Poll: Hillary "standing by her man" boosts her in latest poll. So there!

February 20, 2007 -- ALBANY - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's decision to stand by her man after the Monica Lewinsky scandal is seen as a sign of strength by 56 percent of voters, a poll says.

Her sticking by then-President Bill Clinton was hailed by 62 percent of women and 50 percent of men in the Siena College Research Institute poll of 1,120 registered voters - while just one in five voters saw it as a sign of weakness.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/nationalnews/monica_boosts_sen__clinton__poll_nationalnews_kenneth_lovett.htm

Polling stats:

http://www.siena.edu/sri/FWP/FWP_Poll_07_release_final_2.pdf

I mean really who gives a fuck? Particularly as it's a story out of that rag the NY Post? Don't you have any qualms about quoting from Murdoch's flagship publication? Or shame?

...to see any of the Hillary boosters give any compelling reasons WHY I should want her to be President. Besides, of course, that her winning the nomination is "inevitable" and I should "get over it"...

... to see any Hillary boosters say her winning the nomination is "inevitable" and you should "get over it"...

Any examples to cite off the top of your head?

Do we not see pro-Edwards/Obama threads daily?

Isn't this issue with Clinton something the rightwing (and increasingly the leftwing out of convenience) uses to brand Clinton as a weak candidate?

I believe this type of news enrages the anti-Clinton folks which is probably why so much of it is posted. Like stepping on an ant hill.

That's what makes it sound defensive.Has nothing to do with the subject matter you choose.Like you say there are posts here that pro-everybody else so there's nothing wrong with the post.But the "so there" speaks as much as the poll itself does. :shrug:

Surely no "progressive" believed her sticking with Bill was weakness. :shrug:

I get the feeling it was intended for the anti-Hillary audience here though.

Let me ask you a serious question,if I could.You've been here quite awhile now and I wonder if you truly think that the abrasive tone you often take with anyone who sees things differently than you really helps what you're working for,which I assume is Hillary's being the Dem candidate?

I personally don't mind the abrasiveness,as you probably know already.But that's why you don't see me cheerleading for my candidate of choice.I know that I'd be just as likely to turn people off as attract them to my candidate.

I'm truly not asking to be a wise-ass or to try to be snarky with you.It's something I've thought about in regards to both myself and others here for awhile now.At times I think "who cares? It's just one opinion." But I also know from being here in '04 that certain people drove me away from their candidate just because of their attitudes,which isn't really fair to the candidates I admit,but it did have that effect nonetheless.And I suspect that happens to others as well.

Do you ever think about that?

I wonder if you truly think that the abrasive tone you often take with anyone who sees things differently than you really helps what you're working for,which I assume is Hillary's being the Dem candidate?

I return abrasion with abrasion, what can I say? You can only hit "alert" so many times before you have to give as good as you get. The anti-centrist/DLC/Clinton crowd has gotten so shrill here that it really is time to return fire. The only ones who don't see that shrillness are those who do it or sympathize with it.

"The only ones who don't see that shrillness are those who do it or sympathize with it."

You contradict yourself in the line right before that when you say it's time to return fire.You return "abrasion with abrasion" and "give as good as you get",yet the quote above seems to say that it's only the others who indulge in shrillness,or at least sympathize with it.You can't have it both ways.You do it AND see it,making your quote meaningless,unless you sympathize with it.

Regardless,do you think that behavior helps or hurts a person's cause,or does it even matter?

The people who engage in, or sympathize with, the anti-DLC/centrist/Clinton shrillness do not recognize it as "shrillness" because, after all, they're the "real Democrats" and the DLCers are just DINOS and "corporate whores" and "Repug lite." They're just speaking "truth to power." So if anyone responds in kind, that person is being abrasive and arrogant, etc.

No more.

Regardless, DU is not even a blip on the electoral radar so behavior here is irrelevant in regards to helping/hurting candidates.

The implication is that they aren't the "real Democrats" and you are though.Both assumptions,theirs and yours,is wrong yet right at the same time,and both groups would be well served to recognize that,I think.The fact that two very different groups consider themselves Dems is a strength not a weakness.

"So if anyone responds in kind, that person is being abrasive and arrogant, etc."

This is very true,and a fact of life everywhere.Keep that in mind when people respond to you (or me) in kind.

"Regardless, DU is not even a blip on the electoral radar so behavior here is irrelevant in regards to helping/hurting candidates."

Not so sure on that anymore.Du has grown a lot from the 2K or so that were here when I signed up.That's a bigger audience,and a better opportunity to have some effect for the better.

Thanks for the answers and time.

I make NO claims in regards to anyone's Dem-ness unless it is in response to the afore-mentioned shrillness.

I should think by now you'd have learned that obnoxiousness in real world politics isn't a very successful strategy either.....

I feel sorry for a couple of the candidates. Some of their boosters do more harm than good.

Julie

I should think by now you'd have learned that obnoxiousness in real world politics isn't a very successful strategy either.....

How should I know that?

I feel sorry for a couple of the candidates. Some of their boosters do more harm than good.

Howard Dean would know better than anyone.

I should think that an ass-kicking in RW politics would've resulted in some learning....

As to boosters doing more harm than good and bringing Dean into it (live in teh past much?) from where I sit every Dean supporter from waaaaaaaaaaay back in 03 has been busy making real progress out here in the real world. Takin' over the party in vast regions of my state.

Gosh I'm glad we've had other things to do than sit around biding our time till the next primary season.

Julie

I should think that an ass-kicking in RW politics would've resulted in some learning....

Well, sure. In a Republican district, Republicans should not go unchallenged. That hardly qualifies as "obnoxiousness in real world politics" as you're implying unless "obnoxiousness in real world politics" means challenging a three-time and very popular Republican incumbent, winning the debates, and running on a platform of more community involvement.

See, I know your implication here and it should be pointed out how poorly "progressive" Democrats did in the same district last year. It isn't about the stripe of Democrat in North Atlanta, it's about being a Democrat, period, that brings on the "ass-kicking" in RW politics.

As to boosters doing more harm than good and bringing Dean into it (live in teh past much?) from where I sit every Dean supporter from waaaaaaaaaaay back in 03 has been busy making real progress out here in the real world. Takin' over the party in vast regions of my state.

Wait. You decide what election cycle we can discuss? From where I sit, many Dean supporters dropped out of the local political scene when Dean lost the nomination. More dropped out when Kerry lost, and the remaining remnants blended into the background when they found they couldn't waltz in and take over.

I am totally progressive and I think it was a weakness. How can you NOT think it to be. If they were honest and say that it was a matter of political convenience I would have much more respect other than this "standing by your man" nonsense.

We are talking about Hillary.

you would have seen that I was pointing out that you were using the American public as a litmus test for sanity. I was reminding you of bad choices we made in the past.

And "I" was doing nothing but pointing out the American electorate (the ones who vote) not viewing this as a weakness.

stood by him during the 'troubles' (all of them, Paula, Gennifer, and Monica) and he backs her political career.

I don't care what their arrangement is, was, or will be. I'm sick of both of 'em.

The woman should NOT run for president. Period.

and not people who weasel out of positions, hide away from tough issues, and poll a position to determine what they should say. You know, real people.

Obama
Richardson
Gore
Edwards
Kucinich

just to name a few.
Ms. Triangulator is, in her own disgustingly sweet and pandering way, as bad as McCain on the other side.

Which one should I start with? How about Al Gore?

I just hope I can do the same with Hillary. For the good of the nation.

FLAG BURNING?
gimme a break.

FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT?????
gimme a break.

Ping.....

Only difference is that he read the polls and decided the war he co-sponsored wasn't a good thing, afterall.

Thank you for posting this.

Before the Kerry nomination, he was doing well with his record of service to the country. Then the media barrage began. When this is brought up over and over to remind people of the impeachment, will it poll the same?

but, you are right.

Not...

it's crazy enough, it just might work.

Too Funny!

:rofl:

so that she already has the Dem Nomination? Obviously her numbers are good ...she can make inroads into Black and Immigrant Community based on "Bill's" popularity...and she's charming and attractive.

Should we just give up on GD Politics and DECLARE HILLARY...THE SUPREME? :shrug:

Is that what you think or want?

As to Hillary's "standing by" a man that certainly did not stand by her, it can be interpreted in many ways. Some have gone as far as accusing feminists of abandoning principles to stand by Big Dog. Who knows?

The point is that whether one stayed married to a serial adulterer, or divorced the bum, is totally irrelevant to the Presidency. Some of our greatest Presidents had a roving eye, while some of our worst were faithful to their spouses.

Her standing by Bill as a wife doesn't tell me anything.

I kicked my cheating ex out, personally.

to prevent a right wing coup.

Their marital life is none of my business.

and quite frankly, it didn't do Gore much good to stand alongside Big Dog when he was gloating about the Senate acquitting him. Al Gore was the moral and upright party that ended up as collateral damage.

We should really be angry at the two opposing sides of the Lewinsky/Jones fiasco:

1. The GOP for attempting a coup on a matter that was quite trivial, particularly when compared with the crimes and abuses of power committed by Bush and Cheney, and

2. Bill Clinton for pissing away the electoral mandate he got in 1996 because he thought it more important to have an extra-marital affair with a young woman in his employ.

Give MoveOn all the credit you wish,but if Hillary would have bailed on Bill, the public would have turned against him.

Or political career ass-saving time?

I'm cynical so I know which one I suspect is true,but I could be wrong.

of dedication to public service.

I'm not "most Dems". :)

Hillary is not a Princess Di "soldiering on" while her hubby frolics with his Camilla.

Her battle with the "evil man" in her life, Ken Starr.

I remember vividly the VRW media's divisiveness trying to turn Hillary against her husband.
Their encouragement was..."It wouldn't be a bad thing, ya know.." Then little subliminal
hints... waving her over to the 'dark side'- they stood waiting with open arms.

Thank goodness, she didn't fall for their hypocritical shoulders to cry on...

I'm forever grateful to her for that... She would have changed history.

Only a person with exceptional strength of character would be able to stand up to the constant abuse of the Richard Mellon Schaifes, Rev. Sun Moons and the Emmett Terrells and still have within them the drive to serve the public.

I'd like to add one more note: Thank you Hillary. :yourock:

Not to mention this is NOT an issue on here, at least until you made it one. Then again you can't really defend her real issues regarding the Iraq War, so you have to make a fake one. Sounds like some other politician I could name.

For one. That little so there was very juvenile to say the least. For two, I have personal issues with allowing bullshit from anyone to stand unchallenged. Then again, if you could actually give HRC a real defense on IWR, you would have already. Oh wait, there isn't one aside from, "HRC's nomination is inevitable, get over it!"

Because I don't believe in letting bullshit walk unchallenged.

That and the IWR vote.

She's the one out in front with the big bullseye. Everyone else in the race is going to be finding ways to beat Hillary.

that more women thought it was a sign of strength than men.

I'd have thought it the opposite - that men would reward her for sticking around after those shenanigans, but women would have seen it as a sign of strength to hit the high road, not hang around, after being cheated on.

Interesting.

than men do. also, maybe some men would like and appreciate their wives to stand by them if they were unfaithful, but see that as being weak, which gives themselves a feeling of strength, if that makes sense.

if my wife was fucking another man, I would kick her ass so far to the curb, her teeth would rattle.

How can this be seen as a strength unless you are a fucking idiot.

lol

Just because the GOP made a circus of it does not make it so.

Is it too much to ask that DU eek an iota of respect at the very least for the Clintons' privacy?

Might as well get used to it. :shrug:

Just because the repubs ran with it and exploited it, does not make it less than what it is. I have less respect for her because of it. She should have told him to fuck off. That does not mean I would have thought less of Bill as a Pres, it would have meant I would have had more respect for her as a woman. Power begets sexual indescretions, but don't you dare play the dutiful republican wife and then play it off...bullshit. If this was real, she would have divorced his ass... Give me a fucking break people

The fact that the Clintons are in the limelight and the GOP ran this story into the ground STILL doesn't give us license to pontificate on it as if it's any of our damn business.

I acknowledge and try to respect boundaries and that would be crossing one in my view. You go right on ahead and weigh in, but you won't be getting a "you go, girl" from me.

but don't play Hillary off as this "good wife" crap. If this were any part of reality, the real woman would have told her hubby to kiss her ass. She lost my respect there. You could disagree, but I think you are in the minority. She is a political parasite

damn

I guess it is. Oh well. I just can't believe the naivete on these boards about her.

it's common courtesy -- you aren't even in the neighborhood of understanding this

I just don't agree and that is your problem with it. I don't agree with your point of view, that's all.

I am just based in reality. I know that if I cheated on my wife, she would be justified in getting rid of me and visa versa.

If he didn't want people looking at his behavior he should have kept his bent little peepee in his pants. Give me a break. He was a public official, the president and he did this with a White House intern, in the White House...and it's not our business?! I think it is.
Lee

you are right, but don't put yourself up there as a "dutiful wife" and then expect us to buy that crap. Any self respecting woman would have kicked his ass to the fucking curb. What wimps.

Who are you to judge? What is right for you may not be right for another person. Is there a reason why you just can't weigh in and say, 'hey, I wouldn't react that way'???? Why do you use HRC's decision on her own personal life as a club to beat her over the head with?

I swear some would find fault with the way she effin breathes.

I love the "non judgement" people. As if I don't have a right to view my political leaders through the spectrum of my own personal views. Guess what? Any man or woman who allowed themselves to be publically humiliated by their spouses sexual indescretions isn't worth my vote.

GET IT?

... but I do try to be a decent human being - not bereft of humanity particularly when it comes to the suffering of others. I take no joy in knowing others are in pain.

So says the person with the whip wielding smiley face ;)

funny observation you make, forkperson; it had escaped me entirely :)

:dunce:

kitten with a whip but am open to free-form interpretation

I don't vote in America, and would vote for another candidate in the primary if I did; but surely people's personal lives should not be the basis for one's vote? So far as I know, neither Thatcher nor Blair nor either of their spouses had an affair. That's not what I vote on.

Nine years ago, the same sort of poll, with roughly the same percentage points, came out. How does this poll make news now? What is its relevance? Does this make up for her votes for the war, and continuing to support it long after it became painfully obvious that it was a mistake?

Sorry, but I think that Hillary's personal life is a hell of a lot less important that what her public actions are. Frankly I think that you are grasping at straws if you think that this information is relevant or important.

Aside from some of her political choices as a senator, this is the longest-standing issue I've had with Hillary. It's personal. While I respect her in many ways, I can't get past the personal part.

The "standing by her man" part. The part that allows her husband to be a liar and a cheat and get away with it.

I lost respect in the 90s, during the primary campaign, as she faithfully "stood by her man" over Gennifer Flowers, etc.. I never liked or trusted Bill Clinton in the WH. I don't like or trust cheaters, and I believe that people who are willing to cheat in their personal lives bring that quality to their professional lives. I don't like it, and I don't like their enablers.

I also believe that it is this very issue that made the 2000 vote close enough to steal.

Would you have some mandatory sentencing for them? Just what SHOULD happen so they don't "get away with it?"

The best bargain in the forum today.

isn't that a fried lobster-style cop out for you?

Anyways,the poster never mentions flogging or mandatory sentencing.Nothing anywhere even close to either suggestion.

I must say,I feel I've become closer to you this past night.Like two ships meeting in the night.

... use the term "get away with it," which certainly denotes his belief that some sort of offense has gone unpunished. So asking what punishment he thinks should be metted out is legitimate. Flogging? Jail time? What?

I would simply not vote for them. I think someone who is inclined to cheat will cheat in any area it becomes convenient. I don't think there is a difference between private and public life when it comes to character.

:spray:

In your psychopseudo-wolfdreams.

:rofl:

"character matters!"

Democrats who want to spincharacter as irrelevant are damage the party's credibility. In my opinion. Of course, to some of us, character itself actually matters. Some of us actually think that honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity count. I don't think the rw media blitz of outrage over Bill Clinton's character flaws had anything to do with actually valuing integrity. I'm so sorry that you haven't been able to figure that out. It was, instead, a political opportunity. It had nothing to do with character, and everything to do with rw political ambitions. It was a pretty effective weapon, and his inability or unwillingness to keep his pants on around females who were not his wife handed them the weapon.

While the impeachment and media circus was a ridiculous farce, I don't hold Clinton blameless. He gave them the ammunition, after all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

possibly know why Hillary chose to 'stand by her man'. Could it be because she's a bimbo like the rest of Bill's girlfriends?

you on the other hand are a malevolent spirit, jaded and bitter..
what you sow, so shall ye reap!

The universe is full of people like you who wallow in the disrespect of mankind!

Her stances on the Iraq War and other major issues of the day are no longer relevant. Just so long as she lives up to the Tammy Wynette song, I'm voting for her.

Lots of couples stick together and work it out even if there's been cheating. The divorce rate would be a hell of a lot higher than it is (which is saying a lot) if this didn't happen frequently. Why would anyone see this as inherently a sign of weakness? It could just as easily be a sign of strength and maturity. True forgiveness isn't for weaklings, that's for sure--it's difficult! I don't know enough about the Clintons' relationship to judge, and I don't want to 'cause it's none of my business. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but I didn't lose any respect for her over this.

Really, what is the point of this post? How is this relevant to the issues facing our country?

There are plenty of valid reasons why many of us oppose the idea of Hillary Clinton becoming president...her choice to remain married to Bill Clinton is not necessarily one of them.

Hell, I could personally care less whether she's married or divorced to him. I simply don't trust her leadership abilities based on her actions since entering the U.S. Senate race.

You must be a Nader fanatic,and it's obvious you just hate the Clintons because they are successful.

I'm so sick of you far left lefties coming to DU and posting trash about Clinton.Don't you know that it gets in the way of the trash we're trying to post about Barack?

Why don't you and your pinko commie socialist sockpuppets get out of here? Don't you see the "DEMOCRATIC" in DemocraticUnderground? Can't you read?

We've got gold gilding to prepare for our statues of Bill and Hillary.We even plan on renaming some airports,highways,and possibly a state or two after them.

So there!

Hi Forkboy! :hi: ;)

The vast majority of Americans supported Bush at the beginning of the war and most subscribe to some sort of Christian identity where marriage without reason is sacred. I don't think that poll is worth much at all. I find her "standing by her man" comical and totally politically motivated.

In fact, it is completely irrelevant. Her marital life is none of my business.

as I find her. I agree, I find her marital life none of my business, but it is merely a sham that is a reflection of her whole person. I could care less who she screws, but let's not pretend that Hill and Bill are a good relationship.

I can't believe anyone is saying it's none of our business. He couldn't keep it in his pants, with a girl seven years older than his daughter, a White House intern, IN the White House. I think it's our business. I think the Clintons, (and the Kennedys), are sleazy people.

I would still vote for them because "sleazy" is better than "evil" and letting a Republican win would be evil but you can't make me like them.

(Waiting to watch Wyldwolf accuse me of wanting them tarred and feathered or flogged.)

I VOTED FOR HIM, TWICE and I will vote for her, if she's nominated. There is too much at stake to JUST vote on this issue but if I had a daughter she wouldn't be alone with the Lolitaphile.

...and I really doubt Hillary's reasons for sticking with him had anything to do with being honorable. She had her reasons but nothing to be lauded for. She probably didn't think "Divorced" would look good on her resume.

I will vote for her but I don't have to like her. Get over it.
Lee

In case anyone thinks I hold this position because I'm sexually uptight or something...give me a break. I was in my late teens and early twenties in the late 60s and early 70s. If it moved, we fucked it. I wouldn't care if they had an Official White House Brothel. It's the lying and the cheating and the sneaking and the Lolita stuff, I find so sleazy.

Then he's on the cover of Playboy with his crotch in everyone's face and a shit-eating grin, like..."aren't I bad? aren't I cute? wanna fuck?"

I would prefer a president not still in adolescence.
Lee