of reexamining the rape, sexual assault and harassment of women by powerful men. Maybe explain how she, our first woman President and a good liberal Democrat at that, would be able to lead on this issue. (Answer: She wouldn’t.) Or, better yet, understand why we might need to finally move on from the Clintons. Because that’s what people like Sebelius, Gilibrand and DeBlasio are trying to tell us. And they’re right.

To move on from the Clintons for good. No one would ever dare speak against the Clintons and their organization while they had power. Now that it looks like Hillary is stepping away from politics they are free to voice their opinions and attempt to minimize the Clinton influence going forward.

Who in 2020 will attempt to distance themselves from the Clintons? Who will get closer to them and attempt to utilize what's left of their organization and influence? It will be interesting.

Last edited Thu Nov 23, 2017, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

stronger. She was ready to deal with everything that could be thrown at her, and she would know how to act in this case

She's not moving on, she remains a force in the party with millions of supporters

And it would suck for the entire country.

with her as POTUS

A rec is given for the sake of my soul. My unpopular opinion is that we Democrats need to support candidates that reflect our values. You can not claim to represent me if you dishonour or allow your spouse to injure our party, and all those who challenge your authority to dictate our voting behaviour. A vote for progressive values, win or lose, is better than "the other" strategy. imo

Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration's response was being imitated, adding that "you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over."

And it won't help us take back our country.

Bill Clinton didn't invent whore mongering and my guess is that half of Capital Hill are whore mongerers. So Hillary stood by her husband. How dare she!!! She said at the time she did so because she loved him, and I believe her because if she didn't she could have dumped him long ago and wouldn't have had that baggage to carry around. I believe she could have won without him. But if she stayed because she's ambitious, so what? No one ever condemned a male politician for being ambitious, so why the double standard for Hillary? Had the Russians not interfered in our election, she'd be in the White House and I'd sleep good at night. Instead everyday, it's what has that jackass in the White House done or tweeted now? And as a nation, we are a laughing stock to the world for having elected such an ignorant, incoherent, unqualified fool.

systematically dismantle 100 years of progress in Civil Rights, Women's rights, the environment, workers rights, etc.

However, if Kathleen Sibelius wants to go down that road, then where in the hell was she for not speaking out against the abuse when it occurred, and I don't buy the excuse that she wasn't in any position to do so.

As for her criticism of Hillary, she is presuming that Hillary knew what Bill was doing, and unless she has evidence of that, then Ms. Sibelius is just taking an opportunity to blame another victim, Hillary for what her husband did

Really getting tired of all this crap.

Let's deal with THOSE who are currently in power, and abusing that power whether they be Democratic or republican

without condemning everything including consensual affairs among adults and the wife of the husband that cheats on her.

Please show me what Hillary did to dismiss and besmirch victims of sexual assault. Who were these victims?

if Bill Clinton had stepped aside for Al Gore on January 16, 1998, the day this story broke. No W and certainly not that f%er Trump. Remember W's key campaign slogan and the only reason anyone in their right mind would even consider voting for him, "I will restore honor and dignity to the oval office".

First of all, Al Gore didn't want anything to do with Clinton when he was running for President, and he made that clear during the campaign. However, the media received their talking points from the republicans, and they endlessly made fun of, distorted, and slurred Al Gore. The talking heads were notorious for telling us how "boring" Al Gore was. Distorting, and making fun of a claim he never made, "inventing the internet". What he did do is push significant legislation which made the internet accessible to the public.

They treated Al Gore like a joke, and ridiculed his "lock-box scenario" to protect social security, and he was made into a laughing stock with his views on Climate Change. The media was not kind to him at all, and chris matthews was one of the assholes out their bashing him, so when Matthews later admitted to voting for George W. Bush, that came as no surprise to most of us.

In fact, Al Gore's words were prophetic about protecting social security. Just before the economic crash, the bush administration was pushing for legislation to privatize part of social security, and if that occurred, it would have been a disaster. Gore's protecting social security was because Congress, was STEALING, (they called it borrowing), money from the social security fund to finance their invasion of Iraq based on a LIE.

While I agree if Al Gore became president, we wouldn't be facing the disaster we are now, I think the odds were so stacked against him, that it is unpredictable if that would have happened or not.

As an aside, Al Gore's campaign was run by several people, including Donna Brazille, and they did an awful job on his campaign. In fact, her career with Democratic campaigns has been pretty dismal starting with Mondale, but we need to move forward, and dwelling on that will accomplish nothing.

The one big difference though is the media smears may not have been nearly as effective, as the public would have gotten to know Al and Tipper as President and First Lady over 3 years, the real Al and Tipper, and maybe they would have bonded as Al helped the nation through the trauma of a presidential resignation. That's the one wildcard that makes me wonder.

As an aside, I remember 2000 as being when the media turned into right-wing shills. I was just 17 but I remember at the time noticing the huge difference in the way the media treated the Clinton re-election versus the Gore candidacy. If you remember, in 1996, they were very fair to Bill Clinton and the Democrats; and were still watchable. They turned into total ass-hats that year and have been since.

I dwelled on 2000 almost obsessively until the mid-term election of 2006 helped me to heal some of my pain from the 2000 loss.

would have never voted for him anyway

President Gerald Ford did after the resignation of Richard Nixon. He was elected in 1976 wasn't he?

President resigns due to scandal Vice-President takes over office and their party is reelected the next go around.

And the 2000election was stolen.

The people who voted for Bush are the same ones who voted for Trump, and for most of the same reasons- racism, misogyny, and bigotry.

He did not reach 50% of the vote in either of his elections. His average popularity rating as measured by polling was 55% which compared to presidents who have followed him is good. But compared historically to previous presidents is below average.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

His average popularity is higher than trump's, Obama's and Bush's.

But I am not seeing the "extremely popular" either. Do you?

They started conducting the "approval" poll with President Truman.

I'm not sure why anyone focuses on "popularity"; the data compiled by pollsters is based on either questions about job performance approval or favorable/unfavorable opinion metrics. Neither question type is truly measuring "popularity". Gallup also does an annual "most admired" poll, but once again, admiration and popularity are not the same thing.

I think it is inadvisable to reach conclusions about a particular characteristic with data about an entirely different characteristic. Data analysis is best left to experts.

Of course everyone is free to set his or her own standard for the measurement of popularity. That does not demonstrate, however, that idiosyncratic criteria based on personal opinion is either reliable or valid in terms of statistical analysis.

However, if we use actual votes cast by either number or percentage to measure popularity, Hillary Clinton was the most popular politician in the 2016 cycle. She was also Gallup's Most Admired Woman for a record 20th time, so it seems clear that at least one Clinton measures up to a personally devised, non-scientific "popularity" standard.

going back to the first president they polled on (Harry Truman) and ending with Clinton.

Gallup Presidential Approval Ratings (overall averages)
1. Kennedy 70%
2. Eisenhower 65%
3. GH Bush 61%
4. Johnson 55%
5, Clinton 55%
6. Reagan 53%
7. Nixon 49%
8. Ford 47%
9. Carter 46%
10. Truman 45%

Look at your own chart and the figures beneath it. Even in his first term when he was impeached his average approval rating was 50%. His average approval rating during his second term was 61%, unbelievably high as those ratings go. His rating never dipped below 50% during the last 6 years of his administration, and was pretty much at 60% +/- over his last five years.



"compared historically to previous presidents is below average."? Here are the ratings going back to Harry Truman:

Harry Truman 45.4
Dwight Eisenhower 65.0 - returning war hero in the euphoria of the end of WWII
John Kennedy 70.1 - only 2-1/2 years
Lyndon Johnson 55.1
Richard Nixon 49.0
Gerald Ford 47.2
Jimmy Carter 45.5
Ronald Reagan 52.8
George H.W. Bush 60.9 - voted out of office in favor of Clinton
Bill Clinton 55.1

Clinton's overall rating was higher than Truman's, Nixon's, Ford's, Carter's, and Reagan's, and equal to Johnson's. I wouldn't say that his rating was "below average" of previous presidents, his was higher than five of his nine predecessors, and even if you do a numerical average of those nine, his overall rating is higher (55.1% vs. 54.3%)

Your own point --- G HW Bush had a rating of 60.9 and was voted out of office. Clinton never made 50% in either of his elections. In that respect Obama was far more popular since he crossed that bar both times.

And didn't W & Cheney restore honor and dignity what with their war, outing of a noc, all lies and obscuration, bankrupting the country and so on and so forth.....I'll take a Clinton presidency any day. And you might read the article by Conason to get the full story.

Great strategy

Bill Clinton was a good president who left the country in great shape. He made the right move by not resigning.

Hillary knew the extent of her husband's inappropriate activities.

There are plenty of accounts of women who never had any inkling of their husbands activities outside their marriage.

Hell, there are accounts of women who have been married to their husbands for decades, and didn't realize they were married to a serial killer.

For gosh sakes there was a whole organization by Richard Mellon Scaife, The Arkansas Project, to besmirch anything the Clinton's did.

It was not dissimilar to what Rove did to John McCain when he ran for the nomination against George W. Bush, including spreading lies about McCain having an inter-racial affair just before the South Carolina Primary

Do you really believe that should disqualify a woman from public office?

I am beyond tired of people who conflate extramarital affairs and sexual assault. Ms. Flowers was a willing participant. Ms. Lewinsky was a willing participant. Neither were victims.

Bill Clinton may very well be a bad husband. None of our business- Hillary gets to decide what to do about that. He was an exceptional president, and we allow the revisionist historians to dispute that at our peril.

I have a problem with her reaction to the allegations, but come on...she's the WIFE of the man the women are accusing. I can picture him crying and swearing to her that he did not do that (whatever it is being claimed).

Flowers offered up that she had had an affair with Clinton for years. Do you think Clinton's WIFE would invite her over for tea so they could compare notes? Have you ever been married and some woman claimed to have an affair with your husband for years? I would blame him, for sure (if it's true). But I would also hold it against HER, of course. A low life who had an affair with a married man.

It's entirely possible that HRC was kidding herself and didn't want to believe what they were alleging. I can understand that.

I don't find much fault with what HRC did. The people conducting counterattack campaigns have all stated that HRC did not order or run those counterattacks.

Keep your eye on the ball. It's what BILL CLINTON did that matters. Not his wife.

Way far from the first, in fact. It's just that the Lewinsky case in particular had enough evidence to make public, and there were parties who really wanted to capitalize on it. Our people love a scandal. Prior to his presidency, other presidents (some we hold in high regard) had affairs, but those things were simply kept quiet as a kind of unofficial policy. Different times, I guess.

So far as I'm aware, the women Bill had affairs with have never stated that they were not consensual relationships. I believe his prize mistake was not admitting that he'd had the affair as soon as the issue was raised, and instead attempting to deny it.

The affairs did not interfere with his performance as POTUS. He still did his job. They were private relationships, and so too is the relationship between himself and his wife, along with any consequences to their marriage.

I'm 32, so the Clinton presidency was really the first one I was old enough to remember and really be aware of. I remember those times as feeling much more optimistic than what we have today, and I know Clinton was extremely popular even after all of this came out. I do not have any memory of Hillary being on TV calling the women liars or insulting their character, a la Trump.

Is she doing anything important with her life these days?

"Maybe Clinton did indulge in a tragicomic Oval Office tryst with a young intern. He'd be far from the first oversexed politician to be ushered from the stage with his trousers around his knees. But it won't be because a fearless, independent press exposed his shenanigans through vigorous reporting. Instead, the Beltway media have bought the image of Clinton as an out-of-control sex fiend from a bunch of dubious Arkansas characters with dubious motives.

Indeed, to many of us homefolks, the single greatest irony of the Clinton presidency has been the export of bare-knuckle, eye-gouging Arkansas political mud-rassling to an unexpectedly gullible national press corps. And we thought we were the hayseeds."

CYA.

the Monica Lewinski and impeachment hearings were going on. They were askance.
Hell, both Mitterand's mistress and wife attended his funeral with no problems.
As for the other accusations I wasn't here so I don't know what went on.