The case against Hillary Clinton

[Spindrift]

In case you didn't notice, there was a lot more to the article. I'd tell you to go read it, but no doubt you'd protest that you already have. But here are some of the main points, all of which are far more serious than a fable about her name's origin:

1. William Jefferson Clinton shamefully mistreated several women, including Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey (who he allegedly groped in the Oval Office, while he was president), and Juannita Broderick (who he allegedly raped). Although no one disputes his sexual indiscretions, HRC knowingly lied about them to help him get elected in 1992. Although she poses as a champion of women's rights, she has also participated in the slander of these women in order to further her own ambitions.

Gerald Ford's wife was a drunk, Lincoln's wife was crazy and Ronald Reagan's wife believed in astrology. So what? I'm sorry, Bill sleeping around and Hillary standing by him doesn't disqualify her. GWB was a coke-head and arrested for drunken driving but he was elected twice.

2. She presided over the HMO debacle in the 90s, made the system worse, and now she is posing as a champion of healthcare reform.

Excuse me? How did she preside over the HMO debacle? And what debacle whas that?

3. As a senator, HRC supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. But rather than defend her previous position, she is pretending she never held it, counting on our short term memory as a tactic for winning a few percentage points in the primaries.

Although I'm willing to vote for Democrats, I never joined the party and I never will. I hope the Democrats will have more sense than to nominate her for the presidency.

A politician waffling on a position? What a revelation!

The more the anti-Hillary crowed mounts these lame attacks on her, makes me want to just take a second look at her. I still don't get a good feeling from her, but that doesn't make her different than almost all the candidates.

 

[ravdin]

The more the anti-Hillary crowed mounts these lame attacks on her, makes me want to just take a second look at her. I still don't get a good feeling from her, but that doesn't make her different than almost all the candidates.

It's interesting that you find these criticisms "lame" but you have not disputed that they are factually true. I happen to think it's lame of you to write off the slander of several women who dared to speak out after being abused by the most powerful man in the world as "standing by" her man.

If you know the facts and you still think that HRC is the most suitable candidate (or suitable at all), then by all means throw her your support.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. William Jefferson Clinton shamefully mistreated several women, including Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey (who he allegedly groped in the Oval Office, while he was president), and Juannita Broderick (who he allegedly raped). Although no one disputes his sexual indiscretions,

I dispute them. According to the book The Hunting of the President, at least one of these is an outright lie and one other is very likely a lie. One others has never been confirmed by anybody.

HRC knowingly lied about them to help him get elected in 1992.

Hillary Clinton knowingly lied about Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey in 2002? How did she get access to a flux capacitor and the nuclear fuel to power her time machine?

2. She presided over the HMO debacle in the 90s, made the system worse, and now she is posing as a champion of healthcare reform.

Exactly how did Clinton make the system worse? Her health-care reform campaign terminated in no legislation of any sort at any level. How does not actually changing a system qualify as making it worse?

 

[Kerberos]

In case you didn't notice, there was a lot more to the article. I'd tell you to go read it, but no doubt you'd protest that you already have. But here are some of the main points, all of which are far more serious than a fable about her name's origin:

1. William Jefferson Clinton shamefully mistreated several women, including Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey (who he allegedly groped in the Oval Office, while he was president), and Juannita Broderick (who he allegedly raped). Although no one disputes his sexual indiscretions, HRC knowingly lied about them to help him get elected in 1992. Although she poses as a champion of women's rights, she has also participated in the slander of these women in order to further her own ambitions.

I note you use the word "allegedly" several times in there. You do know what that word means right?

 

[ravdin]

LL- you got at least one thing right, my sentence about HRC's lies in 1992 was mangled. I meant she lied about her husband's indiscretions, not specifically about Willey and Lewinsky. Thanks for pointing that out.

I believe the allegations. It's up to you if you want to say these women are lying. But let's say the alleged perpetrator was a prominent GOP politician. I'm betting the comments on this thread about the politician's character and the women's truthfulness would be very different.

 

[Spindrift]

It's interesting that you find these criticisms "lame" but you have not disputed that they are factually true. I happen to think it's lame of you to write off the slander of several women who dared to speak out after being abused by the most powerful man in the world as "standing by" her man.

If you know the facts and you still think that HRC is the most suitable candidate (or suitable at all), then by all means throw her your support.

My point is I think those things whether true or not are irrelevant for being a president. I don't think there is anything to care about whether or not what you claim is factually true.
But I don't think what you've claimed is factually true. If she slandered someone why haven't they sued her? You still haven't said how she caused the "HMO debacle", whatever that is.

Do you have a candidate you support? I'm sure we could find some irrelevant "facts" about him.

 

[Bob Klase]

Gerald Ford's wife was a drunk, Lincoln's wife was crazy and Ronald Reagan's wife believed in astrology.

That might be relevant to this discussion if at least one of them had run for president.

 

[ravdin]

My point is I think those things whether true or not are irrelevant for being a president. I don't think there is anything to care about whether or not what you claim is factually true.
But I don't think what you've claimed is factually true. If she slandered someone why haven't they sued her? You still haven't said how she caused the "HMO debacle", whatever that is.

Do you have a candidate you support? I'm sure we could find some irrelevant "facts" about him.

So you mean to say that if you knew for a fact that HRC lied to the public to help her husband get elected to the nation's highest office, and deliberately impugned the character of several innocent women in order to advance her ambitions, it wouldn't matter to you? If that's your opinion, I really don't know what else to say.

HRC chaired Bill Clinton's "Task Force on National Health Care Reform" in 1993. It was supposed to reform the health care system, but I wouldn't agree that it's better now than it was. You may choose not to blame her for this, but I would not tout her track record as a health care reformer. Interestingly, she has accepted major contributions from the insurance industry, which makes me doubt very much that she will implement real reforms (this is one of the very rare instances where I find I'm in perfect agreement with Michael Moore).

I don't currently support any candidates. I don't belong to a political party, so I won't be voting in the primary. Along with HRC, I would rule out voting for Huckabee, Romney, or Paul. I'm very lukewarm about Obama, but he currently seems to be the best of the lot (at least, he is the least objectionable). Yes, I know- he did write an essay about his presidential ambitions when he was in kindergarten.

 

[corplinx]

I dispute them. According to the book The Hunting of the President, at least one of these is an outright lie and one other is very likely a lie. One others has never been confirmed by anybody.

Which one was the outright lie?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Christopher Hitchens as in Christopher "Fat Atheist" Hitchens?

And?

 

[cisco]

I stopped reading when he accused Bill Clinton of rape. I'm not voting for Hillary either, no matter what happens, but he did not make a "beautiful" or even good case for why.

 

[Spindrift]

So you mean to say that if you knew for a fact that HRC lied to the public to help her husband get elected to the nation's highest office, and deliberately impugned the character of several innocent women in order to advance her ambitions, it wouldn't matter to you? If that's your opinion, I really don't know what else to say.

HRC chaired Bill Clinton's "Task Force on National Health Care Reform" in 1993. It was supposed to reform the health care system, but I wouldn't agree that it's better now than it was. You may choose not to blame her for this, but I would not tout her track record as a health care reformer. Interestingly, she has accepted major contributions from the insurance industry, which makes me doubt very much that she will implement real reforms (this is one of the very rare instances where I find I'm in perfect agreement with Michael Moore).

I don't currently support any candidates. I don't belong to a political party, so I won't be voting in the primary. Along with HRC, I would rule out voting for Huckabee, Romney, or Paul. I'm very lukewarm about Obama, but he currently seems to be the best of the lot (at least, he is the least objectionable). Yes, I know- he did write an essay about his presidential ambitions when he was in kindergarten.

When what you suppose there happens I'll let you know.

Remember I don't support Hillary, but the ill-advised feeble attacks on her are only preaching to the choir.

You've blamed Hillary for the "HMO debacle". Now you seem to be back-tracking. Which is it? I never said anything about touting her health care record. I was just saying that trying to blame her for something she had nothing to do with is just an example of the over-top and irrelevant claims made about her.

Personally, I'm currently torn between Obama and Edwards, so defeating Hillary would be a good thing. But trying to do it with asinine claims and trying to blame her for the fact Bill couldn't keep his six-shooter holstered is just dumb. And in the end it probably only helps her.

 

[ravdin]

So... it's ill advised to criticize HRC, because she might cry and garner a sympathy bump at the polls tomorrow in MI, NV, and SC.

Oops. Now I know that if she wins, I only have myself to blame. And Hitchens too, that fat bastard!

 

[WildCat]

If Hillary is nominated, I will vote for a third party candidate. That's right: I'll throw my vote away!

Even if it's Ron Paul?

 

[Spindrift]

So... it's ill advised to criticize HRC, because she might cry and garner a sympathy bump at the polls tomorrow in MI, NV, and SC.

Oops. Now I know that if she wins, I only have myself to blame. And Hitchens too, that fat bastard!

No. It's ill-advised to critize any candidate with irrelevant and/or false accusations.

Does it work? Yeah, sometimes it does. See John McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

But most of the time I think people see through such things.

 

[ravdin]

Spindrift- I don't think the accusations are irrelevant or false, and we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

WC- not sure what you're asking. I also wouldn't vote for Paul, as the GOP nominee or a third party candidate. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but unfortunately he's a pro-lifer, creationist, and isolationist. Three strikes and you're out.

 

[Lurker]

1. William Jefferson Clinton shamefully mistreated several women, including Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey (who he allegedly groped in the Oval Office, while he was president), and Juannita Broderick (who he allegedly raped). Although no one disputes his sexual indiscretions, HRC knowingly lied about them to help him get elected in 1992. Although she poses as a champion of women's rights, she has also participated in the slander of these women in order to further her own ambitions.

From the dailyhowler:

According to Tripp’s detailed, sworn testimony, Willey pursued a romance with Clinton right from the start of her White House employment. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access along the Chesapeake Bay.

Tripp also challenged Willey’s account of that Oval Office meeting. According to Tripp, Willey had arranged the meeting in part to see if her flirtation with Clinton might advance. And when Clinton and Willey did meet in the Oval, Willey rushed back to Tripp’s office to describe it. According to Tripp, Willey “smiled from ear to ear the entire time” as she described the event. “She seemed almost shocked, but happy shocked,” Tripp told the grand jury. Willey told Tripp that she and Clinton had smooched—but there was no talk of a sexual assault.

In March 2002, Ray, Starr’s successor as Independent Counsel, released his final report on the Clinton investigations. As we noted last Friday, Ray’s report included a special appendix about Willey. In it, Ray noted that Willey “had given substantially different accounts in two sworn statements and had lied to the FBI about her relationship with a former boyfriend” (Ken Fireman, Newsday, 3/7/02). In Nina Totenberg’s words, Ray “concluded that it was impossible to convict based on Willey’s words [because] she’d lied so many times, including to the prosecutors.” To all appearances, Ray had even considered prosecuting the press corps’ star witness for one of her lies.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. William Jefferson Clinton shamefully mistreated several women, including Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey (who he allegedly groped in the Oval Office, while he was president), and Juannita Broderick (who he allegedly raped).

Here is Juanita Broderick's only sworn statement regarding Clinton. In it, she denies any unwelcome sexual advances. And her one-time allegations against Clinton have even more credibility problems.

Rehashing the Broderick allegation as though the passage of time has somehow made it factual is mendacious at best.

 

[Lurker]

From hte dailyhowler on Flowers:

In January 1992, she told the tale of her 12-year affair in the pages of the tabloid Star. (She was paid $150,000, with much more to come. At the time, her salary as an Arkansas state worker was $17,000.) But uh-oh!

One week after her story appeared, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter noted some problems with Flowers’ credibility. Among them: “Flowers claims she met Clinton at the Excelsior Hotel in 1979 or 1980. The hotel didn’t open until late 1982.” Another: “Flowers claims to have been Miss Teen Age America, 1967. She wasn’t—that year, or any other.”

Musicians and club owners who had worked with Flowers described her as manipulative and dishonest. Her resume falsely proclaimed her a graduate of a fashionable Dallas prep school she’d never attended. It also listed a University of Arkansas nursing degree she’d never earned and membership in a sorority that had never heard of her. Her agent told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that contrary to her claims, Flowers had never opened for comedian Rich Little. A brief gig on the Hee Haw television program had come to a bad end, the agent would later confirm, when Flowers simply vanished for a couple of weeks with a man she’d met in a Las Vegas casino—and then concocted a tale about having been kidnapped. She had never been Miss Teenage America. Even her “twin sister Genevieve” turned out to be purely a figment of Flowers’ imagination.

“Flowers never produced a single paragraph, valentine, or birthday card as evidence of her twelve-year affair with Clinton; no witness ever came forward who had seen them together. Indeed, she would eventually write an entire book, Passion and Betrayal, without stating a specific time and place where she and her famous lover were together.”

 

[ravdin]

And on top of that, they accused a Democrat. How dare they!