Everyone is talking about "Swiftboating" but ...

[jmp]

What effect do you think Monica Lewinsky could have on the '08 election if Hillary is the nominee? There is no separating Bill from Hillary, so how would Hillary handle a "tell all" by Monica ... be it truth or fiction?

What if Lewinsky she alleges sexual harassment?

I'm sure that she is being offered a ton of money for a tell all as we speak ... and we all know the media loves a sex scandal.


And before anyone says it ... yeah, I have definitely become anti-Clinton.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. What if? What if? What would happen???

This could be directly off FR, with the inflection changed slightly from "I hope" to "What if".

:eyes: MKJ

[jmp]

6. You're right ... there's no point ...

In looking both ways before stepping off the curb. :eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. it does not matter who wins the primary--the "swiftboating" will begin

in full force. I am not going to allow the criminal-neo-cons to choose my candidate by attempting to redefine them with the use of their cohort the media.

[Trajan]

3. Be scared ....

Be VERY VERY scared ....

Ooooooohhhhh .....

[papau]

4. Turned out that the "Clinton scandals" were just "swiftboating" - so a true or fiction sex

book will not be a problem

Hell I am sure there are Hillary is a lesbian book offers out there (nothing wrong about that if true - but not a plus in 08 election)

I think Hillary knows how to handle any such GOP ploy.

[jmp]

7. Bill Clinton & Monuca Lewinsky had sex.

There is NO doubt about that unless you want to argue that oral sex isn't sex. And there is no doubt that Clinton was her boss ... or her bosses boss. An allegation of sexual harassment would not be so easily dismissed as you'd like to believe.

Now whether she would do it or not is a whole other matter ... but the danger is certainly there.

And you can be sure that the rest of the clowns in that circus will be back for a second act.

[papau]

9. Consenting adults with no claim of harrassment is Nada - but I agree there will be a second act for

the GOP smear merchants and their friends in the media.

Hell, VoteVets can't even place an add on the rado because the company - with over a 1000 radio stations - also carries Rush, and the CEO feels that such an ad would annoy his Rush listeners

so yes - there well indeed be a second act - but I suspect such an act would occur no matter who we nominate.

[karynnj]

27. Legality is not the only issue

something can be legal and still be wrong. There are many people who found the relationship repulsive. I would have had an easier time accepting it if is was a genuine affair where their was respect, love and affection between them.

[karynnj]

26. Some were and some weren't

1) Without parsing words, Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was absolutely despicable. He should not have been impeached for it, but it showed an extremely obnoxious side of an otherwise charming man. It also showed that he was willing to lie straight faced to his wife, VP and to the country. You can argue that it is not important, but you can not say it did not happen.

2) Thanks to McAuliffe, there were campaign finance scandals. Gore, who was one of the cleanest men in DC ended up having his name tarnished because of this in 2000. The fact is that the Clintons were willing to cut corners ethically. (Note that Hillary is similarly spreading responsibility on the Tsu contributions by answering that her campaign was just one of dozens that missed looking into him - ignoring that the responsibility to know someone giving $850,000 is different than $2,000, spread over multiple donations or $7,000 over multiple donations and campaigns.)

3) Marc Rich - even accepting it was just payback for his ex-wives donations looks bad. That he is a BCCI figure, accused of commodity manipulations that defrauded the US government. He was never tried on this because he was a fugitive.

4) Bill Clinton's current refusal to make public the donations to his foundation. This is a possible source of concern as people could think they are buying access or influence, covertly. Hillary's answer was disingenuous.

The above are areas where the Clintons can be criticized - they are real.

There are lies - and we all know some of them, but it is ridiculous to say that they are 100% clean and then mention the outrageous lies to call all attacks on the Clinton swiftboating.

You cannot underestimate the revulsion I feel when you imply that the Clinton relationship with Monica is swiftboating. Kerry was in fact a war hero, who did put his life at risk. He had a military record that was exemplory. Nixon investigated it and found there was nothing there to discredit him. Kerry has every reason to be proud of what that time showed of his character, when it was severely tested. The SBVT lied. On Clinton/Lewinsky, what Clinton says is the truth is a smudge on Clinton's character and even the most loyal Clinton fan will likely find it a positive.

In other words, swiftboating used lies to destroy a positive attribute. This would be using truth to reopen a negative. They couldn't be more different.

[planetc]

5. First of all, Swiftboating means smearing with lies ...

First, in the general field of political smears of a personal nature, "Swiftboating" has a specific meaning, which is that the smear is composed of lies, unproven innuendos, and general misrepresentation of the facts. (Bill Clinton was smeared with the irrelevant truth when they accused him of a fling with Ms Lewinsky.)

Second, "There is no separating Bill from Hillary" is debatable. Sensible adults have always been able to distinguish between these two people since we first heard of them. Probably you mean that what we laughingly call the Press, or the Media, will hold either one responsible for the imagined or real sins of the other.

Third, Ms Lewinsky has doubtless turned down offers of lots of money on numerous occasions from 1998 to date. She appears to want no part of cashing in on her moment of notoriety. Why would she change her mind now? Are you alleging that she just hasn't been offered enough money yet? If so, you are smearing her character, and if you want to do that, what evidence do you have for your innuendo?

Fourth, if you think Ms Lewinsky has a case for a charge of sexual harassment, you are unfamiliar with the full background on the charges brought by Paula Jones against the president. To understand that background, I recommend you read The Hunting of the President, Conason and Lyons, 2001 or so. Ms Jones had no case for harassment, and the presiding judge dismissed the suit before trial on those grounds. So are you saying, again, that Ms Lewinsky would lie about her treatment by the president for money and fame? If so, what evidence do you have that she would do that?

And last, the press hasn't learned much from its own sins since 1991, but it would prefer a fresh sex scandal if it can get it.

So, if you are actually hoping that Sen. Clinton gets Swiftboated by Ms Lewinsky, you're contributing to the abysmal level of political discourse in this country. I had hoped that people on this board might be in favor of raising the level of discourse.

If you had to make a case against Sen. Clinton's qualifications or candidacy, without reference to her husband's ancient sins, what would that case be?

[jmp]

8. 1) I thought the title made the distinction clear.

2) Hillary's greatest strength is her husband and his record. He is also her top fund raiser. If the stuff hits the fan, Hillary will not be able to sidestep the issue. She will be dragged into the mud.

3) More money has sealed every deal ever negotiated.

4) The Jones case is irrelevant. Would Lewinsky lie? Secretly screwing around with your married boss by definition entails lying or at least a willingness to. Was that even a serious question?

5) No doubt. But in the absence of fresh meat ... a warmed over sex scandal with new allegations will do just fine for filling the airwaves with crap. After all, Anna Nicole Smith can't drop dead every week.


So, if you are actually hoping that Sen. Clinton gets Swiftboated by Ms Lewinsky, you're contributing to the abysmal level of political discourse in this country. I had hoped that people on this board might be in favor of raising the level of discourse.

lol! I'm not nearly so holy.


If you had to make a case against Sen. Clinton's qualifications or candidacy, without reference to her husband's ancient sins, what would that case be?

She voted for the Iraq war. Lied about being misled about the evidence. And then followed that up recently with a vote to approve the designation and by way of the "war on terror", the targeting of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

She seems to be quite the bloodthirsty little warmonger.

[papau]

12. She voted to give Bush the negotiating tool of an ability to go to war - "lied" implies you know

she had information that told her Bush was telling lies - I don't believe that.

Her judgment was not as good as Obama or Dodd - but that is about it. She gave to much credit to the idea that a President does not lie about the need for war. That fact may well work in her favor since it tells one where she is coming from and how she thinks a President must act- so to speak.

[jmp]

13. She voted to authorize WAR.

War means bombs and killing. There is nothing ambiguous or deceptive about it.

As for the Bush lies ... the bulk of the Iraq file Bush had came from the Clinton administration. Every allegation Bush made was made by Bill while he was in office. The policy of regime change was not Bush policy ... it was Clinton policy.

W lied

Bill lied

Hillary lied

We've been getting lied to for decades now by this Bush/Clinton tag team. :eyes:

[papau]

17. nuances are important - quality of intel deemed poor during Bill's term - Bush said

quality had improved and was now certain.

Regime change was 98 - Clinton - but it was being done via sanctions, with forced on Saddam inspections.

Bush also said his purpose was to get the inspectors in and get a report - then he pulled the inspectors and attacked.

It is Bush's war - no one else's.

[karynnj]

28. Dodd voted for it too

Also, it was not just lies about WMD. Many were skeptical but could not rule out 100% that there were WMD.

There were a whole different set of Bush lies:

- He said he would work with the UN
- He said that he would get inspectors in and let them complete their job
- He said that he would pursue all possible diplomacy
- He said that he would create a genuine coalition, including the neighboring states if Saddam became an imminent threat - which he didn't .
- He said he would go to war only as a last resort

Until the Downing Street Memos surfaced, we could say he was wrong about WMD and that he cherry picked the intelligence, but we could not say that he lied. Even in 2003, the additional set of lies was known. That is when it became obvious that Bush had not acted in good faith. That was when those who had voted because they wanted to give Bush the leverage of being able to say that he had the country behind him to pressure a Saddam many felt would not provide the intensive inspections needed should have spoken out.

For those who had voted for the IWR for that reason, speaking out than carried the risk that they would be speaking against the war as the country was plunged into it and it was very popular. They would be labeled anti-war, if the war was deemed successful.

By the way, Dodd voted for the IWR.

[jcrew2001]

20. If Lewinsky was fired I think she would have a case

against Bill or the Federal Govt.

Just imagine the Taxpayers subsidizing a Sexual harassment settlement for Bill Clinton's actions.

Big Govt at its finest!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Yawn

DSB

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. You Don't ...

What if you had an employer who threatened to fire you for not having sex with him or her?

(Quid pro quo harassment)

Would you be o k with that?

What if you had an employer who bombarded you on a daily basis with ribald jokes after you asked him or her to desist?

(Hostile work place harassment)

Would you be o k with that?

Bill Clinton had sex with a subordinate, a much younger and perhaps impressionable one, but that's not sexual harassment as defined by law...It did show a degree of moral laxity or human failing but it was not actionable...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Hillary's highest popularity was during the Lewinsky business. What's your point?

[opihimoimoi]

14. Are you a Rat Pub coming here to make trouble??? Jus askin////...

[jmp]

23. In that case I'd be backing Hillary.

:eyes:

[opihimoimoi]

31. Its a Pub Plot??? to denigrate the strongest candidate?

[Maribelle]

15. The right wing hate mongers always said it wasn't about sex.

I don't think that they are in any position today to regard Lewinsky as a good tool to go after Hillary with.


Why on earth do you?

[sampsonblk]

16. I am sure Mrs Clinton took this into account years ago

If she isn't afraid to run, then she must have prepared for this in advance.

[jcrew2001]

22. bill's hear surgery was actually a cover to remove his

testicles.

[jmp]

24. Hillary has nothing to lose by running.

Today she is a US Senator as a member of the majority. If she runs and loses ... nothing changes. Where is the downside for her?

We are the ones that have to worry about it.

[illinoisprogressive]

18. We laugh at the republicans who elected bush because of his name, so

why do the democrats have to do the same. Isn't the fact that it was a bad idea in 2000 enough to convince people it's still a bad idea. Do we need to copy republicans making dumb mistakes?
That alone is enough ammunition for the republicans to hit home on.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

29. Or the simpler possibility - she still likes or loves him

[MonkeyFunk]

30. pure unadulterated bullshit

worthy of Rush Limbaugh.