Sanders Calls Bill Clinton's Sexual Past 'Totally Disgraceful'

[NCTraveler]

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions during his presidency “totally disgraceful and unacceptable,” while campaigning in Iowa on Friday.

The comments came after a man asked the presidential hopeful if his main opponent, Hillary Clinton, was qualified to be president.

“My question to you is: Isn’t one of the qualifications of being president some sort of moral authority?” the man asked, noting that Clinton had “a known affair in the Oval with an intern” -- a reference to Monica Lewinsky.

“I hear what you’re saying,” Sanders interjected. “Look Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did, I think we can all acknowledged was totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable, but I am running against Hillary Clinton. I am not running against Bill Clinton, though I understand he has been in Iowa recently.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-calls-bill-clintons-white-house-sex/story?id=36177942

[leftofcool]

1. LMAO

[HerbChestnut]

211. Good thing he was answering a direct question from an audience member...

And then quickly went on to say he didn't want to get into personal issues.

[djean111]

2. It is, but Bernie was replying to a question from a voter who cares about this sort of thing. n/t

[Sheepshank]

166. I assume the Clintons won't find need to bring up children out of wedlock np

[HerbChestnut]

210. Welcome to the 21st century, where this type of thing is generally accepted now.

We no longer live in 1800 where out of wedlock children need to be shipped off overseas or raised in secret by the local farmers down the road.

[ismnotwasm]

3. Interesting tactic

At least he clarified who he's running against.

[hobbit709]

4. I really don't care who the president is screwing as long as it's not the country.

[Chemisse]

21. Same here.

But now they are trying to equate Clinton's affairs with Bill Cosby like attacks, which is very disturbing and totally unfair.

[CoffeeCat]

130. I don't think that's true at all

Bill Clinton had affairs.

But he has also been accused of much worse. I'm not going to lay out all of those allegations. We all know what they are. And who knows if they are true.

But no one is equating his affairs with Cosby-like attacks. The Cosby comparison most likely comes from crimes that a certain woman alleges, which are similar to what Cosby did.

[Chemisse]

207. Bill Cosby is in one of the ads against Clinton.

That is what I meant by them being equated. It was not said explicitly in the ad, just thrown in there to muck up Bill Clinton's image further.

[CorporatistNation]

209. The Real Issue Here Is With Hillary... K and R

Husband Bill was laying the lumber to women all over the state of Arkansas and elsewhere for literally decades and Hillary just sat back and let it all go. What does the behavior of Hillary tell us about her character in so NOT dealing with her husband's escapades?

Why would ANY woman sit back and allow this sort of publicly known activity to persist?

I think that we can all acknowledge the Clinton's relationship was more about gaining political power... and $$$ than romance. Clearly one can and should legitimately question a person's character in such a circumstance. At least some questions are being posed on the campaign trail which if Hillary is putting Bill out as a surrogate then his past is open to critique.

[libdem4life]

244. This and the fact, most likely, that they had a daughter. I always thought it was political

tactics that seemed to make nothing of it. I felt most deeply sorry for what it did to their Daughter, an adolescent as I recall.

I think most would have respected her more had she moved out of the Oval Office, changed her name back to Rodham and called it what it was ... Adultery. But apparently it had been going on forever, so to me that makes it more politically motivated on her part. But then again, she didn't have the political acumen she gained in the White House.

But in the end, she came out OK. Will it affect her now? Who knows.

[Armstead]

159. Well, Bill was doing that too

[guillaumeb]

178. But William Clinton screwed the country also.

Welfare reform,
NAFTA,
criminal justice reform,
Gramm, Leach, Blily

and the effects are still with us today.

[Ken Burch]

257. He lectured women on welfare about "personal responsibility" and blamed them for their own poverty-

While being far more personally irresponsible than any "welfare mother" who ever lived.

[guillaumeb]

265. William Clinton should have been a nominee for the Newt Gingrich

Award for daring to lecture anyone about their sexual behavior while himself engaging in serial adultery.

[still_one]

5. Actually how Sanders responded was fine, the OP on the other hand, by selectively choosing the

Bill Clinton's sexual issues in the title, instead of "I am running against Hillary Clinton, not Bill Clinton", kind of implies the thread's intent is to create some flames.

Ironically, an aviator of Ted Kennedy is also somewhat puzzling, since Senator Kennedy himself had similar issues

[NCTraveler]

6. I used the exact article title.

Directly. I did so because someone always says what you have when I don't.

[still_one]

8. ok, but that was not the main point of his answer either

[NCTraveler]

10. What is the problem with using the title of the article? Nt

[still_one]

16. Do whatever you want, it is your thread, I just gave my input

[Cary]

23. Gee that's generous of you

I think you have a point but you could have made it in a friendlier way

[still_one]

42. I really wasn't trying to be rude. Sorry it came out that way. Appologies to the OP

and you if I sounded rude

[Cary]

45. I've seen worse but good for you for owning it.

We could be nicer around here. It wouldn't hurt anyone.

[still_one]

46. agreed

[cali]

7. Does anyone dispute that? Why?

[Cary]

25. Do we need to re-litigate this?

[cali]

33. No. And Sanders wasn't.

[Cary]

35. I didn't ask Sanders I asked you

[John Poet]

258. We will if Hillary is the nominee.

Then we'll be relitigating Bill's adulteries for months...

[Cary]

261. That means Bernie Sanders should do it too.

[Skidmore]

9. Ugh.

Like asking the pot to call the kettle "black."

[Katashi_itto]

12. Ok tell us about Sanders sexual escapades...

[Skidmore]

15. Google is your friend. nt

[Katashi_itto]

17. Meaning there is nothing except the misconstrued essay he did.

[Skidmore]

19. Wrong.

[Katashi_itto]

20. Lol either way

Hell will freeze over before I vote clinton

[Armstead]

139. He had a child out of wedlock. How awful.

He wrote about some weird New Agey theories and sex and repression in the 70's. Not unusual and a long time ago.

[Katashi_itto]

199. Oh hell! Thats it then. We have to vote for the oligarch.

[leftofcool]

31. Oh my! He hasn't really been vetted has he?

[Katashi_itto]

198. Better than hilary

[Logical]

245. Lol, either provide a link or you are just making shit up! Nt

[Katashi_itto]

11. And?

[Starry Messenger]

13. He seems tired, the flailing lately has been on an uptick.

[bvf]

22. Do you mean the poster of the OP?

Because I'd agree with that.

[Starry Messenger]

27. No, Sanders.

Lots of bizarre statements and tweets lately. The wheels are coming off.

[cali]

36. Elaborate. Link to his supposedly bizarre tweets and statements.

No links, your claims are bullshit.

[Starry Messenger]

38. Naptime?

[cali]

40. Nope, link time.

[Starry Messenger]

43. I'm sure you've heard of this thing called the Internet.

I've heard it's going places.

[cali]

71. And I'm sure you've heard a million times that it is up

to the person making a claim to substantiate it. That has always been the way it works, dear.

[Starry Messenger]

76. I'll get right to caring about that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

235. So you have shit. Next time you want to present a pile of shit, feel free to do so.

But please don't expect anyone to be impressed that you know how to play with a pile of shit. Most people just think it's weird.

[Starry Messenger]

236. Your side's fascination with scat is noted. :)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

238. ^^^MADE UNTRUE STATEMENT. ASKED BY SEVERAL TO DOCUMENT. RUNS. HIDES, NO ANSWER FORTHCOMING^^^

[Starry Messenger]

239. Something got stuck on your keyboard my dear little water chestnut.

Might want to look into getting it fixed. Might be a little dash of spittle!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

240. Your keyboard also seems to have a problem. It types LIES.

[Starry Messenger]

241. Yoga is great for stress, love.

Seems like this campaign is tiring out more than Sanders. Remember to self-care!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

242. You're not my LOVE, I promise. Don't call me that again.

Clear?

[Starry Messenger]

243. No love, you march into a subthread and start giving orders

which is so adorbs...if you wish to control interaction with moi, you can exercise self-control and simply click away without mashing that reply button. Like a grown up!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

251. Gross and classless. I asked you to stop. Have your tacky Internet drama. Farewell.

[Starry Messenger]

252. You just can't quit me. Awwwwww.

Another genius-class poster who starts some stuff in unsolicited replies in a subthread where he wasn't involved in initially and then blames the replies to his initial reply for his discomfiture. You can stop anytime you want to, sweetie-love. Pro-tip: You want this to stop, don't reply to me when I wasn't talking to you. You have all the power, but none of the self-control.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

262. I asked you a few times to respect a request not to name-call.

You've been a complete fucking jackwagon, and a very dishonest one at that. So I'll tell you what, sweetheart. I'll continue to reply in any portion of any thread I feel like replying in. I don't think there's fuck-all you can do about it, prettycakes.

[Starry Messenger]

263. Aww, so precious. I drink the tears of the losing.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

264. Relax, babe. I'm not crying.

[R B Garr]

78. Apparently not always because you never do.

Has something changed?

[Starry Messenger]

79. Right?

Not that glaring hypocrisy ever put a spoke in that wheel.

[R B Garr]

91. Exactly.

[cali]

83. Substantiate that bullshit claim.

[R B Garr]

89. I see who you are trying to sound like.

But do take a gander through your own OPs filled with meanderings about so-called slimey people.

[R B Garr]

70. Oh, LOL. Yes, please follow your own advice given here.

Maybe this is a new phase.

[bvf]

48. Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Ah! That must be it.

[Starry Messenger]

50. Not understanding things appears to be your department.

Swing and a miss.

[bvf]

63. Nope, I understand just fine, thanks.

I could just level some invective Clinton's way, I suppose, and if asked to back it up with a link, say something truly weasel-like, such as "Go look it up."

I won't, of course. Few people would, because they realize it would be cheap and make them look stupid, you'll agree.

[Starry Messenger]

77. I'm sure that makes sense in your world.

[bvf]

80. The apparent fact that it makes no sense to

you confirms it twice over.

[Starry Messenger]

81. You: asked who I referred to in my statement.

Me: answered question

You: muttering inanities in reply

Me: laughing at you

[bvf]

96. Thrice.

Me: Pointing out that you cannot supply a single link in support of your predictable poop-flinging.

You:

Me: "You really should go wash your hands with an anti-bacterial soap."

You: Hyperventilating.

[Starry Messenger]

98. @BernieSanders

Only poop being flung around is right at that address. And sad tired flailing.

[bvf]

99. Did you wash your hands like I asked?

You weren't gone long enough to have done a very thorough job. Guess you figure they're just going to get dirty again, so why bother?

[Starry Messenger]

101. Flailing. So sad to see.

The crying towels are going to be flying off the shelves here next month, you can dry off then.

[bvf]

111. I see what you did there. Towels. Good one!

(Really derivative, actually.)

[Warren DeMontague]

193. You know what they say, Immature artists borrow

mature artists steal.

I don't remember which artist I stole that from.

[Vattel]

120. I think Clinton can't handle the pressure of a primary campaign.

Her paranoid accusations, her bullying of activists who disagree with her, her bragging about shooting innocent animals, her confusion about basic strategic facts about the conflict in Syria, and other stuff is really disturbing.

(This is a parody of Clinton supporters who say shit like this without backing up anything.)

[Starry Messenger]

123. I don't think Oscar Wilde has to worry about his day job.

[Vattel]

124. That is very true.

[one_voice]

200. Why the personal shot at the OP?

[NCTraveler]

26. He is going scorched earth.

Started a couple of weeks back.

[Starry Messenger]

30. Sad to watch.

Voters don't like that kind of bottom of the barrel approach. Weaver and Devine are textbook on how not to run a campaign.

[cali]

37. Lol. What bullshit.

[NCTraveler]

44. I don't think so.

But understand your feelings on the topic.

[Human101948]

14. Sexual dalliances are not very important in my eyes, but aggressive wars based on B.S.

is a huge immorality and an international crime. Poisoning children in Flint is a huge immorality and a crime. Stealing people's pensions and savings is an immorality and a crime.

Let's apply some reasonable perspective to this crapola.

[reformist2]

18. Just because Repugs made so much hay over this, are we Dems supposed to be forever in denial?

Bernie had the right approach: Admit that Bill's personal life as president *was* disgraceful and embarrassing, and then move on, since he is no longer a candidate. While many would have wanted Bernie to say that someone's private indiscretions have no bearing on how they do their jobs, that claim doesn't resonate very well with the public -and besides, it isn't really true.

[CBGLuthier]

24. Bill Clinton was a bad president. Forget the sexual trespasses. He just plain sucked

Nafta, DOMA, DADT, Criminal sentencing laws, Bombing the shit out of Iraq. These are not values I will support.

Pretending that he was some kind of great president just because he was a democrat is stupid.

[Cary]

28. Trash talking a very good president here on DU because....

...because of what?

I don't understand what you are thinking. Gore distanced himself from Bill and that was a mistake. Did you vote for Nader?

[CBGLuthier]

59. Nope. Gore was not Clinton. Clinton sucked. Not Gore.

Work on your reading skills. Where the fuck you got the idea I could have voted for Nader from is a mystery to me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. Bill Clinton's lying to the nation under oath

tainted the Bush /Gore election in Bush's favor.

Most didn't care about the affair and neither did I.
it was Bill's lying about it that got to them and me.

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm

[R B Garr]

73. When losing, drag out Monica Lewinsky

And talk lots about morals.

[Uncle Joe]

93. What are morals?

1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes. moral attitudes.

3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom:
moral obligations.

11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals?s=t

Are morals a bad thing?

Are the critical issues of civil rights, voting rights, marriage rights, environmentalism, pay equity, universal health-care, massive income disparity, a woman's right to choose, anti-racism, and anti-demagoguery just to name a few moral issues?

[R B Garr]

115. If you are talking about your morals, you are losing.

No one cares about your morals. They have their own. Ask Larry Flynt about personal morals. Ask Henry Hyde about personal morals.

[Uncle Joe]

117. I didn't ask you about my morals, I asked you about yours, do these issues have moral ramifications?

Are morals a bad thing?

Are the critical issues of civil rights, voting rights, marriage rights, environmentalism, pay equity, universal health-care, massive income disparity, a woman's right to choose, anti-racism, and anti-demagoguery just to name a few moral issues?

[R B Garr]

118. Those aren't morals.

Nice try, though. Lol

[Uncle Joe]

119. Sure they are, is it moral or ethical to treat minorities, women or LGBT as less than equal

to white men?

Is it moral or ethical to demagogue someone because of their religion or being atheist?

Is it moral or ethical to trash the environment regardless of the damage it does to people just for the sake of the dollar?

1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes. moral attitudes.

3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom:
moral obligations.

11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals?s=t

[R B Garr]

122. Those were issues, not morals.

You can't legislate morality -- one of the oldest political sayings around.

Plus you've taken it way out of context now, but I notice you left out the Bible.

[Uncle Joe]

126. Your morals affect your stance on those issues, is it right or wrong, is it just or unfair? Was

slavery a moral institution?

Was not allowing women the right to vote, ethical or moral?

I'm asking you.

Morals or ethics aren't the exclusive domain of the Bible, the Torah, Quran, the teachings of Buddah all have morals.

I've used quotations from the Bible before, along with Aesop, Confucius, ancient Greek Mythology, historical figures etc. etc.

I see no reason to totally trash the accumulated wisdom of humanity because I may not agree with every message in a publication.

[R B Garr]

127. Now you see why you are losing when you talk

about personal morals. People have their own morals. They don't care about yours.

[Uncle Joe]

132. I care about yours, that's why I've been asking.

People also share their morals and this can have influence on other people's perspectives if the message resonates.

[R B Garr]

144. I doubt you care about my morals...

Maybe there are other reasons you "care"...?

[Uncle Joe]

146. I've sincerely asked you multiple times whether you believe the issues I posted above have

a moral or ethical basis.

It's not rocket science either you believe they do or don't.

[R B Garr]

147. I've answered you several times.

Already.

Nice switch up you did there, too. Now you switch to ethics.

[Uncle Joe]

149. My first post to you held the definition of morals.

Morals and ethics are intertwined.

1.of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals?s=t

You never answered my questions as to whether a litany of issues from the abolition of slavery to the suffrage movement among others held a moral basis or not.

[R B Garr]

151. LOL, this thread is about Sanders answer to a RW

plant asking him about Clinton's "morals". Very odd you compare that to real historical issues like slavery.

[Uncle Joe]

154. Your first post brought up a question about morals that's what I was responding to.

Whether a President commits adultery with a subordinate is a question of morals.

Is that right or wrong?

[R B Garr]

156. That was decided in 1998. Remember?

And everyone from the anti-Clinton Impeachment era is dead politically. That says all you need to know.

Hence my first answer to you: If you are talking about personal morals, you are losing. People have their own; they don't care about yours.

We've come full circle here, no need to keep digging for things to alert on, LOL.

And my posts were in response to the thread topic. Yours not so much.

[Uncle Joe]

158. You still couldn't bring yourself to answer my question is it right or wrong and the only thing

decided in 1998 was that Bill Clinton didn't give a shit about Al Gore's run for the Presidency in 2000.

[R B Garr]

165. LMAO. I answered it several times, and your conclusion

here is laughable. Thats why you are losing when you talk about personal morals. No cares about yours. They have their own.

[Uncle Joe]

170. In your opinion regarding any of the issues which I have posted, is it morally right or wrong? Yes

or no, you never answered any of those questions.

[R B Garr]

172. Is it okay to not be a virgin on your wedding night?

Huge moral issue. In the BIBLE! Discuss.

Seriously, your analogies are laughable, and I've answered accordingly. Comparing slavery to Sanders answering a question about Clinton's morals is flippant and offensive. Ugh. How could you think that's appropriate in any way. I can't even say how ugly that comparison is or get posts hidden, but you lose.

This is why you lose when you talk about personal morals. No one cares about your judgmental frame of references.

[Uncle Joe]

173. We've been talking about morals from your first post and I have been asking about yours not mine.

You've implied up thread that issues nor behavior have a moral basis, no matter the issue or behavior.

Apparently you disagree with Bernie's answer to the question put forth to him that Bill's behavior was disgraceful.

[R B Garr]

175. Wrong again You've been imposing your personalized

version of what is to be discussed as being morally relevant.

You started with ridiculous, flippant comparisons that are frankly offensive and show massive entitlement on your part.

Thats why talking about personal morals makes you the loser. No one cares how you came to your pious conclusions about what you decided was important. LOL.

[Uncle Joe]

177. Only because you never answered any of my questions.

I said you "implied" and "apparently" because you never answered any of my questions pertaining to Bill's behavior nor the other issues which I listed.

I never said they were equal in severity, I just listed them because you so readily discounted the importance of morals in the American Peoples' deliberations.

Everyone has to decide for themselves what's right and wrong based on their personal morals, I haven't "imposed" anything on you, I'm simply asking questions to which you can't or don't want to answer.

[R B Garr]

179. I've answered it several times. It was decided in

1998. Going on 20 years ago.

[Uncle Joe]

181. What happened in 1998 to answer my question?

Bill Clinton avoided being convicted during an impeachment trial and removed from office, that has nothing to do with our discussion.

[R B Garr]

183. I already answered that. You ignored my comments about

the impeachment "actors".

[jonno99]

155. Way to go. That was one of the more impressive dodge-ball performances I've seen in a sub-thread. nt

[R B Garr]

157. And here I thought bringing up slavery was the Dodge.

[jonno99]

160. Nope - the points/questions were simply stated. You chose not to answer. The

curious observer is wondering: why?

[R B Garr]

163. LOL, which I answered many times, I.e.,

you don't "care"about my morals, so there are other reasons for asking. Hmmm.

Feel free to discuss how Sanders answering a morality question from a RW plant relates to slavery. How ridiculous can you get.

[jonno99]

174. The question is/was: "what are your morals?". The reply: "you don't care about my morals" is

not an answer to the question - it is a dodge.

Why dodge? Just anwwer the question - what are your morals?

[R B Garr]

176. Well, not being entitled and judgmental are morals

and I've answered that several times. Comparing slavery to Sanders answering a question is bizarre and offensive.

[jonno99]

180. Thank you for finally answering the question. And I believe you know why

slavery was brought into the discussion - so no need to go there...

[R B Garr]

182. Actually it was answered LONG ago

Just like I said. Thank you for finally noticing.

And it's obvious no one cared about morals except to score some Clinton hating points, so this little exercise was transparent from the start. How ridiculous you thought it important enough to bring slavery into it.

[jonno99]

188. Ok, consider: is it MORAL for someone to abuse the power of their office to take advantage

of someone who has no power? This is the whole point (or at least a large part) of the discussion here.

If Bill Clinton was a regular guy and had met ML in some bar and they decided to hit it off, most folks on this board would not give it a second thought.

That he was the president however, and that he and his wife attempted to smear ML's character, is at the root of the issue: was his behavior (taking advantage of the power differential) moral?

We don't have to agree on the answer to the above question. But I hope you would agree that it is "reasonable" for someone to hold the opinion the BC crossed a "moral" line.

[R B Garr]

189. This is as hilarious as Bob Dole's "Where's the Outrage"

He thought everyone should be outraged, too.

That got him nowhere. Just more evidence that talking about personal morals makes you the loser.

[jonno99]

191. Silly post. It doesn't require "outrage" to objectively determine when someone is in error. That

you are unable or unwilling to see other points of view that differ from your own without casting aspersions is a serious character flaw - imo.

You have my sympathy...

[Uncle Joe]

192. Seconded.

Peace to you, jonno.

[R B Garr]

196. LOL at you trying to shame me now.

This is why moralists are so predictable. No one is going to care about you trying to shame them and preach how much better you are. You have better character because you espouse anti-Clinton talking points? Oh. LOL.

And this whole subthread was just about scoring anti-Clinton points. It's not really about morality. That's just the acceptable vehicle to attack the Clinton's and other generalized browbeating.

Look at how people saw through the impeachment circus for what it truly was. It was an outrageous power grab all wrapped in phony morality. People rejected the use of morality to usurp an elected official. Good for them. Now that's MY kind of morality!

[jonno99]

197. You're talking about two seperate issues. That the RW saw the ML story as a means

to a phony morality power-grab is true (one issue).

However, that doesn't mean that BC's actions (abuse of power) didn't cross the line (the other issue).

You can disparage all you want those who disapprove of BC and what he did, and you can claim that folks are trying to "score anti-Clinton points", but don't try to pretend that the events surrounding ML are a collective/national figment of the imagination. BC acted - and those actions, unfortunately for many, are what will most likely define his presidency.

Bottom line: you can't pretend that he didn't do what he did. And it is silliness to claim that for what he did there should not be a political price to be paid - and he and HRC are paying it.

Are they having to pay too much? that is really the debate - and we can disagree about it. Can you disagree without being abusive?

[R B Garr]

202. Oh, please. They were after Bill after he beat Bush.

Bill was called illegitimate because they insisted Ross Perot played spoiler and Bush would have won, which was also disproven. So spare me your phony outrage, which exactly what this Is.

And where is your outrage that they had to commit felonies to record ML. You must be outraged that laws were violated. The RULE of LAW!

The only people who have paid a price is the impeachment posse. They are dead politically. All of them, so even your analysis is off. I also said that posts/hours ago.

So, this I stilll just about scoring anti-Clinton potshots. You just use morals as your vehicle to accomplish that.

Enough with the phony morals talk. This I why it never works to impose your morals. People see through it.

Bored with this.

[zazen]

230. Really? White slaveowners believed it was morally imperative to own Blacks

because they were incapable of governing themselves. They really believed it was justified in the Bible.

Interracial marriage was considered immoral until the late 60s. Gay marriage until last year.

A lot of men believed they had the moral right to beat their wives. Oh yeah--a lot of men still believe that. They also believed that marital rape was inconceivable because their bodies became one during marriage.

You can't legislate the morality of the people who openly subscribed to these views? It's moral to them. Hell yeah you can legislate morality.

What a weird line of argument.

I sure hope you're not going to respond with, "sexuality is completely personal and has no political dimension," because you know, that myth was exploded in the early 70s, and by the way, the whole personal is political is one of the tropes many Clinton supporters keep pulling out to insist all feminists should vote for her, unless we accept their frame and call them on it.

Then suddenly the politics, and implicit immorality of male privilege, inherent in much interpersonal sexuality is off limits. Suddenly the power dynamics of sexuality, including male serial adultery with significantly younger women, becomes completely "personal."

Can't have it both ways . . .

[R B Garr]

231. Oh, for God's sake, start a thread on slavery then!

How fucking ridiculous to compare Sanders response to slavery. UGH, what a ridiculous post. Who cares about random thoughts on the history of the world. Pre-marital sex! You didn't mention that! zOmg!!!

Bill Clinton is still popular despite the RW bullshit and the well-worn moral musings of some Clinton haters trying to discount him. Too bad you can't handle that! Good Lord!

[zazen]

233. six exclamation points? try relying on facts instead of punctuation n/t

[Bettie]

247. Sanders did not drag out Lewinsky

a random guy at the event did.

[R B Garr]

249. Omfg, my post was in response to a.1998 link

that was posted. Did you see the link/post I responded to? Obviously not.

[Bettie]

250. The article in the OP, which is what is under discussion

happened last Friday.

No, I don't always follow every link in every sub-thread, especially at nearly midnight.

Whatever.

[R B Garr]

253. OK, thx for explaining. There are some here who

seem to deliberately take things out of context to alert on responses. It gets very, very old. Kind of you to explain. Much appreciated.

[bvf]

75. Gore was more or less forced

to keep Clinton at arm's length during his campaign, IIRC.

Yes, his bone-headed choice of a running mate didn't help matters, but an unsullied Bill Clinton stumping at his side might have made a big difference.

[tritsofme]

148. Forced perhaps, by idiot advisors. The Big Dog was sitting on 60%+ approval ratings

All through 1999/2000.

Not using the incredibly popular Bill Clinton was a historic unforced error by the Gore campaign, with generational consequences.

[bvf]

185. No denying the numbers.

Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

However, Gore's advisors weren't working in a vacuum, nor is there any evidence (AFAIK--I'll welcome any citations you can provide) that Gore always took their advice.

Reportedly, Gore was personally offended by his then-boss's indiscretions. Maybe he put his personal feelings ahead of political counsel.

But back to that vacuum that wasn't there. Gore's advisors may have been anticipating the following:

As he (Clinton) was leaving office, a CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll revealed 45% said they'd miss him. While 55% thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", 68% thought he'd be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal", and 58% answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton

Emphasis added.

If Clinton had behaved himself, November 2000 may have turned out differently.

[gordyfl]

49. And Bill Clinton Gutted Glass-Steagall

which many realized the disastrous effect after the Financial Crash of 2008.

[EndElectoral]

103. As well as signed off on a very bad welfare reform bill.

[uponit7771]

102. So did FDR, Interment camps, union busting, EOs out the wazoo, not listening to Jewish immigrants...

... not accepting Jewish immigrants in droves knowing what was going on in Germany.


Yeah... FDR, LBJ, JKF.... all like Clinton not perfect... all sucked /sarcasm <--- cause this is needed around here

[RiverLover]

259. He did suck, but he's so damn charming, most of us didn't know it until after he left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778899

[Vinca]

29. He also said Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.

What did you expect him to say - that any president is tempted to have intern sex in the Oval Office?

[Squinch]

72. So you think the only possible answer to the question was a Republican talking point about

how disgusting Bill Clinton's sex life was?

Come on. How about this for an answer: "I said I wasn't going to go negative, and I won't." and then making a point about an issue?

[GoneFishin]

32. I don't and didn't care about Bill's private life. Bernie could have abbreviated the Bill reference

more, but it was fine. And the main point he made was crucial, which is that Bill is not running.

[Squinch]

39. So I guess Bernie is not a new kind of politician after all. This is same old, same old crap,

and it is what he said he would not do, and it goes directly against what everyone has been telling me are the qualities that set him apart from everyone else.

Truthfully, Bernie's previous decency toward his opponents was one of the things most weighing in his favor for me.

So I guess that's gone.

And really? We need to pander to the people who judge others' sex lives? Some in this thread are saying, "Well the poster asked." Well the answer is, "Bill Clinton's sex life has nothing to do with a Hillary presidency, and it has nothing to do with the issues facing the American people."

I bet you a hundred dollars that Hillary does NOT respond with taunts about Bernie's rape fantasy publication. Because she wouldn't.

[djean111]

51. No, she has surrogates and supporters to do that for her. n/t

[Squinch]

52. And he has himself, plus surrogates and supporters. So I see no difference between them now on

that score.

[djean111]

57. Oh, so you were favoring Bernie right up until now? :-)

Hillary's supporters have been mischaracterizing and posting about stuff that Bernie wrote many many many years ago.

Oh, and labeling anything negative, anything negative at all, about Hillary as ALL negative campaigning is pretty disingenuous. And transparent. And doesn't work.

[Squinch]

62. I've been open all along that my priority is keeping Republicans out of the White House

and that I will be voting for whichever candidate is best poised to do that when the primaries roll around to my state. That has not changed.

So no, I was not favoring Bernie or Hillary. Though I have been banned from the Bernie group for making the obvious point that a write in for Bernie, should it come to that, is a vote for Trump.

And you can talk about disingenuousness all you like, but Bernie said he would NOT do this, and he did. There is nothing to be transparent about with this issue. It just is what it is.

[Cary]

69. Me too

Feel the Bern, eh?

Amazing.

[bvf]

131. Sanders gave an honest answer to a direct question.

The fact that you just now felt compelled to bring up your ejection from the Sanders group (how long ago was that, again? Looks like it's been a while) puts your claim of impartiality in a pretty dubious light.

[Squinch]

164. What you think about who I am voting for is really not of interest to anyone but you.

Sanders promised not to go negative. He did. Which means that now there is no difference between the candidates on that score.

I brought up my banning from the Sanders group because others in the past have suggested that the fact that I am on the ban list means I am against Bernie. I am not.

[bvf]

195. Sanders spoke his mind.

You can choose to hold that against him, as I predict you will.

Did you find President Clinton's dalliance acceptable?

Private affairs are private, until they become way otherwise through sloppy indiscretion. In Clinton's case, that indiscretion led to a public perception of dishonesty and untrustworthiness. Perhaps you'd like a link not from a right-wing source. Just ask.

Don't blame Sanders for knowing (and offering a terse comment on) what every informed adult on the planet knows.

[Squinch]

205. I take it you disaprove of Kennedy's presidency too, then.

I know he spoke his mind. And when he did, he went negative which is something he said he wouldn't do.

[bvf]

208. Is that your version of a "gotcha"?

It was already stale hours ago.

I approved of JFK's presidency to whatever extent a four-year-old child at the time could have, but that doesn't mean I in any way approved of his philandering, which I learned about years later. I found that as detestable as Clinton's own.

WRT the body of your latest reply, you've just repeated yourself, which was probably easier for you than addressing my points. Sanders in no way "went negative," as you keep insisting. His statement reflected the fact that, upon leaving office, Clinton was seen as not generally honest or trustworthy by 58% of those responding to a CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll.

The link is at #185.

[Squinch]

212. No. Actually what he did was call a candidate's husband "totally disgraceful."

I feel certain that if Hillary or MOM said that Bernie's wife was totally disgraceful, or if they said that the fact that Bernie has an illegitimate son is totally disgraceful, you would think they had gone negative.

I'm not looking for "gotchas." I am simply stating the fact that you guys seem hell bent to spin as something else. But the fact is that Bernie went negative though he promised he would not.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. No, he called the candidate's husband's behavior disgraceful.

And it's pretty hard to argue that it wasn't, in some fashion.

Doesn't mean the GOP weren't blazing hypocrites, doesn't mean it was anyone's business besides his family.

But lets get real. Hillary Clinton- her own campaign- is not running in a vacuum vis a vis her husband's administration. She brings up the positive points of her experience in the WH and her husband's tenure as presidency, her experiences and her contributions during that time. As well she should. He's out there on the campaign trail, stumping for her. As well he should be.

However, what happened with Monica Lewinsky is part of that history. It had a direct impact on this country, and frankly if Bill Clinton hadn't done it (not to mention, if he hadn't gotten up on national television and wagged his finger at hundreds of millions of us Americans with "I did not....&quot it would have spared us a giant waste of national energy, and might even have helped put a far more worthy man in the White House as his successor.

And Sanders was asked. He was asked about it, and he said what he should have, namely, I'm not running against her husband, I'm running against her. And he said what many- probably most of us believe- the behavior was disgraceful. It wasn't criminal, it wasn't even anyone's business beyond those directly, personally involved with him, but it was tawdry and for such a smart guy he really should have known better.

[Squinch]

215. Bernie said he wouldn't go negative. He went negative.

[Warren DeMontague]

216. He was asked a question, and he gave an answer.

Do you disagree with the answer? I don't.

[Squinch]

217. He gave an answer in which he went negative. Which he said he would not do.

When he is asked questions, if he is not capable of answering those questions without going against promises he has made, that doesn't bode well for a Bernie presidency.

[Warren DeMontague]

218. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she's not against medical marijuana, but votes to send users to prison

I guess humans aren't always as consistent as we would like them to be, huh.

[Squinch]

219. The fact that is being disputed in this discussion is this: Bernie said he would not go negative

and then he did.

People are tying themselves up in knots to say it was something else, or that somehow the fact that it was an answer to a question absolves him, or that someone else's actions were worse.

The fact remains: he promised he would not go negative and then he did.

[Warren DeMontague]

220. No, that's the fact YOU want to dispute. You also said he called Bill Clinton "disgraceful", and he

didn't, he called the behavior- a pretty friggin' significant piece of the history of the man's administration, by the way- "disgraceful". Which is not the same thing.

If the only way Bernie Sanders could avoid "going negative" by your definition, would be to pretend that huge event never happened when asked about it, sorry, that's not realistic. It is a major piece of history which directly impacted a ton of shit, including the electoral chances of Al Gore.

Perhaps if you think mentioning the truth about the guy's term in office is so abhorrent that everyone should just run around pretending it never occurred, maybe you should question whether it's such a good idea to have him out there stumping for your candidate.

[Squinch]

221. Bernie said he would not go negative. He went negative on another candidate's spouse.

He didn't have to pretend anything didn't happen. Bill's sex life has nothing to do with what Bernie says he is all about. Bernie is a smart man and a very talented speaker. He is fully capable of answering a leading question by saying that he promised he would not go negative, and then not going negative. Men of much lesser talent have done so on the campaign trail. Bernie chose not to go that route.

Bernie said he would not go negative, and then he did.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. He answered truthfully. If you think the truth is negative, ask yourself why.

If you think the answer was factually correct but you want to criticize Sanders for saying it, ask yourself why.

Bill Clinton is part of the historical record. Either Hillary is responsible for him, or she isn't. Her supporters keep insisting she isn't, so I don't even understand why any criticism of him would be considered "going negative" on her.

You think you're going to hang Bernie Sanders on a truthful one sentence answer about the Monica Lewinsky deal (ignoring the main part of the answer, of course, which is that he's not running against Hillary's husband), good luck.

I mean, Hillary Clinton is the one who pretends to be a befuddled grandma who doesn't understand what "wipe a server" means one month, then a couple months later she's an expert on the internet and encryption, telling silicon valley they need to censor objectionable speech and start a "manhattan project" to do the mathematically impossible but apparently vitally important job of ensuring no one can encrpyt their snapchats. So I suspect, as with Debbie Wasserman Schultz's NY times interview, there is no shortage of shitty answers to questions floating around.

[Squinch]

223. ... sigh ...

Spin, spin, illogical spin. You are all twisted up now.



No one is hanging anyone.

I am simply stating a fact: Bernie said he would not go negative, and then he did.

[Warren DeMontague]

224. Fine, He went negative. On Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton is not on the ballot. Next?

[bvf]

225. Well, now you're just making stuff up.

Sanders didn't do any such thing, and you know it.

He didn't call Bill Clinton "totally disgraceful." He used that term to describe Clinton's actions, which, given their ultimate impact on not only his presidency, but on the party's possible chances into the future, was charitable, in hindsight.

If you have to resort to untruths to make your point (which is false in any case), there's little point in wasting any more time discussing this with you.

Again, Sanders had it right. To call bad behavior exactly what it is, is not only perfectly fine, but laudable.

Go ahead and pretend all you like that Bill Clinton didn't fuck up. Wildly misdirect by criticizing anyone who points that out.

Admit the error in the subject of your previous post, or I'm done talking to you here.

[Squinch]

226. "Admit the error of your previous post, or I'm done talking to you here." Do you promise?

You guys are being totally ridiculous over this. You are tying yourselves into knots over a simple factual statement: Bernie said he was not going to go negative, and then he went negative. It happened. Deal with it.

[bvf]

227. There you go again.

This time with a deliberate misquote.

OK.

[Squinch]

228. Aren't you done talking to me? You said you were. Now YOU"RE doing what you said you wouldn't do.

Maybe it's contagious.

[wyldwolf]

41. Wow! Between this and President Obama's thinly veiled jab at Sanders over gun control...

Sanders is going to need those Trump supporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/31/polls-show-attacks-on-bill-clinton-may-only-help-hillary-clinton/

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. this was not some prepared positon statement. This was an off the cuff answer

to questions about whether Hillary should be held partly to blame for the former President Clinton's indiscretions - to which he answered; NO.

Does anyone here think that Hillary would disagree with Sen. Sanders' statement?

[Squinch]

53. An off the cuff answer that went directly against how he said he would be running his campaign.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. would Hillary disagree with this statement?

[Squinch]

56. I don't know. I do know that Bernie went directly against how he said he would run his campaign.

You'll have to ask Hillary whether she agrees or disagrees. Personally I wouldn't because it's immaterial to me what goes on in their marriage. As it is immaterial to me what goes on in Bernie's marriage.

But it's interesting to see all our compatriots jumping on Republican bandwagons that they used to hate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. he's not joining on some Republican bandwagon. He answered a question about

whether or not Hillary was partly to blame for actions by former President Clinton. He answered, NO.

[Squinch]

64. I'm not saying that HE is joining a Republican bandwagon. I am saying that all the people in this

thread who are drooling over what they see as Bill's scandalous sex life are.

[TCJ70]

60. How so?

I believe he promised not to go negative against HRC. In answering this question, the very first thing he did is separate Hillary from her husband, then answer the question, then refocus back to who actually matters in the primary which is HRC.

[djean111]

65. Yes. Nailed it. n/t

[Squinch]

66. So, you are saying that he never promised not to go negative on Bill and Bill's sex life? You're

going to go to that kind of ridiculous lengths with your parsing?

If Hillary or MOM went negative about Bernie's wife, would you see that as not going negative on Bernie?

[TCJ70]

84. I'm saying he promised not to go negative on Hillary...

...and he didn't, which is difficult to do when addressing one half of a couples infidelity and dishonesty. He very much separated her from the issue this voter brought up and moved past it. As neither other candidate has said they would not go negative (to my knowledge) I won't judge them for doing so. That's what happens this time of year. If this is the best you have regarding negative campaigning from Bernie then, in my opinion, he's still in pretty good shape.

[Squinch]

86. So yes, you ARE going to go to those ridiculous lengths and I guess Bernie's wife is fair game now.

[TCJ70]

88. She's already out there...

...with the articles about some college funding or something. If you can't separate someone's actions from their SO that's on you. He's not Bernie's opponent, she is.

[Squinch]

90. And if you promise not to go negative, you should not go negative. He promised not to go negative,

and now he's going negative.

[TCJ70]

94. Try this...

...this question, asked by someone in the crowd, was being used to attempt to link Hillary Clinton to her husbands actions. In separating her from the answer, he refused to take the bait in bringing her down. Is that NOT a positive thing?

[Squinch]

162. Try this: when you promise not to go negative, and you say you are a new kind of politician,

you should be careful not to go negative.

Going negative on a candidate's spouse or children is going negative.

[John Poet]

260. Polly want a cracker?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

266. They already started on Jane Sanders.

NO PRISONERS, no past off limits. They wanted it, they've got it.

[IllinoisBrenel]

55. Bernie Was Asked A Question

And he gave his honest opinion. And Bernie did say Hillary was not Bill! I thought Bill's actions were unacceptable because the White House is my house, it belongs to all of us and Bill dishonored it as well as the Presidency!

[fredamae]

58. So, you Approve of Clintons Past

endeavors? Is that/What is your point here?

I personally, like many others- DGARA about it but that doesn't mean his behavior wasn't "Totally Disgraceful" does it?
I just find it to be a personal matter between any married couple. Others are concerned about future Scandals.
Many, many people Do care.

[leftofcool]

110. And many might care about an illegitimate child.

[fredamae]

114. Circa What? 1970's? lol

Let's don't go there. I have made it plain I do Not care about what sexual endeavors Clinton engaged in. This is a matter, imo-then and Now between Mr and Mrs Clinton.

Name me a former POTUS - sans Pres Carter - Who Didn't have an affair.

What's your point?

[Hiraeth]

67. BILL CLINTON CAN DO NO WRONG. HE IS OUR ANSWER TO REAGAN !!!

[gordyfl]

68. Jimmy Fallon

"A new poll found that Hillary Clinton is now increasing her lead over Bernie Sanders. Experts say Bernie would need something major to regain people's attention. Then Bernie was like, 'All right, leak the sex tape.'" –Jimmy Fallon

[MoonRiver]

74. This is what politicians do when they are desperate.

He's punching below the belt, because NH is now in serious play, and if he loses both Iowa and NH he is toast.

[reformist2]

85. 'punching below the belt', lol!

[MoonRiver]

95. Yeah, pun not intended!

[Roy Ellefson]

82. yes

Bernie is right here both in saying that Bill's behavior was disgraceful and that it has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

[earthside]

87. Very revealing of the Hillarians.

By reading the responses from the Hillarians in this thread one thing is quite obvious: they are in total denial about Bill and Hillary Clinton during his presidency.

The Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky incidents are not unfounded smears -- they are facts.
Bill Clinton lied about his involvement in these affairs and Hillary supported and defended her husband. She has always done this from Gennifer Flowers through the whole impeachment saga.

You read above and it's like the Hillarians want the history books and newspapers scrubbed of this aspect of the Clintons' political lives. Sen. Sanders is running against Hillary Clinton -- if he didn't answer direct questions like the one reported then he would be irresponsible. As it was he gave a perfectly responsible answer, concluding: "I am running against Hillary Clinton. I am not running against Bill Clinton." That doesn't mean Sen. Sanders ought to put this scandal into an Orwellian memory hole and pretend like it didn't exist.

I was a county campaign chair for Bill Clinton in the primaries of 1992; I've met them both. I supported Clinton in both terms and believe the Starr prosecution was extreme and over-the-top. But the truth is the truth, Bill Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office with Lewinsky was “totally disgraceful and unacceptable.”

Heaven forbid Hillary gets the nomination, but if she does the kind of denial seen here from the Hillarians is going to mean an electoral catastrophe for Democrats in November.

[NurseJackie]

92. Perhaps Bill's comments weren't as ineffective as some of Bernie's followers had suggested.

Bill's subtle jab at Bernie appears to have gotten under his skin enough that he feels the need to give his specific characterization of what he thinks of Bill's affair. (Is it tit-for-tat? Retaliation? Or does Bernie think that it helps his campaign?)

---
(Sorry, you'll have to find it yourself. Linking to specific posts puts one at risk of a "call-out" alert that likely wouldn't survive a jury.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. Now there's a wonderful way of simultaneously launching an underhanded attack and claiming the moral

high ground.

"Look at Bill Clinton's sex life! Yes, wasn't it utterly disgraceful! But, of course, I am not suggesting that you should in any way be influenced by it, I am merely drawing your attention to it..."

[TwilightGardener]

100. And that it was. Can't airbrush the past away.

[uponit7771]

104. It was irrelevant and not needed... there's no need to stoop to wingerish memes or tripe

[TwilightGardener]

105. How is noting a powerful man conducting an affair with an young employee

and then lying about it a wingerish meme? Was Bernie supposed to give Bill's behavior as President his stamp of moral approval, when asked about it? Why is Bill Clinton owed this level of deference? The man conducted sexual harassment of a young woman in the Oval office and thoroughly disgraced himself, the office, and the Democratic party.

[uponit7771]

106. Because its irrelevant, I could care if the powerful man loved a horse as long as they progressed..

... the country which Clinton did, imperfectly

[TwilightGardener]

109. LOL. Well, then go on not caring. But don't get upset when others find his conduct vile.

[uponit7771]

112. Could care less if they find it vile just not substinative to the subject of progressing the country

... when they conflate the two there's a loss of credibility and a needless sidetracking of subjects that smacks of someone losing their main positions.

[TwilightGardener]

113. Well, I think Bernie made the point that Bill and his thoroughly vile behavior

are not related to his campaign against Hillary. So, you don't really have much to gripe about here.

[R B Garr]

107. Bill should reciprocate and denounce Sanders illegitimate

child. He should say that having illegitimate children is totally disgraceful and unacceptable, but he's not going to bring it up. No siree.

[leftofcool]

108. Bill has too much class for that!

[stone space]

134. FYI

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: You alerted on a post which was already alerted

Mail Message



On Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:48 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Bill should reciprocate and denounce Sanders illegitimate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=987539

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

"He should say that having illegitimate children is totally disgraceful and unacceptable"

Creepy suggestion in the extreme.

Please hide.



JURY RESULTS

Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:56 AM, and voted 2-5 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.

Thank you.

[R B Garr]

138. That's funny! Predictable, though. A good example

of morals being a one-sided soapbox, and in this case, only the Clintons are subject to scrutiny.

[stone space]

142. Not sure what you have against children. (nt)

[R B Garr]

143. LOL. Uh huh.

[stone space]

135. Attacks on children are unacceptable, and I'm shocked to see this on DU. (nt)

[senz]

116. Totally misleading OP. Bernie was DEFENDING Hillary Clinton!

And you twist it to mean something else.

One must be so, S0 desperate to have to write misleading OPs over and over again.

I hope people realize that when this is all over, they still have to live with themselves. As well as with everyone else.

[Autumn]

121. Well those were Bills actions. He's on the campaign trail for Hillary.

But I do wish Bernie, who is such a gentleman, would stop deflecting flack for Hillary.

[Live and Learn]

125. Personally, I found it disgraceful too. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

128. Nothing wrong with the totality of Sanders' response.

He pointed out that he's not running against Bill Clinton and he's not interested in making an issue of Bill's sexual shenanigans. What Bill did was disgraceful. I thought so at the time, as did an awful lot of other Democrats. But it also did not warrant the ridiculous response of the Republicans and the whole Ken Starr investigation and the impeachment proceedings, which turned out to be an exploding cigar for them (heh, heh, I said "cigar&quot . Sanders made it clear that he's not going to be dragged into any discussion of Bill's sex life, which is exactly how he should have responded. I have no doubt, however, that we are going to be treated to a trip down Memory Lane by the media and the GOPers, whether we want to go there or not.

[LexVegas]

129. Like Bernie's rape fantasy morality? nt

[840high]

137. Fantasy does not hurt anyone.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Yeah, they're gonna try to use that essay he put in the alterna-weekly in '73 as a comeback.

derpy derp derp

[seabeyond]

133. Is Sanders suggesting we jump into his or his wifes sexual history and use as a political too?

[stone space]

136. No. Are you?

Is Sanders suggesting we jump into his or his wifes sexual history and use as a political too?

[seabeyond]

145. He introduced the position.

[stone space]

153. No he didn't. That's not true.

He introduced the position.

Please take responsibility for your own comments, and don't try to place the blame on others.

[seabeyond]

167. Yes it is. He stated Clinton's sexual past was relevant, making the statement it was disgusting.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. No, the actual word he used in answer to the question was "disgraceful"

And you know what? It's certainly arguable that Bill Clinton's behavior had a negative impact on the elctoral chances of Al Gore in 2000- I dont think that is a stretch to speculate- and as such, his affair with Monica Lewinsky had as one piece of direct fallout, 8 years of Dubya in the White House.

Is that "disgraceful" enough for you?

[seabeyond]

187. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. Argue away. I am not interested.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. disgusting and disgraceful are two different words.

And yes, my reply there does have to do with your post.

[Bettie]

248. He was VERY clear that it wasn't relevant to the situation at hand

His point was that whatever he might personally think of BILL Clinton's actions in this matter, they matter not at all because he is not running against Bill Clinton.

His point was that it is absolutely irrelevant and he is much more interested in discussing issues rather than personal choices.

[zazen]

234. if she relied on millenia-long sexual privilege, yes

Sea, this is sad. You know better. I respect you and you know better.

Hillary cannot run on being some role model for women and this supposed feminist candidate, and then deny that the personal (meaning, sexual politics) ISN'T political.

Either stay away from the feminist argument or stand by it.

Bill's behavior isn't "just" sexual. It's sexual AND political. That's the crux of feminism. Sexuality IS always political and personal. It conveys power relations. Bill is a serial adulterer with females significantly younger than him while she's expected to tow this line as his devoted, aging monogamous wife. He's exploiting male privilege in multiple ways, including against her.

I'm happy to leave him out of this.

Sanders was asked a question. He answered it, fairly, and said quite reasonably that this election is about Hillary.

She's head and shoulders above her husband. I still don't prefer her as a candidate but if I vote for her it'll be in spite of him.

Leave him out of this but stop suggesting that a vote for her has anything to do with feminism, or, talk about feminism honestly, which means talking about the power in sexual relations. You can't have it both ways.

[seabeyond]

237. Bill isn't running. Hillary isn't responsible for Bill's behavior. Attacking a wife for the husbands

Behavior is typical patriarchal sexist bullshit. Bill gets giggles and attar boy. Sanders is not a responsible adult until 40's. Trump, 3 wives later and a bunch of sexist garbage doesn't get called out.

Attacking Hillary though, not Bill, is acceptable and you lecture me about knowing better?

[ucrdem]

140. Lest there be any doubt as to where the negative messaging is coming from,

proof positive that the buck stops with Bernie. Call it a smoking gun.

[Fumesucker]

150. Exactly, Bill Clinton's sexual behavior in the White House was perfectly normal and acceptable

[ucrdem]

161. Bill wasn't bashing Dems.

And who he was boffing is not my concern.

[Armstead]

141. It was, and even his supporters agreed

In addition to extra marital sexual misdeeds with an intern inside the White House, he lied, and lied and lied. Including on th witness stand, which most mere mortals would have been tossed in jail for.

It as inexcusable what the GOP did. But no one -- including his supporters -- defended what he did.

[floriduck]

152. Thanks for the shit stir.

I agree with Bernie. Bill dipped his pen in the wrong ink bottle.

[Sheepshank]

168. Principled and without hypocricy

[Dems to Win]

171. Agree 100% with Bernie

As a feminist, I barely agreed with Democrats that BC's offenses didn't rise to the level of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. But it was wrong and totally violated every principle of sexual harassment law and disparate power relationships in the workplace that feminists and Democrats said they stood for. Yes, Monica made the first pass at him, but as the boss, Bill had the responsibility to say No, knowing it would be an unfair relationship and harmful to her career.

Bill also paid Paula Jones $850,000 because he used his power as her boss's boss's boss's boss to try to get a blowjob from her. As a young professional woman, I was disgusted with Bill at the time, and resented how much political time and capital was given to saving his sorry ass.

I know I'm pretty alone in this, but I've never been comfortable with the idea of returning Bill to the White House, whether as president or first spouse. Bernie is running against Hillary, not Bill, so he's classy to brush it aside. But as a voter, I know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill as first spouse. I say no thanks.

It will be with extreme reluctance that I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. Bill is a part of that reluctance, along with her $250,000 speeches to CitiBank, Iraq War vote, Saudi contributions to her foundation, and other issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. He certainly could have spared the country a lot of shit by not screwing around with Monica Lewinsky

For a hyper-intelligent man, which he is, who knew he was under the microscope, which he did, it was a monumentally stupid fucking move.

Now, I still believe that any genuine outrage around the act was the purview of his family and loved ones, not the American People.

But if we're really determined to get down into the weeds about this, because "O NO YOU DIDNT, BERNIE!", then fine. Bill Clinton shouldn't have screwed around with an intern, and after he did it, he shouldn't have gotten up there on tv and wagged his finger at the American People about "I did not....." He should have owned up to it and said "yeah I did it, but it's between me and my family and the people directly involved, it has no bearing on my job"

I supported the guy throughout the whole thing, but let's not pretend he was blameless.

[one_voice]

201. I'm going to agree

with you here.

For a hyper-intelligent man, which he is, who knew he was under the microscope, which he did, it was a monumentally stupid fucking move.

Now, I still believe that any genuine outrage around the act was the purview of his family and loved ones, not the American People.

It was stupid. Some men (yes some) think they're the smartest person in the room and the most loved, and one or the other will take care of their indiscretions.

I don't think cheating will happen as much as it used to because cameras everywhere. No one can hide.

I also agree he should have owned up to it and said it was a private matter.

Those fuckwad repukes went way overboard--while they were all playing hide the pickle with their mistresses. Fucking hypocrites.

[Warren DeMontague]

204. They dd. I thought there was no excuse for Ken Starr spending years and taxpayer dollars

Rooting around in Clinton's underwear drawer. None.

Still, he shouldnt have left them an opening. Shoulda woulda coulda, but im not interested in endlessly rehashing it. It certainly isnt a reason not to vote for his wife.

It is an interesting psychological question, of course, as to whether the same sorts of personality traits which allow Bill Clinton to be such a phenomenally gifted politician- really, the most amazingly so we are likely to see in our lifetimes- also feed into his track record of reckless personal behavior. Like, the need to be "loved", so to speak.

It's kind like Vincent Van Gogh- who clearly had issues, but also was one of the most gifted artists of all time. So where does the problem end and the "gift" begin? It's a good, baby/bathwater question.

[840high]

203. Agree 100%.

[winter is coming]

206. Having sex with an intern half his age was sleazy. Denying it was stupid.

If he'd had the guts to say, "Yes, we had an affair, and that's between me and my wife," the whole mess would have ended a lot sooner.

[Hiraeth]

213. Other adjectives that come to mind include: randy, rowdy, shocking, scandolous, unethical, immoral,

discreditable, disreputable, dishonorable, ... just to name a few.

Seems Sanders was rather tactful and diplomatic and gracious given the topic.

[Agnosticsherbet]

229. Bill Clinton's sex life is none of my fucking bussiness.

I have enough difficulty managing my own without out pocking my nose his or anhone's.

[senz]

232. And that's precisely what Bernie was saying.

[Bettie]

246. I was at that event

in the front row. The look on his face when the man asked the question was one of dismay.

He was very clear that while he doesn't approve of what bill Clinton did at that time, it has zero bearing on the campaign he is running right now.

He was also very clear that he wanted to talk about the issues facing all of us, not what someone not running in this race did years ago.

What more was he supposed to say? He answered the question clearly, but still being respectful to the man who asked.

[Beacool]

256. He could have chosen the classy way out by saying that president's Clinton private life

was none of his concern.

[merrily]

254. It was disgraceful behavior. Sanders was asked and he answered. And?

[Beacool]

255. I have always found amusing the hypocritical and puritanical views of Americans on sex.

I don't care where anyone sticks their penis, as long as the people involved are consenting adults. Clinton's sex life didn't concern me in the 90s and it concerns me even less now. Besides, he is not the one running for president. Hillary is, and she's not responsible for her husband's behavior. The same goes for any other woman.

Maybe if people worried a bit more about their own sex lives and a little less about that of others, this would be a better country.

And I thought that it was the Republicans who were the sexually repressed judgmental hypocrites..........

[TheFarseer]

267. An affair in the oval office with an intern

Is not an impeachable offense. Does not make one a bad president. But is not something to be proud of. We're you really stoked when the news broke or were you saying, "oh boy, we're going to be hearing about this for a long time"