committed a sexual assault in the White House. (Not on Lewinsky) His perjury in the Paula Jones case was a bad deal. That case wasn't about sex, it was about sexual harrassment and he lied under oath about it. That's bad.

I also don't understand why liberals defended him the way they did. A small example was the gays in the military issue. He promised a lot in the campaign and some gays in the military were dumb enough to rely on Clinton being a stand up guy. He sold them out with the don't ask/don't tell policy. There's one example of selling out friends. When I say he was amoral, I am speaking more about his character in political dealings, not sexual ones. Now perhaps his lack of any conviction is reflected in his sexual behavior, but it affected substantive things in his presidency. He did not advance a liberal agenda, rather he did what was politically expedient every time.

Let us also not forget the video of the Ron Brown funeral. That 30 second video captures the essence of Clinton.

[HDPM]

P.S. I posted before checking out the link re: Hitchens. I think I am saying some of the same stuff as Hitchens or at least would agree with a lot of it.

[HDPM]

Here's a link to a story from today. Story isn't going away. Let's just say better men have been convicted for rape on less evidence. web page

[Utah]

What does the 2000 election have to do with it? Of course, nothing. However, I do agree that the supreme court was way off base - even the Wall Street Journal admitted as much. However, while we are on the subject, why do liberals seem to ignore the travesty with the Florida Supreme Court that led to this mess?

Ken Starr's actions in no why gives Willie a free pass on his actions. The "deflection" strategy doen't hold water. One can argue about Ken Starr, but that is not what we are talking about here is it? You don't believe he lied to the Grand Jury? Come on.

If Willie was acting within his rights, why didn't he simply say, " I banged the little tart. She loved it as well. I was in my rights and I did nothing wrong so leave me alone." Of course, because he knew his actions were completely wrong and unethical. And, he knew the American people would think so as well. Don't confuse laws and rights with ethics.

Finally, lets review your "throw the country in turmoil" rebuttal. You think that the story would not have been a big issue if the GOP hadn't pushed it? You can't really believe that, can you. So, without the GOP, it would have been buried on page 20 of the local paper? He was smart enough to know that there was a risk the story could get out when he committed the act. And he had to know that it would be tramatic if it did get out. It makes no difference how the actual story did get out as far as Bill is concerned (of course, you can again hammer the GOP and you might be right to do so - I am no GOP fan. Again though, this does not give Bill a free pass). It also had the potential to compromise the presidency. What if an enemy, senator, opportunist somehow got proof? He could easily have been blackmailed - "veto this law or else" kind of scenario. The fact that he would take this risk is incredulous.

I agree that the president should not be compelled to trial while actively serving. Maybe it was devious crap - I can't rebutt that. However, and again, how does that give Willie a free pass on his actions.

On the most simple level, don't you think that 50 year old men that sleep with 18 years are slimeballs? And don't you agree that men like that don't belong leading a nation? pure and simple - I want more from my leaders.