1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Monica Lewinsky back in the news

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Drip, May 7, 2014.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't think any of us is saying "how dare you raise it."

    I've said quite a few times here and elsewhere that I hope like hell this is the main plank on their platform. Because the American people don't want to hear it.
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    If it wasn't a winning issue for the GOP, then they'd be thrilled to talk about it.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    If you're going to compare a Gewurztraminer to an omelette ...
     
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    What exactly is left to talk about? It was covered pretty well back in 1998, as I recall.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I wonder who's more afraid of a Hillary presidency, Republicans, or Democrats?

    Based on the folks rushing to back Hillary, and get on her good side, I'm leaning towards Dems.

    Rahm Emanuel, who Hillary tried to get fired, has endorsed her, and David Geffen, who famously said the Clintons lied “with such ease, it’s troubling,” now says he will “absolutely” support Hillary in 2016.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I also like the how folks have argued both that it was extensively covered in 1998 and that younger voters aren't even aware of the issues surrounding Hillary, so they are not worth discussing.

    If so many younger voters don't know about the cattle trading, the land deals, the WH travel office, the Rose billing records, and the Bimbo Eruption Team, then why shouldn't they be explored all over again?
     
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    When younger men realize that the reason it's so easy to get head is that Bill got it, that will swing the male vote to the Democrats forever.
     
  8. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Sure it is.

    Except in Clinton's case, it was from a private matter, not through his job. He allegedly perjured himself in a private lawsuit.

    Millions of people have criminal records. Doesn't mean that they can never hold a job again.
     
  9. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Why would Democrats be afraid of an HRC presidency?
     
  10. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    How nice. Of course, that's the hope. Likely, Walmart will just pocket the money themselves.
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    How would all of that affect them personally? Why would they care?

    Wouldn't they be more concerned, oh, I don't know, about jobs and student loans and health care?
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    No kidding.

    Claims there easily dismissed at the time because they were found not to be credible have suddenly become the gold standard of truthfulness to partisans wanting to rewage the wars of the 90s.

    Outside of partisans very few people cared then, fast forward two decades and this suddenly becomes an issue that the public has to know?

    Only to the political reporters and partisans who came of age in the Clinton years because for most people, the 90s were golden years. People had jobs and money and good times.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page