DescentBB

still whistling in the dark. Oh, and comeback? How do you come back from winning the Presidency twice and then starting one of the planet's most influential and positive Foundations? Haters be haters, I guess. Just like someone else called it, TB deftly attempts to shift the hate from Obama to Hillary. Pathetic. What a lame first post to return to after my angling hiatus......

What's lame about it? Is Bill Clinton any different from Bill Cosby? Both are alleged to have used their power to sexually abuse women.

woodchip wrote:What's lame about it? Is Bill Clinton any different from Bill Cosby? Both are alleged to have used their power to sexually abuse women.

the Hillary tie in. No such claim about her. Hear anyone beating on Mrs Cosby? Didn't think so......

woodchip wrote:Both are alleged to have used their power to sexually abuse women.

Since when was Monica Lewinsky "abused?" Is this the right-wing trying to rewrite history?

well, there is that part, too, vision. Perhaps, naivite taken advantage of, but far different than forcible rape or drugging someone. All of Bill's partners were MORE than consensual, they literally threw themselves at him. And Bill, being Bill, had a tough time with self-restraint. Still, the true pathetic spectacle is somehow conflating this with Hillary Clinton whatsoever.

Why don't you 2 try to actually do a little research for a change instead of spouting off what is easy. Look up Juanita Broaddrick and Bill Clinton and then tell me about the vast right wing conspiracy or how Bill Cosby was somehow different .

I'm fully aware of her, and there is UTTERLY no proof that anything really happened, beyond her say-so, with ZERO corroboration.
Sort of different than Cosby, who is having women coming forth at a rate similar to the Tiger Woods storyline.....

If Monica Lewinsky had been playing hide the cigar with GW Bush in the oval office and had his secretary hide evidence when a grand jury asked for it the feminists and the media wouldn't have had to pretend it wasn't a case of workplace sexual harassment that got Monica kicked out of her Whitehouse job.

So there is a fair bit of abuse to the women's equality movement, to journalistic integrity levels and to all the liberals who now have to keep telling themselves it was just a loving couple having some sex and no one's business.

But hey! Your Party matters more than all that right? That's who you are.

The fact Hillary couldn't see fit to divorce that philandering cad and then stand up and be her own woman is the reason why I won't vote for her in 2016. She has no principles when it comes to her own relationships.

Poor Cosby he can’t even deny the allegations because of his diminishing mental health.

tunnelcat wrote:She has no principles when it comes to her own relationships.

How can you say something so ludicrous? Do you know her personally? Do Bill and Hill invite you over for the holidays? Isn't sticking with someone you took an oath to and seeing your relationship though adversity a sign of good character? What, forgiving your husband not feminist enough for you?

Such petty, shallow people on this forum.

Spidey wrote:Poor Cosby he can’t even deny the allegations because of his diminishing mental health.

The old casting couch. Cosby probably used the tactic on young, starstruck, struggling starlets and groupies. A well known abusive requirement for women, especially young ones, in order to either get a career or have a chance of advancement in the movie or TV industry.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:She has no principles when it comes to her own relationships.

How can you say something so ludicrous? Do you know her personally? Do Bill and Hill invite you over for the holidays? Isn't sticking with someone you took an oath to and seeing your relationship though adversity a sign of good character? What, forgiving your husband not feminist enough for you?

Such petty, shallow people on this forum.

I don't know about the love between Bill and Hillary, but I can give my opinion. Lewinsky wasn't the only sexual dalliance that old Bill got away with either. If I'd been married to Bill Clinton, I would've been royally ticked at having to live through the public humiliation of that whole, sordid affair. Divorce has happened for far lesser reasons too. I would have dumped him in a heartbeat, started a new life, stood up on my own and strove to be my own woman. But I'm guessing that Hilary had designs on being president years ago, and the fact she stayed with Bill despite his philandering tells me she needed the power and connections to get even close to running for pres. If she'd divorced him, she wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the ticket in 2016 without Bill's power and connections to the Democratic machine.

tunnelcat wrote:I would have dumped him in a heartbeat, started a new life, stood up on my own and strove to be my own woman.

So Hilliary isn't her own woman? She needs a man, does she?

tunnelcat wrote:But I'm guessing that Hilary had designs on being president years ago, and the fact she stayed with Bill despite his philandering tells me she needed the power and connections to get even close to running for pres.

Something wrong with a woman who wants to be president and overcoming tremendous obstacles to do it? There is still a hell of a lot of sexism in the US. But regardless, her personal life is hers and your speculation will always and forever be that. Seeing friends of mine go through similar situations with spouses, men and women equally, and with nothing to gain from staying together, there is an awful lot of forgiveness going on -- and that's a good thing.

tunnelcat wrote:If she'd divorced him, she wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the ticket in 2016 without Bill's power and connections to the Democratic machine.

Can you prove any of that? Do you seriously think she is just "some woman" who needs her former president husband to lead her by the hand? Good grief, she has a better chance of being president now than in 2008 and it has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. If he was so "powerful" why didn't she win instead of Barak Obama?

Hopeless.

Yeah you guys do remember that Clinton was indeed impeached for the Lewinsky stuff right? It's not like the statute of limitations protected him--the guy got in some trouble. You guys bring up that stuff like it's some new scandal that needs quick attention. He banged his secretary...I'm sure it's not the first time something like that has happened in the world. Bringing this up reeks of fear.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I would have dumped him in a heartbeat, started a new life, stood up on my own and strove to be my own woman.

So Hilliary isn't her own woman? She needs a man, does she?

I don't know. Maybe she thought that she needed her husband's connections. I can't read her mind or her motives. She's in a far better position to make the choices she did when she did. Washington is one of those places that if you don't have powerful connections, especially if you're a woman, you're a nobody. And that's the trouble with Washington.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:But I'm guessing that Hilary had designs on being president years ago, and the fact she stayed with Bill despite his philandering tells me she needed the power and connections to get even close to running for pres.

Something wrong with a woman who wants to be president and overcoming tremendous obstacles to do it? There is still a hell of a lot of sexism in the US. But regardless, her personal life is hers and your speculation will always and forever be that. Seeing friends of mine go through similar situations with spouses, men and women equally, and with nothing to gain from staying together, there is an awful lot of forgiveness going on -- and that's a good thing.

There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to be president. More power to her, or any woman who wants the position. I'd vote for her if she had the gumption. But I still think she's riding her husband's coattails in her case. Why? Because she CAN. If Bill had retired and kept out of the limelight and then let his wife run her own show and campaign on her own merit, I'd have supported her 100%. But old Bill keeps showing up like a bad penny you can't throw away. If we elect Hillary, we get Bill, because he loves politics and he can't resist.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:If she'd divorced him, she wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the ticket in 2016 without Bill's power and connections to the Democratic machine.

Can you prove any of that? Do you seriously think she is just "some woman" who needs her former president husband to lead her by the hand? Good grief, she has a better chance of being president now than in 2008 and it has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. If he was so "powerful" why didn't she win instead of Barak Obama?

Hopeless.

The reason she didn't win in 2008? Bill Clinton. Obama was a fresh new face that didn't reek of Washington power brokers and old scandals.

tunnelcat wrote:But I still think she's riding her husband's coattails in her case.

You do realize she has been steadily employed in office since being the First Lady, don't you? And that Bill Clinton has been out of office far longer than he was in office by this time? Really, at this point, Hillary's resume is better than Bill's (who, since leaving office, is just Carter 2.0). Yeah, I'm sure nepotism got her foot in the door but if she wasn't capable of the job she wouldn't be around anymore. Speaking of which, if all you need is a powerful man, where are all the other First Ladies? Why aren't they holding office?

tunnelcat wrote:The reason she didn't win in 2008? Bill Clinton. Obama was a fresh new face that didn't reek of Washington power brokers and old scandals.

So wait, first it's Bill's power and connections that keep Hilary around, but then none of that helps when a young upstart enters the picture? What kind of useless power is that? Make up your mind, woman!

tunnelcat wrote:The reason she didn't win in 2008? Bill Clinton. Obama was a fresh new face that didn't reek of Washington power brokers and old scandals.

sorry, but wrong. I was on the ground for THAT war, and she lost because, and ONLY because, her campaign team was completely inept. She lost because her team ignored about 10 small states with winner-take-all primaries that caused a tip toward Obama. When she did that, her team wasn't able to convince the at-large delegates to the convention that she could run a smart Presidential campaign, so those delegates broke for Obama. That combination was the source of Obama's narrow victory at the Convention.

Hillary lost in the primaries because all the loony liberals would of viewed themselves as racist if they didn't vote for the black guy.

woodchip wrote:Hillary lost in the primaries because all the loony liberals would of viewed themselves as racist if they didn't vote for the black guy.

once again, I was there. I spent literally HOURS on the phone, in focus groups, poring over polling data. You are as far off as TC, although I suspect with even less insight into the entire campaign, due to the cute little racist comment above. Thanks for the contribution.

Put it this way slick. I personally DIDN'T vote for her BECAUSE she was married to Bill Clinton. If I were in her shoes, I would've kicked him out on his ass and gone on the make my own name. He's nearly as much on my sh*t list as Bushie, all for his unmitigated gall to sit down in front of the American people on TV and lie to our faces about his little cigar tryst, THEN go and stand up in the Rose Garden like some kind of poor little victim seeking solace. That scene nuked Gore's chance for my vote too. I WOULD have voted for Hillary if I'd known 100% for sure that old Bill would be keeping his nose out of his wife's hair while she was working for the people. Many other liberal voters I talked to here said the same thing. They wanted NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton or his stink. He was far too polarizing and dishonest looking after being impeached. If Hillary wants to be president, she needs to distance herself from Bill to get my vote, unless a really crazy, uber right wing Republican runs against her and I have no choice but to vote for her just to keep the Republican out of office.

I wasn't aware of any other option extant from the GOP, TC.

and, I hear your reasoning from 2008. Every individual has his/her thought process, many opinions are widely shared
across large groups of voters. Still, seeing the responses and the demographics, there is no way Hillary Clinton shouldn't have taken the 2008 primaries. It was, perhaps, the worst high stakes blunder I've ever seen in electoral politics. By rights, the new administration should have been Hillary and Obama as Veep, Biden running the Senate instead of Reid. But, that isn't what ended up happening.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:....she lost because, and ONLY because, her campaign team was completely inept. She lost because her team ignored about 10 small states with winner-take-all primaries that caused a tip toward Obama. When she did that, her team wasn't able to convince the at-large delegates to the convention that she could run a smart Presidential campaign, so those delegates broke for Obama. That combination was the source of Obama's narrow victory at the Convention.

Ok, so she wasn't able to put together a good team in 2008.

And more recently she wasn't able to put together a good team or personal effort on the world stage as Sect. of State.

So now you want people to forget all that and believe the team she would put together as President to run everything would somehow be good?

Lol

Although I have to admit I voted for Obama in the Dem primary because I was afraid of her.... I was way wrong there. She is at least a better choice than Obama but he can't be elected again so that isn't much of a foundation to prop her up on this time around.

Z.. wrote:Yeah you guys do remember that Clinton was indeed impeached for the Lewinsky stuff right? It's not like the statute of limitations protected him--the guy got in some trouble. You guys bring up that stuff like it's some new scandal that needs quick attention. He banged his secretary...I'm sure it's not the first time something like that has happened in the world. Bringing this up reeks of fear.

First you forgot to mention that he lied under oath about it. Secondly, since he is the president of these United States and represents not only the loose element of society (you?), but also people who don't cheat on their wives and take advantage of their staff. It's very wrong to down-play that kind of behavior in the highest office in the country just because it has happened in other places. I'm with TC--I have no respect for Hillary.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:....she lost because, and ONLY because, her campaign team was completely inept. She lost because her team ignored about 10 small states with winner-take-all primaries that caused a tip toward Obama. When she did that, her team wasn't able to convince the at-large delegates to the convention that she could run a smart Presidential campaign, so those delegates broke for Obama. That combination was the source of Obama's narrow victory at the Convention.

Ok, so she wasn't able to put together a good team in 2008.

And more recently she wasn't able to put together a good team or personal effort on the world stage as Sect. of State.

So now you want people to forget all that and believe the team she would put together as President to run everything would somehow be good?

actually, I think the Dems can do better. I did in 2008, and haven't changed on her. And, I think Bill was outstanding. Moral issues aside, he was extremely smart, extremely dedicated to doing his job for everyone in the nation, and very forward-thinking. Not so much, Hillary. The best I can say of Hillary is that she is SO vastly superior to anyone thus far in contention for the GOP that voting in November for her would be easy. No plans here to actually work for her campaign. May be running for State office down here in 2016 anyway, so I'd be busy.

That's the problem with Bill, he IS smart and he uses those smarts for the wrong things at times. He obviously didn't use those smarts when he messed around behind his wife's back multiple times. Smart doesn't mean one is conscientious or honest either. In fact, a smart devious person is far more dangerous that a smart honest person.

tunnelcat wrote:That's the problem with Bill, he IS smart and he uses those smarts for the wrong things at times. He obviously didn't use those smarts when he messed around behind his wife's back multiple times. Smart doesn't mean one is conscientious or honest either. In fact, a smart devious person is far more dangerous that a smart honest person.

devious people are smart, by and large. I'd be interested in what Clinton did by way of 'wrong things' outside of diddling around. It might be some warped moral standard we have had, but a glance at history shows(quite clearly) that sexual infidelity is NOT a barrier to greatness in a national leader.

“Wrong things” Clinton did outside of “diddling” around have been erased from memory by the sex scandals…I mentioned some of them a few times, but Democrats are in complete denial. (and why not…the Republicans dropped the ball, when they got sidetracked by the sex)

One that quickly comes to mind is all of those FBI files found in the White House.

So pooo, on your bogus "question".

I made that implication. Sexual indiscretions weren't the only Bill Clinton issues, and yes, those FBI files was one of them. There was a lot of hidden dirt in the White House during the Clinton years. Why the Republicans zeroed in on just Lewinsky affair as a reason for impeachment baffles me.