From today's WaPo LTTE, what we face if Hilary is the nominee...

[roseBudd]

"Unlike Ms. Clinton, I would hope my daughter would be independent and strong enough to know she doesn't have to settle for a husband who can't stay faithful to her."

It's such a silly argument against her, but I'm not looking forward to having to argue that point during GOTV. If you think adultery is unforgiveable, you won't forgive Hilary for not divorcing Bill.

[Sparkly]

1. And what would that say about Republicans like Giuliani? nt

[skipos]

2. "He is only human." "People make mistakes." "911!!! Terror!!!" nt

[roseBudd]

3. It doesn't matter because I won't be arguing for his election, but there is a double standard

Hilary stayed married to a philanderer, Rudy is the philanderer

I am not a Hilary hater, I just want to win. Winning the 08 election is very important. SCOTUS

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Are You Arrogating To Yourself Which Couples Should Stay Married And Which Couples Shouldn't?

And what are the grounds for divorce in your mind and which aren't?

[BOSSHOG]

4. So I guess conservatives willl just shitcan the "sanctity of marriage"

If Clinton wins the nomination I so look forward to the contortions the right wing hate and disinformation machine will find themselves in. They should be pathetically amusing.

Maybe they will insist that Vince Foster's body be exhumed with the faux news cameras rolling. Then another examination of Bill Clinton's semen. Yes honor and integrity brought to you by christian conservative.

[spooky3]

5. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This writer sounds like

Mrs. Vitter--so quick to judge someone else's situation and proclaim how you would be "superior", then when you face something similar, you don't behave anything like what you said you would.

[roseBudd]

6. A recent article explored the connection between rising divorce rates beginning in

I think it was the 70s and tied it to a increased beleif that adultery was unforgiveable.

[spooky3]

8. I'd like to see that article. It seems far more likely to me that

increased economic opportunities for women, better legal protections, better birth control, etc., were more important factors. They made it easier for men and women to avoid bad marriages and get out of them if they could not be improved.

People who have the kind of rigid mindset that judges the Clintons on their personal decisions (particularly without knowing all the facts or having been in their shoes) are in my opinion, highly unlikely to be Democrats or liberal leaning independents in the first place. Clinton has not lost any votes of such people.

[roseBudd]

22. Found it, I must have seen it on WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301716.html

Back in the days when John F. Kennedy took women for a dip in the presidential pool without a peep from the press, Americans didn't automatically assume that cheaters had personality defects. To the contrary, their behavior could be seen as glamorous or as evidence of a passionate streak. In 1973, slightly less than 70 percent of Americans said that adultery was "always wrong," compared with 82 percent in 2004. Though Americans generally agreed that infidelity was bad, it was an offense they could live with. "We didn't have guilt then," a retiree in her 70s now living in Florida told me, reflecting on the affairs she and her married girlfriends had in the 1960s.

snip


The fidelity rules, for presidents and for ordinary people, began changing in the 1970s. Most states adopted no-fault divorce, transforming marriage from a durable container for all kinds of transgressions into a disposable one. Indiscretions that once were tolerated suddenly became grounds for dismissal. And Americans increasingly had the means to walk away, because more women worked. As tolerance for infidelity fell, the national divorce rate doubled between 1967 and 1979. A generation of brides and grooms read one another the one-strike rule: Cheat, and it's over.

These new demands on marriage fanned the fledgling industry of couples therapy. Psychologists had once assumed that only one fragile psyche could be dealt with at a time, but in the 1970s, they decided that "the relationship" was itself an entity that could be studied and prodded. The ranks of couples therapists quickly multiplied, creating an army of people preaching that an affair isn't just about sex; it's a symptom of other problems

snip

The American public was satisfied on all points but one: Hillary Clinton appeared to tolerate her husband's repeated infidelities. That's not part of the script. Marriage experts were flooded with phone calls demanding to know whether the Clinton marriage was merely a political arrangement; many people found it inconceivable that the relationship could still be based on love.

[spooky3]

23. Thanks for finding this. But the article does not report

controlled academic research on this topic, let alone research published in top quality refereed journals. That's what it must do to be the slightest bit convincing. All that's in the article are poll results, which can't determine cause and effect, and the author's opinions, and the author does not appear to be a research scientist.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. Some of the Clinton supporters who are Dem activists

Operate in a protected little bubble of where they pretty much only encounter other Democrats or progressive-minded people. I think that may be the case with the "Hillbots" here. It definitely is with the supporters I know in my community. They work in nonprofits and the like. Therefore they can convince themselves that there isn't still a huge element of irrational dislike of the Clintons, and her in particular, in the general population.

Those of us who spend more time at voter registration booths at county fairs than at cocktail parties, get an earful of stuff like that LTTE, and not just from rabid wingnuts. Those of us who live in Red states and work among a lot of Republicans and Independents have a very different perspective on public opinion toward Hillary than the pundits and pollsters. As for the wingnuts, in just the past 2 weeks I've been treated to several tirades by about the Clintons, Monica, etc. They now have a legitimate opportunity to bring all this shit up again. I'm bracing myself for another onslaught of it. It's one of the main reasons I dreaded her being the nominee.

Plus, women are too often still blamed for their husbands' indiscretions. It's Hillary's fault Bill stepped out on her because she failed to keep him home or control him. It's her fault for not divorcing him afterward. Of course, if she had divorced him, she would have been slammed for not being "understanding" and for breaking up her family and putting Chelsea through a divorce. She was in a no-win situation, and still is with that one. :(

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. The Wing Nuts Hated Bill Clinton So Much They Made Him The Third Greatest President In

American History

Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm

And the wingnuts are the reason Bill Clinton is popular as George Bush is unpopular:



At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

Oh, Hillary doesn't have to make everybody like her...She only has to make a plurality or majority of people like her to win.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Bill won by pluralities, both times

Unless a 3rd party candidate that helps us comes on board, Hillary has to win a majority.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Been There Done That

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.


http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[Frances]

15. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary

I have yet to see a positive story on him in the media. If I missed one, let me know.

However, I have read two stories in the Washington Post on how much Edwards pays for a haircut. One of these stories made the front page.

I read the Post's online question-and-answer chats with reporters. I seem to remember John Solomon, who wrote one of the haircut stories, defending his article when a reader complained about the significance of the haircut versus more important issues such as health care.

If Edwards wins the Dem nomination, he will be attacked as a hypocrite (hair and investments and size of his house) and as an irreponsible lawyer (lawyers aren't exactly loved by most Americans).

If Obama is the winner of the primary, he will be attacked as a Muslim.

If Dodd is the nominee, he will be attacked as an effete Eastern liberal in the mold of Dukakis.

Bottom line: Hillary is vulnerable to right wing attacks. But so are the others.

If Jesus Christ ran as a Democrat, he would be swift boated for not getting a haircut; for consorting with and defending prostitutes (Jesus was no Vitter with fake apologies!); for advocating separation of church and state (remember "Render unto Caesar" and "pray in silence"?); for his condemnation of the rich ("harder for a rich man to get in heaven....); for his advocacy for the poor ("Blessed are the poor").

No, Dems will just have to do the best we can to defend our candidate, whoever it is.

[pnwmom]

11. You're wrong about that -- fundies don't believe in divorce, although

they do it all the time. And they at least pay lip service to forgiveness.

Even in the case of adultery, it's considered much better to "stand by your man."

[OKNancy]

12. All she has to do is say: I love Bill

and I wanted to stay with him. Most people are pretty much mush-pots about that sort of thing.

It's a stupid argument anyway. The person who wrote that wasn't going to vote for her anyway...or probably any Democrat..so fuck 'um.

[Rhythm and Blue]

13. And here I thought marriage was sacrosanct,

and divorce was a sign of terrible family values. :crazy:

[Vickers]

14. At least she's not a divorce statistic like Rush, Rudy, Ronnie Raygun,

Newt, Phil Gramm, George Will, Bob Barr, John Warner, "Dick" Armey, Bob Dole, George Allen, etc. etc.

Defense Of Marriage...indeed.

[dorktv]

17. Republicans love marriage, they do it so often.

[CK_John]

18. You do realize single parent families exceed the number of traditional families. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. This is Bass-Ackwards

If there is anything we can say with some confidence about Jesus Christ it is that he was utterly opposed to divorce, and that divorce and remarriage is ADULTERY.

That is the very first position Christ takes in the gospels. That is the most unambiguous message of the earliest Christian texts we have.

No Republican will openly criticize anyone for not getting a divorce because opposition to divorce is a core RW religious value.

(And Catholics aren't crazy about it either.)

The only people who have a problem with Hillary sticking with her marriage are feminists and single women, and they are her core supporters, despite whatever discomfort they have with that one thing.

[cuke]

20. Why should I care what you arent looking forward to?

This isn't American Idol