Clinton Marriage?

MMDad

Lem Putt
Pete said:
:yeahthat: The American memory is grossly short. They can probably even pull it off with 70% of the people buying it despite he was getting a :monica: in the oval office just a few years ago and the list of adultery allegations is a mile long.
Also there are a lot of people who think that she stuck by him out of love. They don't realize that their whole relationship is based on their political careers. I would bet that the last time they had sex (with each other) resulted in Chelsea. That's not to say she isn't getting any - Janet Reno's Parkinson's makes for some good diddlin'.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Larry Gude said:
Exactly and who cares and why is this news? I think it's fascinating that there actually is thought that ANYONE is gonna think of her candidacy (And my $1) in terms of her marriages health.

I think that's a pretty naive view... just ask the Kennedy's. If the story's of JFK's daliances are correct, they went to a great deal of trouble to cover them up. Why? Because people do care about your relation with your spouse. For example, if your spouse doesn't trust... how can I? Or of you can't be loyal to your spouse, how can you be loyal to me? And in this case, if you're willing to stick with a guy who I would guess about 90% of women of her intelligence would leave, what does that say about her?

Larry Gude said:
And yet we have so many, yes?
So... we should vote in one more? Yeah... that'll make things better! Maybe instead we should start calling these people what they are and not vote for them? Call me a radical. :lmao:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You wanna explain to me how it is...

Bruzilla said:
I think that's a pretty naive view... just ask the Kennedy's. If the story's of JFK's daliances are correct, they went to a great deal of trouble to cover them up. Why? Because people do care about your relation with your spouse. For example, if your spouse doesn't trust... how can I? Or of you can't be loyal to your spouse, how can you be loyal to me? And in this case, if you're willing to stick with a guy who I would guess about 90% of women of her intelligence would leave, what does that say about her?

So... we should vote in one more? Yeah... that'll make things better! Maybe instead we should start calling these people what they are and not vote for them? Call me a radical. :lmao:


...niave on the one hand to question whether anyone, today, is actually gonna be seeking a warm and fuzzy story about the Clinton's in order to justify supporting them and voting for them and then on the other hand presume my point was that we all should vote for her regardless of her marital health?

And your basis for this is...the way people viewed the world in early 1960's?

I'm naive? Try this on, pal. An awful lot of marriages end in divorce these days. An awful lot of second marriages end in divorce. The incident of divorce was dramatical lower in 1960.

Every steady of divorce, while disagreeing on how numbers are tallied and what they mean, all agree on one thing; the dramatic rise in divorce numbers started in the 1960's. I think people are aware, regardless of some story or efforts to conceal the truth, what the score is between Bill 'n Hill. We've learned alot about each other since then.

If you say people of today will vote for Hillary because a fluff piece was done on her marriage, whatever. That surprises me. But, seeings how I'm naive and all, I'll take your word for it.

How's my dollar doing?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Larry Gude said:
question whether anyone, today, is actually gonna be seeking a warm and fuzzy story about the Clinton's in order to justify supporting them

I suspect many voters simply want politicians to affirm the importance of marriage and family as principles. One big reason Adali Stevenson lost two elections for President was because he was divorced. That wasn't an issue for Reagan, and I believe that was because he was remarried.

Rightly or wrongly, many people equate singlehood with immaturity, especially in men. They expect their leaders to be "settled down." I have some objections to that. For one thing, it sounds like previous eras when people married as a way to have children or as an arrangement of convenience. (As several in this thread have pointed out, that probably describes the Clinton marriage.) For another, some people have the skills to be leaders but not the skills to live as co-equals in marriage. Would we really want a President who views having a spouse as a quick ticket to community respectability, like joining the Rotary or Kiwanis?
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Larry Gude said:
...niave on the one hand to question whether anyone, today, is actually gonna be seeking a warm and fuzzy story about the Clinton's in order to justify supporting them and voting for them and then on the other hand presume my point was that we all should vote for her regardless of her marital health?

And your basis for this is...the way people viewed the world in early 1960's?

I'm naive? Try this on, pal. An awful lot of marriages end in divorce these days. An awful lot of second marriages end in divorce. The incident of divorce was dramatical lower in 1960.

Every steady of divorce, while disagreeing on how numbers are tallied and what they mean, all agree on one thing; the dramatic rise in divorce numbers started in the 1960's. I think people are aware, regardless of some story or efforts to conceal the truth, what the score is between Bill 'n Hill. We've learned alot about each other since then.

If you say people of today will vote for Hillary because a fluff piece was done on her marriage, whatever. That surprises me. But, seeings how I'm naive and all, I'll take your word for it.

How's my dollar doing?

You're defeating your own argument Larry. The high number of divorices shows that now more than ever people have a good understanding of divorice and see little value in staying in a bad marriage. Back in the 1960s, I think your view of the situation would be more correct as a woman was expected to endure a bad marriage, but that's no longer the case. We husbands, for better or for worse, have become far more "disposable" these days. Back in the 1960s most people would look at a marriage like the Clintons have and feel that it was best for a woman to stand by her man. Nowadays you have most people wondering why she would even consider staying with him.

The higher divorice rate has only added to the "I Dumped Mine, So Why Doesn't She Dump Him" mentality in our country, and that's what'll have an impact.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bruzilla said:
The high number of divorices shows that now more than ever people have a good understanding of divorice and see little value in staying in a bad marriage. Back in the 1960s, I think your view of the situation would be more correct as a woman was expected to endure a bad marriage, but that's no longer the case. We husbands, for better or for worse, have become far more "disposable" these days. Back in the 1960s most people would look at a marriage like the Clintons have and feel that it was best for a woman to stand by her man. Nowadays you have most people wondering why she would even consider staying with him.

I don't think it's necessarily that husbands are more "disposable," although that might be true in some women's minds. In the 1960s, husbands could indulge in bad behavior (mistresses, long hours at the bar after work) and wives were expected to tolerate it. More women today won't put up with irresponsibile behavior from their men, and good for them. And men shouldn't put up with irresponsible behavior from their women, either.

I wasn't able to find the relevant column, but I read how many black women complain about the lack of black men who are marriage material. The columnist said that if black men want to attract these women, then they need to take responsibility for their own behavior.

My idea of marriage is that neither partner is the other's doormat. I tend to believe that when children are concerned, a divorce may be better than a bad marriage in many cases.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla said:
The higher divorice rate has only added to the "I Dumped Mine, So Why Doesn't She Dump Him" mentality in our country, and that's what'll have an impact.
Aye...there's the rub. The only women who think that aren't going to vote for Hillary in the first place. Women in this country love Bill Clinton, not Hillary. If she'd have dumped him, there would be women all over America going, "Are you CRAZY???" and lining up for their shot at the big man.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
How does that...

Bruzilla said:
You're defeating your own argument Larry. The high number of divorices shows that now more than ever people have a good understanding of divorice and see little value in staying in a bad marriage. Back in the 1960s, I think your view of the situation would be more correct as a woman was expected to endure a bad marriage, but that's no longer the case. We husbands, for better or for worse, have become far more "disposable" these days. Back in the 1960s most people would look at a marriage like the Clintons have and feel that it was best for a woman to stand by her man. Nowadays you have most people wondering why she would even consider staying with him.

The higher divorice rate has only added to the "I Dumped Mine, So Why Doesn't She Dump Him" mentality in our country, and that's what'll have an impact.

...defeat my argument? If anything, you're illustrating my point that people understand she is staying in a bad marriage for the wrong reasons and no one is buying it.

And how does that address the well being of my dollar?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Any man...

Tonio said:
I suspect many voters simply want politicians to affirm the importance of marriage and family as principles. One big reason Adali Stevenson lost two elections for President was because he was divorced. That wasn't an issue for Reagan, and I believe that was because he was remarried.

Rightly or wrongly, many people equate singlehood with immaturity, especially in men. They expect their leaders to be "settled down." I have some objections to that. For one thing, it sounds like previous eras when people married as a way to have children or as an arrangement of convenience. (As several in this thread have pointed out, that probably describes the Clinton marriage.) For another, some people have the skills to be leaders but not the skills to live as co-equals in marriage. Would we really want a President who views having a spouse as a quick ticket to community respectability, like joining the Rotary or Kiwanis?


...who is NOT gaining the perspective and broader understanding of how life works that ONLY marriage teaches will NOT get my vote to be President.

Nothing is more challenging. Nothing is more rewarding. Bill Clinton is not a 'married' man. JFK was not. Newt is/was not. Reagan was a 'married' man his second time around. I think W is a 'married' man.

Marriage is a state of being, an activity, not an adjective. Like 'parent' is a job, not a title.

Hillary seems to be hung up on the perception and you're probably right; plenty of people will buy how it looks and not how it works.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Larry Gude said:
...defeat my argument? If anything, you're illustrating my point that people understand she is staying in a bad marriage for the wrong reasons and no one is buying it.

And how does that address the well being of my dollar?

No, if anything you're defeating your argument. Remember back to the heady-days of 2003 when "everyone knew" that Howard Dean already had the keys to the Oval Office in his back pocket? He was vehemently anti-war, anti-business, anti-tax cuts, pro-abortion, etc., and he was the pick of every pundit and a big majority of Democrats in every poll. But when people actually went to the polls and had to throw the lever, they threw it for someone else. I think it's one thing for a politician to lose popularity in a regular slide, but for someone to be way ahead as the front runner and have most people just not vote for him, that's pretty unique. So why did it happen? This guy was the poster child for everything Democrats loved, but couldn't get any votes.

I think it's because of the "X" factor, with "X" being defined as (stated unscientifically) "there's just something about that guy that worries me." It was easier to quantify the "X" factor after the "I Have A Scream" speech, but what about all the primaries that he lost before that. What was it that turned people off at the last second? I know that for my parents it was after they heard that Dean's wife is Jewish (my parents don't like Jews) and nothing more than that. They supported every position Dean took, but wouldn't vote for him because of something as trivial as the religion of his wife. So what else was there? I think there were issues of trust involved, and I also think a larger percentage of Dems supported the war in Iraq than polls were showing, but only the folks who didn't vote for him know for sure.

So... what will be Hillary's "X" factor? I think that her willingness to stay in a bad relationship for reasons of personal gain and political power, just won't sit well with a lot of people. It shows a character flaw, and people notice those even when they don't realize they're noticing them. That's, I think, why people could say they would vote for Dean during a poll, but when it came time to pull the lever they decided "there's just something about that guy that worries me." I don't think that her marriage be a direct political issue, but it will certainly play a role in developing that "X" factor.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
I liked the Howard Dean Scream, because for that one moment, he seemed like a real human being to me and not just another robotic politician.
 
Last edited:

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Larry Gude said:
...who is NOT gaining the perspective and broader understanding of how life works that ONLY marriage teaches will NOT get my vote to be President. Nothing is more challenging. Nothing is more rewarding.

You have a point, but that concept of marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back when marriages were loveless arrangements for procreation or social standing, men didn't gain that broader perspective because they still lived "single" lifestyles. Raising children was "women's work," and the men had no accountability within the marriage. That was somewhat true even as late as the 1950s, when men were allegedly the heads of households. I believe the challenges and rewards come when the marriage is a give-and-take between equals.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
What does all that have to do...

Bruzilla said:
No, if anything you're defeating your argument. Remember back to the heady-days of 2003 when "everyone knew" that Howard Dean already had the keys to the Oval Office in his back pocket? He was vehemently anti-war, anti-business, anti-tax cuts, pro-abortion, etc., and he was the pick of every pundit and a big majority of Democrats in every poll. But when people actually went to the polls and had to throw the lever, they threw it for someone else. I think it's one thing for a politician to lose popularity in a regular slide, but for someone to be way ahead as the front runner and have most people just not vote for him, that's pretty unique. So why did it happen? This guy was the poster child for everything Democrats loved, but couldn't get any votes.

I think it's because of the "X" factor, with "X" being defined as (stated unscientifically) "there's just something about that guy that worries me." It was easier to quantify the "X" factor after the "I Have A Scream" speech, but what about all the primaries that he lost before that. What was it that turned people off at the last second? I know that for my parents it was after they heard that Dean's wife is Jewish (my parents don't like Jews) and nothing more than that. They supported every position Dean took, but wouldn't vote for him because of something as trivial as the religion of his wife. So what else was there? I think there were issues of trust involved, and I also think a larger percentage of Dems supported the war in Iraq than polls were showing, but only the folks who didn't vote for him know for sure.

So... what will be Hillary's "X" factor? I think that her willingness to stay in a bad relationship for reasons of personal gain and political power, just won't sit well with a lot of people. It shows a character flaw, and people notice those even when they don't realize they're noticing them. That's, I think, why people could say they would vote for Dean during a poll, but when it came time to pull the lever they decided "there's just something about that guy that worries me." I don't think that her marriage be a direct political issue, but it will certainly play a role in developing that "X" factor.


...with the comedy of Hillary's camp putting out an illusion?

Let me see if I have you straight;

1. Hillary is putting out that she and Bill love each other and cherish their limited time together.

2. This is a strategy that will work on your parents because they like happily married non-Jews.

3. I am naive to think this is not the case.

That it?

BTW, how's my dollar, acruing? In escrow I hope.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ps...

...no one had Howard IN the Whitehouse; they had him as the Dem nominee and Carl Rove having him fitted on the wall for his spot over the fireplace with an apple in his mouth.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I disagree...

Tonio said:
You have a point, but that concept of marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back when marriages were loveless arrangements for procreation or social standing, men didn't gain that broader perspective because they still lived "single" lifestyles. Raising children was "women's work," and the men had no accountability within the marriage. That was somewhat true even as late as the 1950s, when men were allegedly the heads of households. I believe the challenges and rewards come when the marriage is a give-and-take between equals.


Read about Lincoln and his wife Mary. Fascinating stuff. William and Francis Seward. Salmon Chase and his daughter Kate for that matter.

I guess I should ask how far back you are going. Madisons wife, Washingtons wife, many (most?) had the kind of relationship I am talking about.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla said:
So... what will be Hillary's "X" factor? I think that her willingness to stay in a bad relationship for reasons of personal gain and political power, just won't sit well with a lot of people.
I don't think that's it. From my own perspective and listening to other people, her "X" factor is her lack of normalcy.

The impression you get of Bill is that he's an okay sort, maybe not the best President in the world, but you'd like him if you met him in real life. Hillary never gives that impression - you feel like she'd sit there with this frozen smile, trying to pretend she didn't want to get the hell out of there. She comes across as meaner than dirt. You can picture her saying, "Get the hell out of my way, you stupid peon :buttkick: ".

Notice she has no friends? Laura Bush's girl parties are legend - she's always got female pals hanging out at the White House. This gaggle of chicks that go shopping and lunch. Bill has friends, golf buddies, pals he hangs around with.

Hillary has business associates and that's about it.

Have you ever seen "Tin Cup" where the Don Johnson character plays it up for the cameras, then acts like a jerk to the kid and his grandparents who ask for an autograph? That's Hillary Clinton. And it's going to cost her if she runs for President.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Vrai, now I have this image of Hillary as overcontrolled like Bree on "Desperate Houswives."
 
Top