Monica Lewinsky back in the news

[LongTimeListener]

I like the cross current:

"Go ahead GOP, make a big deal about it." & "No one cares, how dare you raise it."

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 heck this is the main plank on their platform. Because the American people don't want to hear it.

 

[YankeeFan]

"No one cares, how dare you raise it."

Who has said, "How dare you raise it."

People just don't think it's a winning strategy.

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

 

[doctorquant]

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

 

[cranberry]

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

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

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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?

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Perjury was a crime back in the 90s, right?

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.

 

[cranberry]

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.

Why would Democrats be afraid of an HRC presidency?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I often wonder what it would take for some one like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to do for Baron to disown them.

Found it!

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_25730092/obama-at-walmart-hundreds-gather-outside-mountain-view

It's the right thing to do because when you save that money you can pass that money back to consumers in the form of lower prices, or you can create more jobs.

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

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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?

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?

 

[JayFarrar]

I've heard the idea that such a relationship can't be consensual. I don't buy it.

It can certainly lead to problems and can be uncomfortable and is not a good idea for running a business or a government, as much for the effect it has on the overall team as for the people involved. Fairness matters, etc.

But "not consensual" is the assault/rape category. And I don't see any logic at all to putting the Lewinsky case in that group.

So, we should reserve that group for Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick?

That you assume those women to be credible -- no, not just credible, but telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a non-influenced way despite who their lawyers and sponsors were -- says all we need to say about it.

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.