I'd support her, no matter what she decided. She's done nothing wrong here.

respect for her. They need to forget their ambition for Gracie Mansion, and go work on their "issues." Take care of their son and family.

Excoriating her for the ugly acts of her husband is just plain wrong.

to the world - the man for the job, the man who'd dealt with his problems, the man ready to serve.

Then we find out there are MORE Internet flashings - MORE lies - and she comes out AGAIN and speaks publicly for him? Excuse me. She's squandering her own reputation at this point.

stand by him, and insisted their problem has been dealt with and she has forgiven him.

She can forgive him, but she can't insist that we not believe our lyin' eyes! Her husband's a lying creep.

And please, don't ascribe your evil, untrue thoughts to me.

So, you merely outed yourself.

so yeh, she doesn't get off free in all this.
If she wanted it kept personal, she should have stayed out of the cameras and kept her 'stand by my man' speech to herself. it didn't do anything except make her a focus.

And I don't see anyone here 'blaming it on the woman'. If she wants to play for Mayor's Mansion, she is up for criticism.

(blaming her for his misdeeds)...

She put her cred out there to publicly support him.

Look, support the little twit all you want. I'm done discussing it.

Once again, you've outed yourself. I'm just surprised you didn't come out and say she's to blame for not keeping him satisfied at home.

life is TOO short!

She is rapidly becoming a parody of herself...

heard of a couple pieces few years ago, concluded she's just not with it/me. Friend reads her but for her use of language, I think. I can't/don't tolerate the B.S.

as humiliation for the wife. He should be humiliated, period. Leave her out of it.

when she endorsed him at that news conference. She could have stayed away, but she made a choice.

The rest of us have the right to examine her motivations for that choice.

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't live in the city, and don't have a vote there, but let's face it, she's going to have a future job in a Hillary administration, I'd kind of like to take her measure right now, since I have a chance.

on something that may or may not happen a number of years from now.

Actually it doesn't even sound like *sport*, it sounds like something else, like you have to crawl around in everyone's life that is related to someone you don't like. It's creepy.

Do you go after republican's wives like this?

from both national and regional news, even on the radio. It's almost like the Zimmerman trial, a 24/7 kind of thing.

When you spend that much time with it in your face, you can't help thinking about it. The local media especially loves it. However, he'll lose the primary to Quinn (MTP gave her some face time yesterday), and it will be over with.

As for whether or not Hillary will be President, all she has to do is want to, and it will happen. If (and I say "when&quot it does happen, she will want Huma in her administration, and she's the only woman to survive a cheating husband scandal twice and come roaring back from it. Clearly, she's counseling Huma on what to do now.

I guess you could say that the object of the sport of my political voyeurism is really Hillary.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (2)

that was clear, which is the person i was refering to when i said related to people you don't like, and i'm willing to bet "don't like" is putting it mildly since it runs so deep it extends to people she would put in her cabinent if she runs for president years from now. let go of your hate for hillary, move on. she's not your nemisis, she's a centrist democrat, just like the one currently in office.

like Hillary? It's just that the Clintons fascinate me, nobody can play the political chessboard like they can, they'll be a subject of great study for many, many decades to come.

They figured they'd cast their lot with Anthony Weiner by introducing him to Huma, or at least not discouraging her, and they miscalculated. Now, they're pulling the strings behind the scenes to make the most of it for her. Who wouldn't find that fascinating?

Once we start demanding that others live by our moral code it's hard to stop.

Essentially, Weiner's personal life is none of our business, yet many have decided he must live by their personal moral code and they're offended he didn't. Now, because Huma isn't acting as offended as we are, she is also a bad person who deserves to be attacked.

As I've said before, this is a personal issue between two people who have made promises to each other. They will find a way to either mend their relationship or they will split. It's not our concern.

these people and their savage hate make my skin crawl. i think weiner is gross, always have, people in ny have an *ok* reason to be irritated with him, he opened the door for quinn...but so seriously, w.t.f. do i care about his freakin' wife? If someone really liked her and was dissapointed, okay, but cuz you think weiner's an asshole then you go after the wife next? jesus, people need to find better things to do with their time than be the moral police of everyone and everything.

However, even brilliant women with insight into a spouse's inner workings that cause him to be a weenie wagger have their limits.

She seems classy enough to reach hers off camera.

Perhaps the moralists should bring back the stocks for anyone who doesn't live up to their high standards--except themselves, of course.

...driving the kink?
Maybe she's getting off on it as much or more than Mr. Danger?

Basically, I think everyone should just stay out of their personal business.

It's not mainstream, but it's also none of our business if that is their particular little "thing".

THAT is what I'm talking about... If you read my post, I made it clear I was not referring to whatever sexual practices they chose to engage in.

So, no, your post totally misinterprets & misstates my comment.

Her reaction doesn't fit into the societal preconceived notion of how a woman must act in certain situations, so you're freaking out.

LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE of her behavior, I have ASKED A QUESTION - how do we know she's not the real kink in the marriage? I don't "believe" one way or another if this is true or not. And I don't care. But I have looked at the way she's acted through this, and she is not behaving in public in a way that makes me think she is particularly upset by any of this. From what I've seen of her (I live in NYC, so these people cross my radar once in a while), she seems mostly upset that he got caught.

So, since she doesn't fit into the societal preconceived notion of how a woman must act, and something about my question bothers you, you have decided that I have ACCUSED HER of something which you characterize as "ugly." You disapprove of the idea of the possibility of this woman being the kink SO MUCH that you believe I have created my own "ugly" reality, when in fact, I have simply asked a question. And I asked that question because of the way she has acted through all this. Which is from what I've seen, kind of nonchalant about the whole thing.

Frankly, I think it's much more likely that her attitude is that she was pregnant when her husband began doing the sexting, and then she had a new baby, and she just wanted the guy to leave her the hell alone and she didn't care how he got his rocks off. This is not an uncommon attitude with new mothers, particularly when they are with powerful men. "Do what you gotta do, I don't want to know about it, and don't get caught!"

Huma spent a lot of time with Hillary Clinton, and I'm sure they had conversations about all this. Women who are attracted to powerful men often have to make trade offs to be with those powerful men. Usually it's about time and attention. Sometimes it's the husband getting some on the side. And "Carlos Danger" didn't even go that far! As far as we know.

Why is any of that "ugly"? Why is reality "ugly" if it includes the possibility that the woman is kinky? She's actually much smarter than he is, and I get the sense that she's the type of woman who is attracted to and wants power. She picked a guy whose ambition has always been to be the mayor of New York, and possibly more. People like this are often NOT straight vanilla in their sex lives.

Why is this possibility "ugly" to you?

and as RW a behavior as I've seen here.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 10:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Her behavior.

She behaves like a woman who is attracted to powerful men, and a woman who wants to be part of a power couple. A Muslim and a New York Jew, with their brains, looks and vocal chords? That's one hell of a power couple! She's done good work on her own, and has sat at the table with the master. (Mrs. Clinton) I believe she wants more, and is willing to do what it takes to get more. Frankly, I see nothing ugly about that! Why do you? Why are you so angry at a question about possibilities?

And this "RW" silliness. I am so far to the left you probably can't see me if you're standing on your tippy-toes. That's the refuge of the uncreative, to accuse someone of "RW behavior" because of something you personally find "ugly." Stop it. It's unbecoming.

Going to work now... Have a nice day!




On edit - I'm going to let you have the last word.
And it will be pretty much exactly what you've been saying all along.

Ready? Go for it:

with a clear big dose of misogyny thrown in. And yes, it is a RW tactic.

You have a good day, as well, but kindly do a little reflection. We have enough ugly thrown at us. Throwing excrement at our own, based on one's own biases and suppositions is hardly helpful.

- some women like risk and danger. Some enjoy it when their man is desired by others. Some are attracted to "bad boys". Maybe she's one of those women and there's nothing wrong with that. Different strokes, ya' know.

She - unlike women of lesser circumstances - has choices. She's got the financial ability to remove herself and her child from this situation should she desire. Certainly it is only their business but I have ceased feeling sorry for her. No reason to feel sorry for someone who is content with the situation as it stands.

with NO evidence. What do we need the RW for, anyway?

And her being so accomplished is exactly why there is conjecture as an accomplished, successful woman has numerous options available. She has chosen not to take any of those options and her actions - or lack thereof - invites questions and conjecture.

Regarding evidence, I beg to differ. There's plenty of evidence that she's willing to continue to subject herself to what some would consider humiliation and degradation when she has numerous options available to her. Of course people are going to wonder why.

Very ugly.

Leave him, let him go out and face the music by himself, or endorse him even though his sleazebaggery reached a new low. Having chosen the latter this time around, her motivations are properly questionable.

Just letting him fend for himself again would have been all she needed to do, no baseball bat required.

to continue to back him. I can't say I really blame her even if she's generally a good person. Should she divorce him now and help kill his career? That wouldn't exactly benefit her financially. If it was my sister, I'd be telling her to help him get elected and then divorce him.

Child support from the NYC mayor would be way more than that from an unemployed schmuck. But then, she makes a six figure income as a consultant to a firm that has Bill Clinton on it's board. Also, she'll have a job as long as Hillary Clinton lives, and especially if HRC gets what we all think she's going for.

There is an investigation into Hillary's State Department about serious sexual assault and pedophilia charges that were covered up by some very high dehigh ups and Huma may be involved.

We will see how the second investigation goes (the first one was never allowed to happen to it's full intent).

Good heavens. How many baseless "investigations" have been launched against any number of prominent DEMS, yet you assume where there is an investigation there must be "wrong-doing?" Good gawd.

oh, wise one? Damn.

big fat ones.
The first investigation was covered up. Another one is in process. Hopefully the Clinton clout will be helpless with this one, but who knows. They have their own secret dirty ways.

puke all you like, get it out.

I'm sure Sean, BillO and Rush will also have 'em out too.

Do you not consider pedophelia and sexual assault something important enough to investigate?

I know you aren't interested, but someone else here may be. This is Lawrence O'Donnell's show on it.

Here is the State Dept Coverup story on Last Word:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/52173945#52173945

for people to hate on? lol. they have to go after the wives of people they hate? Dowd is pathetic, as are the rest of anyone who does not have a true reason to go after her. at least if you're a right-wing republican strategist and you make it your life's goal to tear down everything and anyone related to the D party, okay, that's pretty foul, that's just who they are low grade hypocritical woman-hating piss ants. But anyone who listens to them and parrots their garbage is just as bad and all the more pathetic.

faced the music on his own and not allowed her to be dragged into it.

appears to be quite capable of making decisions based on what is best for herself and family. I don't see how the poor judgment of her husband should in any way be a reflection upon her.

Quite honestly, this whole situation is none of my business anyway, since I am not an NYC voter.

What they do in their marriage is between them. If I were a New Yorker, I would think seriously about supporting someone so completely stupid and indiscreet for mayor. Dumping on Huma Abedin, however, is beyond the parameters of reasonable political debate.

Think about that, and she is STILL married to Bill Clinton.

Let Weiner run, and let the chips fall where they may. The people of NYC will decide who they want for their Mayor, despite what the rest of the country thinks.

married couples put up with a lot from their spouses. I would have high tailed it out of there for a lot of things that some friends have decided to forgive. That is why I am single.
But people in glass houses should not throw stones - as in most married people, unless of course they wish to make all info about their marriages public so we can all judge them.
They need to leave her alone - its nobody's business.

whenever the neoliberal corporate media goes after a public person like this, usually it means that person is taking potential profits out of fat wallets. So after they went after weiner last year with a vengeance, and doing it again this time, that told me that weiner was most likely hurting the plutocrats. I didn't know much about weiner until today, so I started checking out his background. And sure enough, I found out why the corporate media, spokesperson for the plutocrats, is going after Weiner.

Check out his wikipedia entry. Weiner, when he was in congress, was a MAJOR fighter for single payer healthcare. During the 2009 fight for healthcare, which was won by the corps when they stopped single payer, and passed obamacare instead of single payer, Weiner was right in the middle of it. He was fighting more than ANYONE ELSE for single payer.


from wikipedia:
During the health care reform debates of 2009, Weiner advocated for a bill called the United States National Health Care Act, which would have expanded Medicare to all Americans, regardless of age.[20][21] He remarked that while 4% of Medicare funds go to overhead,[22] private insurers put 30% of their customer's money into profits and overhead instead of into health care.[23] In late July 2009, Weiner secured a full House floor vote for single payer health care in exchange for not amending America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (AAHCA) in Committee mark-up with a single-payer plan.[24] When a public health insurance option was being considered as part of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, he said it would help towards reducing costs, and set up a website to push for the option.[23] He attracted wide attention when described the Republican Party as "a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry, teaming up with a small group of Democrats to try to protect that industry",[25] and proclaimed in front of Congress in February 2010 that "every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry."[26]



And now the plutocrats, the corporations, and the media are trying to end his career once and for all.

"The plutocrats" aside, Weiner has killed his own career.

that his career would be in this much jeopardy? it's not like the establishment scoured around in his trash, he posted a picture of his dick, and then sent hard copies around later on.

heck, i don't even know of one other polls whose junk can be seen by the public.

Weiner did this to himself, ny'ers would have been quite happy to have voted for him. He would have won both the mayoral primary and the general handily.

though I do allow for the possibility that the DUers doing the pissing are paid RW trolls.

Wait until she goes for Senate confirmation to a Cabinet post in a Hillary Clinton administration. At least no one here is calling her an Islamic terrorist, there are Repuke Senators who truly believe that about her, whether they're willing to say so or not.

see post 15....

and for a few it is just their strange attitude toward women, a trend i've noticed on this board.

She is an adult Female and has made her own way in life. If her husband want's to photograph his Dick and send it out on internet to do Sex Chats...she needs to ditch him and move on. She isn't going to be hurting. She's had a distinguished career so far in State Department as Chief Aide to SOS Hillary Clinton along with being friends of the Clintons and Hillary's White House Aide.

She doesn't NEED HIM...he NEEDS HER!

After multiple incidents, she stuck by him. We should give the same consideration here.

But if Weiner does use her as a Shield-maiden, I have every right to say "Sorry Huma, but just because you accept this man as your husband does NOT mean I have to accept him as my rep."

I came to the conclusion that very few commentators on these shows are actually any more informed than the rest of us, and if I wanted an uninformed personal opinion of a news story, I could ask anybody anywhere else.

she probably would wish you had chosen a better description of her situation.

It is not entirely unknown for people to get a thrill from being humiliated. If she gets off on it, who are we to judge?