brewcrew4you wrote:Bill Clinton will be the most influential First Spouse in history, by a wide margin (both publically and privately). His campaigning for Hilary is as a former President, not just her husband. As such, he is held to a higher standard than the other First Ladies. Might not be fair, but that's life.
Hold him to whatever standard you want, but his wife shouldn't be judged according to his actions.
I didn't think it was a knock on McCain when his Florida campaign director (or whatever the guy's title was) was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom, and it shouldn't be a knock on Hillarly that her husband has switched his stance on gays in the military since he left office.
While your stance is admirable, if you don't think wives (and now husbands) are a critical part of the campaiging process, you haven't been paying attention. Tipper Gore's war on music lyrics, for example. If being "a good family [wo]man" didn't matter to voters (and therefore, by extension, having an electable spouse), we'd have a single President. God knows they could do the job better if they didn't have a family to focus on - being President is time consuming enough.
brewcrew4you wrote:Bill Clinton will be the most influential First Spouse in history, by a wide margin (both publically and privately). His campaigning for Hilary is as a former President, not just her husband. As such, he is held to a higher standard than the other First Ladies. Might not be fair, but that's life.
Hold him to whatever standard you want, but his wife shouldn't be judged according to his actions.
I didn't think it was a knock on McCain when his Florida campaign director (or whatever the guy's title was) was arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom, and it shouldn't be a knock on Hillarly that her husband has switched his stance on gays in the military since he left office.
While your stance is admirable, if you don't think wives (and now husbands) are a critical part of the campaiging process, you haven't been paying attention. Tipper Gore's war on music lyrics, for example. If being "a good family [wo]man" didn't matter to voters (and therefore, by extension, having an electable spouse), we'd have a single President. God knows they could do the job better if they didn't have a family to focus on - being President is time consuming enough.
I'm not saying spouses don't play a key role in any campaign (nor do I think that they shouldn't), and if they are speaking at a campaign stop, then whatever they say absolutely must be accounted for by the campaign. That's not my gripe. If you say 'Bill Clinton said the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is bad so Hillary Clinton's campaign must answer for that claim" that's fine. But if you say "Bill Clinton changed his stance on a topic so Hillary Clinton's campaign must answer for that" I disagre.
Essentially, if you think the message that Bill Clinton gives while speaking for his wife's campaign is bad, then by all means, hold her responsible for it. But if you think Bill Clinton is wrong or a hypocrite for reversing his stance on an issue, hold Bill Clinton responsible for that.
Art Vandelay wrote:Essentially, if you think the message that Bill Clinton gives while speaking for his wife's campaign is bad, then by all means, hold her responsible for it. But if you think Bill Clinton is wrong or a hypocrite for reversing his stance on an issue, hold Bill Clinton responsible for that.
What if he changed his stance while speaking for his wife's campaign?
Wikipedia wrote:["Don't ask, don't tell"] was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.
The policy that Clinton passed was a compromise. His stance all along was that the military should be able to serve regardless of sexual orientation. The world was much more homophobic even 8 years ago, I don't think he would have been able to pass something that read that homosexuals could be in the military and be openly gay while doing so. I think that Hilary thinks that today there is a better chance of being able to pass something a little bit better than "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for the homosexuals.
Art Vandelay wrote:the General in question has said that he was not told or encouraged to ask that question by anyone from the Clinton campaign.
And all the man did was ask a question.
In the world of politics, this is much ado about nothing. Save your outrage for when the swiftboat ads start.
What outrage?
The people who posted comments in the link you provided seemed pretty outraged to me.
Here's one,
When a major news organization colludes with one candidate or party to destroy the other, we've lost our free press. This is SCANDAL. Congress and the FCC should get involved. Hillary Clinton 's dirty tactics are reminiscent of Commmunist Russia. This is not an exaggeration. If Hillary is elected, forget this country as we now know it. Cry SCANDAL!
BTW, CNN flew the guy in for the debate. And they didn't even know who he is. Amazing! What more proof does anyone need?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"Steal a little and they'll throw you in jail, steal a lot and they'll make you a king." - Bob Dylan
5 wrote:He might not be the most popular but Ron Paul was clearly the smartest guy on the stage, IMO.
Bingo! welcome!
To addressthe thread topic though, CNN has a ton of egg on their face in this. Michelle Malkin (who I view as a 99% hack) had a solid post on her site today showing that 3 other questioners were headstrong Dems with specific candidate affiliations/support. If CNN did the bare minimum of research they would have found this out.
bleach,
I think this is important and modestly outrage-worthy becasue the primary is about who republicans are going to pick for themselves. This is not to say that questions from Ds are inherently going to be bad, but Rs who are trying to decide on a candidate should be hearing candidates respond to quesdtions that concern the people who are actually going to cast a vote for or against them in a primary. Peeing in the pool ain't cool.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by brewcrew4you » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:21 pm 
