2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMEET THE PRESS: Chuck Todd: Clinton Camp VERY NERVOUS' About Sexual Assault/Rape Allegations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
merrily
(45,251 posts)If she gets the nomination, it's going to be non-stop Bill and Hillary Clinton baggage from before 2000, plus everything since.
And the Republican nominee and his or her surrogates will not have to worry about DUs TOS or being alert stalked. It will be open season and then some.
Segami
(14,923 posts)what 'other' little Hillary/Bill nugget republicans are keeping hush-hush tight-lipped about.......they have a strategy to follow and the golden rule is all about timing.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Being able to keep their mouth shut on something like that! No way...
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Bill had ONE meeting with his big brother (who died in 2009) and after 23 years has yet to make time to meet his big sister. Whatta guy! Whatta a great family man!
President Has a Half Sister, An Arizona Family Claims
Published: August 6, 1993
PHOENIX, Aug. 5— A newspaper reported today that Bill Clinton's father, a traveling salesman who died before the future President was born, may have also fathered a daughter.
A Tucson woman's birth certificate lists William Jefferson Blythe of Sherman, Tex., as her father, The Arizona Republic reported today. The name and hometown match those of Mr. Clinton's father.
The Tucson woman, Sharon Pettijohn, was born Sharron Lee Blythe in Kansas City, Mo., on May 11, 1941, five years before Mr. Blythe married Mr. Clinton's mother. Mr. Blythe, a traveling salesman, died in an automobile accident in 1946, shortly before Bill Clinton was born.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/06/us/president-has-a-half-sister-an-arizona-family-claims.html
Mr. Ritzenthaler, known around here as Leon, says he is President Clinton's half-brother, and today he was on his way to New York City and the circuit of national television appearances that are the automatic badge of celebrity these days.
The 55-year-old retiree, who was forced to abandon a janitorial business because of a heart condition. At the 49ers Cafe, lunch patrons clucked over Mr. Ritzenthaler's picture on the front page of the local newspaper and wondered why he'd be so public about being related to an unpopular Democratic President. "Who cares?" said Cindy Steward, a harried waitress. "Anyway, if you were Bill Clinton's brother, would you admit it in the newspaper?" President Remains Silent
The revelations about Mr. Ritzenthaler were made in The Washington Post on Sunday, in an article about Mr. Clinton's father, William Jefferson Blythe, who died in a car accident weeks before Mr. Clinton's birth. According to public records and interviews with family members, Mr. Blythe married Adele Gash in 1935 when they were both 17. Although they divorced the next year, Mr. Blythe was listed as the father of Henry Leon Blyth, who was born in 1938 and who later took the last name of his adoptive father.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/clinton-s-lost-half-brother-to-neighbors-he-s-just-leon.html
Henry Leon Ritzenthaler
1938 - 2009 Obituary Condolences
Henry Leon Ritzenthaler, 70, of Dermott, AR, formerly of Paradise, CA, died January 12, 2009. Leon was born Henry Leon Blythe on January 17, 1938 in Sherman, TX to the late William Jefferson ("W.J."
Blythe and Virginia Adele Gash (Ritzenthaler-Coffelt) and was later adopted by his stepfather. Leon is survived by his wife, Judith Ritzenthaler; daughter, Virginia (Ron) Gana of Dermott, AR; son, Charles (Lisa) Ritzenthaler of Paradise, CA; four grandchildren, Heather, Shane, Jason and Brandy and five great-grandchildren. Leon is also survived by his half-brother William Jefferson Clinton, his half-sister, Sharon Pettijohn and his two very special friends, Jerry Bogner and Mike Funkhouser.
- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/paradisepost/obituary.aspx?pid=122856575#sthash.bpqkEqyK.dpuf
Check out the photo accompanying the obit - looks like Bill.
Bill Clinton found out about this slew of relatives back in 1993 - did y'all see any of them at Chelsea's wedding? Chelsea was 13 when this news broke. Too bad she never met her cousins. Could have had some fun times in the White House.
Mr Ritzenthaler himself has tried unsuccessfully to meet his famous sibling. 'I don't want any money out of this or anything. All I would like to do is meet the man. I would be honoured to get to know him a little. To find out after 55 years that I've got a brother eight years younger than I am - well, that's kind of nice.'
Bill Clinton: Discovered a half-brother in 1993
In 1993, on Father’s Day, my first as President, [several newspapers ran] investigative stories on my father. The stories turned up a lot we didn’t know, including the fact that my father had probably been married three times before he met Mother, and apparently had at least two more children.
My father’s other son was identified as Leon Ritzenthaler, a retired owner of a janitorial service, from northern California. He said he had written me during the ‘92 campaign but had received no reply. I got in touch with him and later met him & his wife, Judy. We had a happy visit and since then we’ve corresponded in holiday seasons. He and I look alike, his birth certificate says his father was mine, and I wish I’d known about him a long time ago.
Somewhere around this time, I also received information about a daughter, born Sharon Lee Blythe in Kansas City in 1941, to a woman my father later divorced. I’m sorry to say that, for whatever reason, I’ve never met her.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, First Chapter Jun 23, 2004
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/My_Life_Principles_+_Values.htm
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Once when I was 19 and once a couple of years ago. My brother just met her, like in the last month....so what's your point?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And if you were a controversial and world famous political figure, you would anticipate your siblings being targeted by all kinds of people - news reporters, oppo research, grifters - and would reasonably make some effort to meet them, establishing an ongoing connection and offering some support or assistance in dealing with the situation and handling such contacts.
And that is beside the point of at least meeting with them one time to see if there was the potential for an emotional connection.
I find it a sad commentary on today's society, where there is so much divorce, that children are kept isolated from 1/2 siblings.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)I was all of 5 when they divorced, and I'm the oldest. I met my dad after that when I was almost nineteen....I met my half sister a few years ago, for the second time....I'm 49 years old now. I still don't get the issue, and what it makes you so upset.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)Not all families are Ozzie & Harriet Nelson and Make Room For Daddy TV perfect.
Sometimes keeping family members out of your life is the best thing for the family or yourself.
I think your commentary is sad.
#buttout
Divernan
(15,480 posts)But I think that decision should be left to the family members themselves, and that requires at least knowing that a close family member even exists and also meeting them in order to get enough information to make a decision. I don't know anyone with a Make Room For Daddy perfect family.
If I had a half-sibling, I would definitely want to know about it and have the opportunity to meet them.
I have an adopted niece who, as an adult, was able to track down her birth parents and learned that not only were they married to each other, but she had 4 older, full siblings - her parents had decided they couldn't afford to keep her. She has met 2 of her full-sibs and has a good relationship with her older brother.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They'll even dig up Vince Foster (perhaps LITERALLY) and everything else. And they will crush us at the polls with it.
Nothing can possibly be worth putting ourselves through all of that again. Nothing.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
Ilsa
(64,371 posts)who already has started this rehashing of murder lies. I'm sick of it.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Why even bother with republicans when the left is willing to do the dirty work for you?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Yet you know as well as I, that when Lefties bring up the Clinton sex scandals, or even the other weirder ones,
it's not out of some faux 'moral outrage' ginned up to destroy the Democratic Party. In fact, it's the exact opposite in the present case; it's to save the Democratic Party from itself, from handing the nomination to a completely unelectable candidate in the GE, thus giving the WH to the GOP in a landslide.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But I'm still sick of my peers doing the r/w dirty work for them, that doesn't change.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Although I have my suspicions about how many of those doing this here are actually on the Left. They are awfully conversant and comfortable with Right Wing talking points and strangely gleeful about using them.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)if a candidate's dirty laundry is NOT thoroughly aired in the Primary, rendering said
candidate unelectable in the GE, this does irreparable damage both to the Dem. Party
AND to the entire nation in this case.
So this canard, about "RW talking points" is nothing more than a shallow transparent
(perhaps desperate?) attempt to silence primary opponents in a selfish attempt to
wangle an undeserved nomination that will do irreparable damage down the road.
That line of thinking is damaging to democracy and the nation, and i don't think it's
convincing anyone anyway, as well it shouldn't.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)It's another to constantly and obsessively reprint those talking points and arguing the merits of them in an attempt to convince other Democrats that they are true.
Big difference.
And spare me the "damaging to democracy" bs. This is an online forum, not the town square or the halls of Congress. No one is trying to silence you. I'm just calling out your crap.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)The pretzel resemblance is rather striking. 
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)right here. Not just on Fox and by right wing radio: Right here on DU by a group of people chortling over and enjoying the prospect of months of slimy GOP, etc., attacks equating Hillary with rape.
Pretending to deplore it but obviously hoping for that irreparable damage that'll prove them right. Don't tell me much of this is not about taking Hillary herself down, even if it means helping put put one of the GOP's fascist-leaning corporatists in the White House. After month after month of the constant anti-Hillary bile from those participating in this, I won't believe it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)rightwing organization dedicated to one thing and one thing only, make damn sure Hillary is not the first Woman president.
The tentacles reach into ALL social media, ALL message boards, especially this one.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)keeping HRC from being President.
His number one goal is to defeat ALL Democrats, whether Kerry, Obama or the Clintons. His number 2 goal was to defeat Republicans he disliked or who were in the way of his "guy", like McCain.
randys1
(16,286 posts)What they fear is the massive potential turnout to elect the first Woman president.
A Woman who is universally recognized as a very talented, smart and experienced leader.
AT this point I dont know who they hate more, her or Bernie, but I think it is her.
This gives some credibility to the argument that more of the assholes will turnout to vote just to vote against her.
But, I also think that if the left were to stop trying to destroy itself, we could probably muster up some really exciting action as to making people WANT to vote for EITHER of our candidates.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)We know that Rove will attack ANY Democratic nominee, with essentially the same viciousness. In addition, he will attack even if the person is far cleaner than your average politician with no real scandals - like Gore or Kerry.
I don't know whether the Clintons having been very well known for 25 years hurts or helps in that regard. The problem is that their problems have also been well known for that length of time. No one is surprised to hear that Clinton did not follow the Obama administration's guidelines on email -- or that she opted against transparency. That is who she is!
That is also why the Bill Clinton attacks might hurt - even though they shouldn't. they awaken memories of the 1990s and thus they are believed by many even without any proof. (Andrea Mitchell to the contrary, I don't think the Benghazi movie hurts -- I suspect that just as no one remotely likely to vote for W saw Fahrenheit 911, no one likely to vote for Clinton wants to even hear the name of the town again!)
randys1
(16,286 posts)karynnj
(60,968 posts)Anything that could be a big issue in the general election is something that certainly can be discussed here. Anything that a left blogger could find as an allegation is something the Republican opposition watch would start with.
What do YOU see as things the left as done to destroy Clinton?
I actually would suggest that vague accusations against Jane Sanders concerning a college that likely 99% of this board ever saw of heard of is one time you can point to on the other side. As a resident of Burlington, I think that had her deal not been made, the college would be in a worse position than it is now -- especially after they averted the crisis. The college has a beautiful site, and plans for on site college housing ... and they are working on expanding programs. This is a better use for that site than likely would have happened otherwise.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)As we both know, the whole purpose of primaries -- besides choosing the party's nominee -- is to
thoroughly vet said candidates; which includes anticipating what the OTHER party is going to
throw at the nominee, and airing that BEFORE it's too late in the GE, BEFORE any damage is done
to the Party or to the nation by putting forth a nominee who's unelectable.
To insist on muzzling a 'front-runner's' opponents with insinuations that airing their dirty laundry is
somehow "disloyal" to the party, is patently ridiculous, tantamount to suggesting we either do away
with primaries altogether OR reduce them to a staged 'Punch & Judy' puppet show to con voters
into thinking their vote still counts anything at all.
Who I vote for in the GE is my business, and I refuse to take any ironclad Loyalty Oaths, both on
principle; and because I have no idea what the GE is going to look like at this point.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The Clinton Chronicles will be far more sordid and sleazy this time around.
Way to depress the Democratic turnout for voting, Hillary! It will be a Republican tsunami at the polls if she's the candidate.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Not just 90s shit, but everything since which has yet to be fully explored (Clinton Foundation)
We can't change our minds if she's nominated.
riversedge
(80,811 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)which we should win from a demographics standpoint...
It sure isn't worth going through again when we may lose anyway.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)With supporters like the GOP, Bernie really does not need enemies.
How DID Hillary manage that rape anyway? Is there a forum where the details are discussed without worrying about being banned?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)the other day when he said to someone, how he "now deeply regrets" his decision to
not run in the Primary. It sure seems like something big is about to break on this front,
and it won't be good for Team Hillary.
Can you say "Sanders v. Trump in the GE" yet?
Segami
(14,923 posts)till you hear Trump shout out about Bill's alleged mistress codenamed 'the Energizer'.......Whether such claims are true or false (Google it), Trump will force the Clinton camp to defend Bill against such allegations.....they really have no choice.
This is one of many things we can expect to be dealing with for the next 4 years in office IF Hillary makes it that far.......
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)He maybe also hasn't heard of 'be careful what you ask for'.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Trump is a frivolous person.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)He plays the fool very well but he's playing a part and he's doing it artfully.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)And a little bit of me wonders if he is playing for a team and which team that may be.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)It won't work. Trumpy! 
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Or his Arkansas state trooper guards. In other words, Bill can't sue Trump for any allegations about Bill's decades of extramarital sexual adventures, without opening the world's largest can of whoop-ass via discovery & depositions.
We end up with the battle of the Confidentiality Agreements versus depositions under oath - zip that puppy up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With the Clintons back in the White House, it will be one hot mess after another - which will serve to distract and entertain the public while Hillary delivers on her corporate campaign/Clinton Family Foundation debts.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Most of the scandals the RW pushed (and will continue to push against Clinton were untrue, but it only takes one, as we saw in the 90's. And sadly, it doesn't even have to be true to do damage.
Bernie will be subject to their smear machine as well, but the RW has years of op research, an actual cottage industry, on the Clintons and their associates.
I know it won't be a popular idea among Democrats but I think we owe it to the party and even more to ourselves to thoroughly vet our candidates before the general election. I don't buy the meme that doing so is helping the RW, they have far more material than we can cover. We should assume they'll find anything we can, and we should look into it now to know what baggage the caandidates are carrying.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)"The Blaze" no wonder why you didn't post a link.
The Clinton hatred is strong.
randys1
(16,286 posts)up with a SC decision which said, in the decision, that if votes were allowed to be counted it would harm Bush therefore you will NOT count the votes.
That happened.
You think there is a dollar amount limit in what the right will spend making sure Hillary isnt the first Woman president?
None...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)This is what I don't get...
Bernie the nominee and the republicans just give up?
"Hey guys it's all yours, we won't spend any money against the nominee"...
randys1
(16,286 posts)"jew socialist" is the derogatory way they would go after him.
840high
(17,196 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)is there a link? the ONLY reason he would deeply regret would be if he knew she was going down...
Segami
(14,923 posts)http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Vice-President-Regrets-Not-Running-for-President-Everyday-364452811.html
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)He was just being candid about how badly he had wanted to run, IMHO.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)why he said that. Seemed like out of the blue. Just another Biden Blurt. Hmm.
mucifer
(25,667 posts)People get really into power.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)the Republicans really have a pathological hatred for the Clintons. I'm not making a statement about allegations. But most of this shit, if actually done by a Republican, would go completely unnoticed.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)it goes unnoticed, but Trump has a way of being heard. As a progressive, I couldn't care less about this topic as it relates to Hillary's fitness for office, but others?
randys1
(16,286 posts)about Jeb or Rubio's questionable past on a rightwing board?
Yeah, you are right, they wouldn't.
Here it seems there is a very well orchestrated attack, all day, everyday, of the Clintons.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)or any other of right wing looney tune makes up about them.
Right wingers are caught in all manner of infidelity, hypocritical closeted behavior, immorality and the like, and the shit barely hangs in the media for one news cycle.
randys1
(16,286 posts)for being married to him.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Stone –who claims he isn't working for Trump anymore– is launching the Committee to Restore America’s Greatness to combat attacks against the business mogul.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/new-super-pac-goes-after-trump-competition
cali
(114,904 posts)but no doubt it's going to an issue. Maureen Dowd went to town with this the other day.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)One of the reasons I was against Hillary even before I knew as much about her as I am learning every day.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I don't understand while anyone would attack her on that garbage when she legitimate policy issues.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...or raped anyone. If true, it's over for her...
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that was, which we honestly have no way of knowing) to this very day.
Lie, deny, attack the girlfriends, stand by her man no matter what, rinse and repeat. The anti-feminist, self-protection not just for personal survival, which would be understandable, but to put personal political career aspirations ahead of what's best for the country.
I've seen her type, male and female, in the work world so many times. I have their shoe prints all over my face and head to prove it. Running from their past, running from their mistakes, running over co-workers, running over their "underlings," in their desperate race to be top dog.
Until their past catches up with them, and runs them down. And I suspect that's what we'll be seeing in the coming year. 
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is an attempt to escape any critique on policy or people making legitimate choices about the candidates and blame it on old nonsense sex scandals.
reddread
(6,896 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)and then their opinions are golden . . .
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But Bills infidelity destroys Hillary!!
Good thing none of trumps wives has been infaithful, he'd no longer be eligible to be president apparently.
earthside
(6,960 posts)The Washington pundits like to tell us how popular is Bill Clinton and how "dangerous" or "unwise" it is for Republicans or Democrats to challenge or question him.
But, Bill Clinton is most effective when it isn't personal -- and campaigning for his wife is personal.
That happened in 2008 when Bill uttered some pretty bad remarks.
And this cycle, the climate is different again; the social media is pervasive in a way it wasn't just eight years ago. Everything about the Clinton White House years will be revisited, the good and the bad. But in our celebrity, Kardashian popular culture, the scandalous will get top billing. That's a fact ... whether the Hillarians like it or not.
Hillary will be dragged down and she will take Bill with her.
Why do some Democrats want to do that?
Too much Clintons ...
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Absolutely, PLUS the anonymity of much social media and the fact that it isn't censored, means that the commentary will be much harsher and in slimy detail.
whathehell
(30,469 posts)How is it "abuse" if, like Flowers and Lewinski, the parties are of age and the sex is consensual?....Nothing else has ever been proven.
P.S. I'm a Bernie supporter, but I'm not sure Trump has legs will this.
olddots
(10,237 posts)lousy sex and lousy power .
Nixon was a perfect Republican = lacking in sexuality and charisma , Bill Clinton was the opposite but they both couldn't see the future .
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)As a Bernie supporter I will not be denied my right to vocalize my opposition to Hillary's past in regards to supporting the status quo, MIC, and Wall Street catering, War on Drugs among others. These are arguments made from an informed left point of view.
But I want nothing to do with this determined, one cut at a time, public media assassination of one of our own, and her whole family, based on dirty, tabloid, sex crime innuendo. I want her to lose the nomination, but if she wins, more and more of this kind of round table circle jerk is going to go on dissecting every tiny construed dalliance or rumoured personal ill behaviour by anyone with the last name Clinton. And then I think many Bernie Democrat supporters, who were happy to jump on board the bandwagon of everything is on the table even if it is unsubstantiated right wing talking points, exaggerating and highlighting on a daily basis any personal faux pas that a Clinton was a part of...will regret handing the right wing media that extra fuel burst in the early days which will eventually be used against the whole Democratic brand.
Like seriously? They are going to re-visit the Bill Clinton sexual predator angle AGAIN? Just to stain his wife. And also to prevent him from having any kind of active role in her administration.
And if you don't think that if Bernie does win the nomination they will not be scratching and scouring his past for any hint of questionable personal behaviour in order to NOT have to talk about what he actually stands for today, and how his policies may help the nation, then you are out to lunch.
840high
(17,196 posts)Prez Clinton. I did not defend his lying under oath.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)So the implication is that you are perfectly fine with this type of sleezy faux journalism hit job masking as serious journalism?
And sorry, but lying under oath about having a "sexual relation" with Monica L., was if distasteful, understandable as well. I would challenge any married person, especially in the public eye, thrust into the national spotlight, with such high stakes at play, and forced to admit to a sexual dalliance when for all intents and purposes there is no evidence at all...would not do the same. Especially when it is not to help his wife but to excite the drooling hypocrites like Newt Gingrich and many others in the House and Senate and the eager hacks in the corporate media and hate radio. That circus was one of the most disgusting, expensive, waste of time, and abuse of power in congress history.
Besides that, one could argue that a one time BJ is NOT a "sexual relationship", which I'm sure is how Bill saw it, and I as well. May be splitting hairs, but the very fact that it is such a fine point, I will not condemn BC for trying any legal interpretation he could use to escape that vast right wing conspiracy. (One Hillary truth)
WHY THE *%$# ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS?
840high
(17,196 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)People lie about their age, their weight. Other types of dishonesty like speeding is epidemic.
Many marriage counselors even admit that sometimes, lying to protect a relationship that you value and have been dedicated to for a long time, for a moment of weakness, a brief dalliance, is not always a bad thing. Besides, it was not that Bill was asked directly by his wife if he "had sexual relations", (maybe she did but we don't know and that is not what this is about). This is not his wife, who admirably stood by her husband, but the opposing political party wanting to drag him through the mud, embarrass him, impeach him. A party that was rife with hypocritical cheaters. To overlook that aspect and view it through such a simple black and white tunnelvision is frankly sanctimonious PC BS.
840high
(17,196 posts)thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Obvious joke in 3...2...1...
Seriously though, I always got a kick out of the fact that Clinton's numbers improved during every sex scandal. Yet, Conservatives kept at it anyway. Apparently, in the bubble people take this serious while the rest of the world laughs. They are so out of touch with modern society.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)If Todd, his guests, and some DU'ers want to revive their obsession w the Clenis, have at it.
Monicagate mouth-frothers are never going to vote Democratic. Not for Bernie nor for HRC.
However, Republican women may cross over and vote for HRC if she is the nominee if Trump et al. continues to blame Hillary for Bill's infidelity.
GOP women urge Trump to drop talk of Bill Clinton sex scandals
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/06/trump-bill-clinton-sex-scandals-republican-women/78352482/
Republican women have a message for Donald Trump: Enough with Bill Clinton’s sex scandals.
It’s not that they’re waving Trump off the issue to help Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, they’re worried that the more Trump talks about a troubled period of the Clintons’ marital history, the more likely it could backfire and rally independent and even some Republican women to the side of the former first lady.
<snip>
Women voters are likely to recoil over Trump’s contention in recent interviews that the former first lady was an “enabler” of her husband’s liaisons, including his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, said Nancy Dwight, a former National Republican Congressional Committee executive director.
“I’m uncomfortable with it, I just am,” Dwight said, adding that she particularly didn't like a candidate discussing it. “She was as aghast by her husband’s behavior as the rest of us," she said of Clinton. The Democratic front-runner has "a ton of trip-ups” that’ll be ignored if Bill Clinton's past becomes a dominant theme.
<snip>
John Poet
(2,510 posts)And when I think about the fact that we will be made to relive it all if Hillary is the nominee, I get sick to my stomach...