Huh? Based on what? You're just pulling nonsense out of the air to make an argument. Talking about sexist ... like a woman can't differentiate based on her experience to blindly defend their husband. Im not tying any sexual misconduct to Hillary. There is nothing sexist about my comment. Hillary's political accomplishments have been at the expense of her husband and the only elections she has won have been in states that are overwhelmingly blue. This has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being extremely unlikable. Without Bill, she would likely never made it very far in politics and getting all of the appointments of power. What is sexist is when certain candidates feel the female population has forsaken her and blame females on her loss for simply not voting for her because of her sex. Hillary is an all around scumbag. Quit defending her.
So at best we are both guilty of making assumptions? At least my assumptions are based on what most spouses would do in her shoes while your assumptions are based on a circle jerk narrative.
She won in States that were overwhelmingly blue... That's your evidence that Hillary a Yale law graduate(of her own academic merit) would amount to nothing?
It's hilarious that now I'll probably be pegged as a Hillary supporter just because I don't hold animosity for her acting like any other spouse in her situation. The whataboutisms worked though. We are discussing Hillary Clinton, a currently irrelevant figure for being by the side of her husband while being accused of sexual misconduct, over the current actual President who has been accused of sexual misconduct AND vocally expressed his pleasure in doing so. Congratulations right wing in a successful campaign.
I clearly stated political ambitions. And no, w/out Bill, I do not believe she would have become SOS.
I actually agree with you, but we'll never know for sure. She never had the natural charisma to rise on her own during the 1990's. I think she's plenty smart and political, but a sexist system plus her own personality would have doomed her without the first lady label, IMHO.
I mean that's an absurd hypothetical that you have no way of prooving and only is reliant on your 'gut'. So in essence, any wife of a prominent wealthy husband cannot have success on their own because there is nothing Hillary could have done for you to allow you to consider otherwise.
I think you're being consistent, just perhaps too sympathetic. Do we really need to understand her perspective here at all? To take the sympathetic view, here is a First Lady who believes politically-motivated women are accusing her husband of crimes he did not commit. Should she, as the holder of a semi-official (ceremonial but high-profile) position use her bully pulpit to assail the reputations of women who say they were sexually assaulted or harassed even if she thought or knew the accusations had no merit? Shouldn't that be something for the courts or, in impeachment hearings, the Legislature to decide without high officials trying to sway the outcome through public sentiment? She might be pissed, but she is also a highly capable politician who can think with some moral imagination about the use and misuse of the power of her office. Attacks on their character is what rape victims endure all the time and why women are reluctant to report them. But, this was a character attack writ large because it was coming from the First Lady. You can make what choices you want for what is acceptable from your representatives. I personally don't have space for tolerating their personal goals or their personal emotions. If you misappropriate your office, I as a voter have no sympathy or patience or understanding for you. And I think that's what Hillary had done. And, I don't think this thread is a whataboutism. I haven't engaged it in that way anyhow. I take this as a pretty natural reaction to the current trend of finally acknowledging some accountability for sexual harassment. It reminded us pretty naturally that our current president is himself a sexual harasser and it doesn't take much more imagination that we had another one way back when in Clinton. Back then we hemmed and hawed about whether we were willing to hold a popular president accountable for it, and ultimately decided we weren't. The atmosphere is definitely different in this season. Women are actually being believed. So why not look at it again? I don't think it takes away anything from the accusations against Roy Moore or Donald Trump or anyone else. If anything, if Democrats could own up to and condemn their mistakes of the past, they wouldn't look like such hypocrites when they insist Republican miscreants shouldn't hold office.
Why do you keep misrepresenting my comment? I never said she couldn't be successful and you had the gall to quote me on that. You're just being an amateur troll now. You're not very good at it. Take lessons from TG ... at least he is amusing.
Isn't every one of your assumptions just merely assumptions? I cannot make any claims of whether she would be SOS without Bill one way or the other. You can. Im asking what evidence do you have to be so assured in your assumptions? I've provided at least SOME evidence that she would have success in some form at a high level looking at what she accomplished as a young woman before Bill. What evidence is making you assured in your assumption? I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely trying to understand how you drew your conclusion? Is it just you being partisan or you genuinely feeling that way about Hillary based on some evidence?
Who can start their political career as Senator of MY without a famous name. She is famous cause of Bill
Totally understandable the DNC felt beholden to the Clinton machine. It is about money and he is an incredible fund raiser. However they should have told Hilary SOS is plenty enough
I know this is somewhat irrelevant to the thread but I think it does give some perspective that this can be a two way street and Hillary had her own improprieties. Men are not the only ones that can be sexist... or treat women badly. I have a friend who was a Secret Service agent at the White House during the Clinton administration. He says that Hillary had quite a few female companions brought in through the back door and that she did not treat them very well. It is hearsay but he doesn't have any reason to lie. He would also tell you that Bill was a really nice guy and that Hillary was a complete B.
Sorry to be picky but 2003 is more than one decade ago. I don't know if this behavior is because of dementia. From what I recall of him he still seemed mental sharp back in the early 2000's and especially when he and Bill Clinton headed up the US effort to fundraise for the 2004 tsunami. That said I take no pleasure in discussing GHW Bush like this as I said before I think he was an underrated President and believe for the most part he is a decent man. This could be dementia, this could be just how he was brought up. I don't know..
None of what Clinton did excuses any of those. The Atlantic is no friend to Trump but they chose to publish the piece at this time. At a time when sexual harrassment is an important topic I think the legacy of Bill Clinton is an important look at history.
That's highly speculative especially by 2016 when Hillary Clinton had built up a very large resume on her own. If anything Bill Clinton might've done more harm to both her 2008 and 2010 campaigns with off the cuff and off message remarks. I will stand by that as President Clinton did do a very good job. As a person though there is certainly much failing. I know it is very difficult to separate the two but I think a historical assesment of him and his legacy we need to understand both.
Considering you raised the issue that Hillary Clinton's defense of Bill Clinton was all political you should be the one arguing why that is. This is lazy debating. Anyway I was probably the biggest Hillary Clinton supporter on this board last year but I will agree that her treatment of Bill Clinton's accusers is fair game and one that should be a matter of discussion. That said I think you and Space Ghosts' arguments though on this seem much more predicated on the typical caricature of Hillary Clinton and not exactly factual. The Clinton's marriage has been very stormy from the outset. Many of Hillary Rodham's friends and associates discouraged her from marrying Bill, who even then already had a reputation, on the grounds that marrying him and moving to Arkansas would hurt a very promissing legal and political career that she appeared on the way to. It is highly speculative to think that in the mid 70's a very bright and promissing Hillary Rodham could've known that an Ozarks lawyer would end up becoming the 42nd President of the US. Hillary Rodham long ago made the decision to stay with Bill Clinton for better or worse and she's pretty much stuck to that. Also in regard to Clinton could only win in overwhelmingly blue states she did win CO, NV, VA and NH which are purple states also in both 2008 and 2016 she did very well in the primaries in many states that were much more Republican leaning than her more liberal opponents. You have the right to consider Hillary an all around scumbag but that doesn't change the facts.
You still lack understanding of the original concept that you were taught about being an accomplice. Maybe you were too young to understand it when it was explained to you. You're old enough now to look it up and admit you're misunderstanding.
This is a good post but I again have to say the accusations against Trump haven't been proven. I am sympathetic towards Mrs Clinton on how she handled the Lewinsky scandal. At the end of the day she is a woman whose husband ran around on her for the world to see.
