Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Hillary Right for America? (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who do you want ? (9+ / 0-)

    Put up some names .
    Don't just do the negative thing that so many have done before .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:21:40 AM PDT

    •  We've all heard the names before... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CIndyCasella, Sunspots, Max Udargo

      Liz Warren is by far my favorite, though I suspect that she's too lefty to get elected to the White House.

    •  Martin O'Malley (12+ / 0-)

      Successful governing as a progressive. He's brought real technological innovation to government to improve performance. He's funny. He's only 51. He's a good speaker who connects well with his audience. He's not acerbic, but rather firm and passionate, yet self-deprecating.

      Listen to any of his speeches on Youtube. You won't find an Obama-level orator, but you will find someone comfortable and confident with the audience and with himself.

      Of the almost 1,900 dead Palestinians, the IDF said it killed "900 terrorists" in Gaza. Add that to its long list of lies.

      by pajoly on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:48:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  e.g Martin O'Malley (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, marina, Portlaw

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is my problem with anti-Hillaryites (8+ / 0-)

      There just isn't anyone else IMO who is clearly better.

      Warren is great on the issues but I've got questions about her ability and interest to actually run the government.  O'Malley is a bland guy with little charisma.  Yes he takes liberal positions, but I don't see anything to suggest he would actually shift away from the Washington/Wall Street consensus.  Brian Schweitzer is a douchebag.  Andrew Cuomo is even worse.  Deval Patrick would probably be the best of the likely choices, won't run, and could lose the general if he did.  Sherrod Brown is probably too abrasive to win the primary.  Tammy Baldwin is not ready (I think she may make a wonderful option in 2020 or 2024).  

      I'd prefer Obama for a third term over all of these options (including Hillary). The Dem bench leaves a lot to be desired.

      If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

      by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's true... (0+ / 0-)

        that the bench isn't deep, but we didn't see Obama coming in 2008, so we might be surprised, though I expect that it is already too late for this election cycle. That's why it seems like Hillary has it wrapped up.

        •  We saw Obama at this time in (0+ / 0-)

          the respective point in the 08 cycle. It's a myth that no one saw him as at least a potential challenger to front runner HRC at this point.

          •  2004 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            He didn't come on the scene nationally until 2004 when he gave his famous speech. The last convention we had (2012) would have been the last time we could have had a candidate take a similar path to PBO. Which is why I said it might be too late for a candidate to come out of that path.

            •  Has anybody mentioned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlueKing

              Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky as a possibility?

              I don't know all that much about him, but the things I know about I like a lot.

              The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

              by LibrErica on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:36:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LibrErica

                He's 71 years old, supported a creationist museum and supports the anti-gay law in Kentucky.  That's fine for someone in Kentucky, especially given how well he administered Kynect, but he's too conservative for a President.

                If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

                by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:17:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, he looked younger in the picture I saw of him (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  USA629

                  And I can't support someone who doesn't support equal protection under the law, so being anti-LGBTQ tanks him.

                  All I really knew was that he implemented the ACA pretty successfully. Thanks for the info.

                  The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

                  by LibrErica on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  O'Malley has more charisma than Hillary. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueKing, k9disc, native, marina

        He has gotten a great reception in Iowa during his trips there. He's an actual rock star too since he is a lead singer in a band.

        O'Malley has years of executive experience and he has a long list of progressive accomplishments to run. Hillary has campaign promises.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:59:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He also botched the rollout of HCR... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          ...despite everything in his favor.  That's going to sting.

          It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

          by Rich in PA on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:25:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one is going to care about that after (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Just Bob

            a successful enrollment this year.

            This is much more exciting news from Maryland on health care and worth following:

            Through innovative methods and a data-centric approach, Western Maryland Regional Medical Center, has become the cornerstone in Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley's ambitious makeover of the state's healthcare programs.

            The facility, which is located in a far corner of the state, has managed to strike the elusive balance of cutting costs and improving the quality of patient care — all while improving access to preventative care and the relative health of the community. Specifically, the facility has served as a showcase for O'Malley's plan to reduce preventable hospitalizations throughout Maryland.

            Jo Wilson, the vice president of operations at the hospital, said last week that there had been a 21% year-over-year reduction in admissions, helping to contribute to an overall 11.5% decrease in preventable hospitalizations per 100,000 Marylanders between 2011 and 2013. That decrease exceeds O'Malley's goal of a 10% reduction by the end of next year.

            At the same time, since November, the hospital has saved $3.5 million in costs. A new clinical center has saved patients approximately $1.4 million.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:58:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary botched hcr in Bill's administration. (0+ / 0-)
            •  She didn't botch anything................ (0+ / 0-)

              She was amazing in her knowledge and advocacy.  I'll never forget how she took a congressional committee to school and pissed off the chairman whose name escapes me at the moment.  Anyway, the country wasn't ready.  It had to experience years more health care horrors to even consider government intervention.  

              Proud to be a Democrat

              by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:41:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  There are countless politicians who would do (5+ / 0-)

        a much better job than Hillary. They just don't have the backing of the Party establishment.

        “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

        by 420 forever on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:00:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name them (0+ / 0-)

          Remember that for me, electability and ability to govern is a requirement.  If you want to give me some unqualified nut job and say they would be better than Hillary, then I don't have time for that.

          If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in a Presidential general election, then I hold you personally responsible for any right-wing Supreme Court decision.

          by USA629 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 11:45:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is no way to prove electability until (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueKing, 420 forever

            the election is run. Using that as a criteria is silly. And if you use ability to govern then Hillary should be at the bottom of your list. She's never run an executive branch. She's worked for Obama as SoS and was a backbencher Senator for 8 years who has nothing to show for her time in the Senate outside of naming some post offices.

            If you look at managerial experience, her campaigns were poorly run disasters. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:00:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  lol - that's the point, (0+ / 0-)

          if you don't have the party establishment you don't become the nominee.  And I don't agree there are "countless politician" who have the knowledge and expertise and experience to do a better job than a former first lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:44:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary talked about obliterating Iran. She is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FakeNews, Portlaw

        basically Netanyahu's mouthpiece.  Enough killing.  It would be nice to have candidates free of the sword of AIPAC and the MIC, who could get our country back on track.  

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:17:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary hints demonstrators are anti-semitic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FakeNews, Odysseus

          who are appalled at what Israel has done to the Gazans, killing over 2,000 people and destroying their water supply, electricity, homes, schools, etc.

          Hillary Clinton:

          "....we do see this enormous international reaction against Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself, and the way Israel has to defend itself. This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.”

          She went on, “You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with what’s going on in Europe today. There are more demonstrations against Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner. So there’s something else at work here than what you see on TV."

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:33:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of them are anti Semitic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lying eyes

            waving Nazi flags will do that to you.

            •  Where are the Nazi flags? In the closets of the (0+ / 0-)

              thugs the neocons put in place in Ukraine?  Oh, just give it a rest.

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  on the news (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lying eyes

                All over the globe.
                Please pull your head from your ass for a change.

                •  Not in Boston. Show the photos. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO

                  Provide a link.  

                  Your language speaks for your ability to debate respectfully.  

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Boston being the sum total of what happens in the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lying eyes

                    world, right? Or is it all a media conspiracy?

                    •  Well, I haven't seen these signs, but (0+ / 0-)

                      I do know that the photos of a statue tumbling down in Iraq was pretty much staged.  I also was present at a protest in Boston during which a goon harassed peace protesters, and when he upset a guy by smashing into his girlfriend, a photographer took the photo in such a way as to not include the goon, but have it framed to look like the protester was yelling at a pretty girl holding a sign in favor of the war.  I saw that with my own eyes.

                      It's also well known that during the Viet Nam war there were agent provocateurs in the crowd acting up to make the peaceniks look bad.

                      Give me a link to see the Nazis.

                      You still have not provided me with any evidence.

                      However, even if some Nazis were seen in the protests, it's illogical to assume that all the protesters were Nazis.

                      Grasping at straws here.

                      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                      by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where did I ever claim this? (0+ / 0-)
                        However, even if some Nazis were seen in the protests, it's illogical to assume that all the protesters were Nazis.
                        I never made that claim. I claimed, accurately, unless 100% of all media outlets, foreign and American are engaged in a giant conspiracy (let by you know who!), that Nazi flags have appeared at pro Palestinian rallies.
        •  She talked about that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bill W, Lying eyes

          IF Iran nuked Israel first. Do you think Iran should get a free nuke shot at Tel Aviv?

          •  That whole narrative about Iran nuking (0+ / 0-)

            Israel is a bunch of bunk like Saddam was behind 9/11 & shopping for yellow cake in Niger, and we are all sick of the neocon fear mongering lies to start wars to reduce the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) list of countries to rubble.

            Talking about obliterating a country is nuts.  

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:21:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it isn't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lying eyes

              Iran has a nuclear program and to date refuses to comply with the NPT, which it is a party to. They have in the past threatened to level Israeli cities. Whether they can do so remains to be seen. I rather doubt it, but that's the whole point of these negotiations, to make sure they never have the capacity to do so, at least not with a nuclear weapon. The question to which Clinton responsnded was a hypothetical, the kind that candidates for President get all the time. Her response was totally ration. She said if Iran did that, they know that we can oblitatate them. In other words, she was talking about the deterrent value of knowing that there will be overwhelming retaliation in kind. Most sane people have no problem with this.
              You however, still don't answer the question as to whether it would be ok to nuke Tel Aviv and not pay a price. Why is that?

              •  All of this is propaganda. No links, just (0+ / 0-)

                talking points from the think tanks that lied us into one war after another.

                Her response was completely off the wall.  I'm not alone in thinking that her heartlessly saying "obliterate" an entire country was a deal breaker for many of us to ever vote for her.  

                Hypothetical questions?  A good leader doesn't answer them.  That crazy question in and of itself is an indication of how biased our bought and paid for news media is.

                I'm not answering your paranoid question either, no matter how much you swear at me, insult me, or act like an aggressive bully.  

                No one is afraid of these ad hom attacks any more or these ridiculous litmus tests.  

                Hillary's behind the curve by saying these outlandish things to placate the war hungry extremists.  It's 2014, and we are sick of these wars based on lies and hypothetical fear mongering.

                Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                by CIndyCasella on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:49:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Of all the carnards that's the biggest. (0+ / 0-)

          What she said was Iran knew they'd be obliterated if they used a nuclear weapon and that's just a statement of fact.  I'd go further and say any country which used a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies would be obliterated.  That an obvious reality.

          Proud to be a Democrat

          by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:48:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The trick isn't to dis people . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LibrErica

        The trick is to find a person or persons to support .
        Try to find someone to support , put your energy / effort into that .

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'bout covers it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        USA629

        Come together and we'll win with Hillary and eventually   have a Supreme Court which can reverse some of the horrors of rightwing rule.    Of course some here will be unhappy but they are always unhappy.  Bless their pure little hearts.

        Proud to be a Democrat

        by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 02:31:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  hannah mentioned Biden. I could actually vote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, Richard Villiers

      for a Progressive Biden - not beholden to credit card companies and whatnot, from Delaware and all - if he came out with some Harry Truman, or even Eisenhower, I'd consider voting for him

      If he nominates a LIEberman type and runs DLC he might lose me, but I don't really think that's his style.

      Biden or Warren.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People have been supplying names for ages now (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing, k9disc, native, blackhand

      on this blog and Hillary supporters keep ignoring them and then asking for names.

      Martin O'Malley
      Deval Patrick
      Elizabeth Warren

      are all viable alternatives to Hillary and O'Malley is definitely running.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:57:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice sig line you got there . (0+ / 0-)
        People have been supplying names for ages now on this blog and Hillary supporters keep ignoring them and then asking for names.
        I asked the person who wrote this diary for names . I did not ignore names put forward by others . There is a big difference between those .
         

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:21:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My sig is a reminder of what is wrong with Hillary (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FakeNews, Just Bob, Portlaw, pigpaste

          in a nutshell. Any other politician would have been laughed out of politics after engaging in a whopper of a lie like Hillary did. She made up some insane story about dodging sniper fire when in fact she was greeted by a young girl with flowers on the tarmac. Sinbad was the first person to call her out on that lie. The media, many of whom were on the trip, said nothing as she repeated that lie over and over again.

          What was Team Hillary's response to getting caught in a lie, to attack Sinbad and say Hillary was tired.

          Her inability to take responsiblity for her mistakes and her bizarre need to lie about stupid crap to make her look tough are reasons she doesn't have the character to be president.

          And in every Hillary diary we get the same nonsense that we saw in 2006. Demand a list of potential rivals to Hillary and then attack them when named. It gets old.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:37:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Deval Patrick. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        Do you WANT the Republicans to win?

    •  Look, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueKing

      I'm as intolerantly dogmatic as the next guy, but we should probably allow a little space on the internet for somebody to criticize a candidate without dismissing his objections because she is the only politically expedient candidate.

      I don't think BlueKing has to justify valid criticism by proposing a viable alternative. If Clinton is our only option, that doesn't make her suddenly perfect, or beyond criticism. That's not supposed to be how members of the reality-based community look at things.

      I like Hillary. I like her for the same reason I liked her husband: because she plays for my team and she wins. But we liberals are supposed to stand for a set of values, and neither of the Clintons are paragons of liberal ideology.

      We've all agreed to overlook the indisputable fact that Bill Clinton is an unrepentant, serial perpetrator of sexual assault. We do that because he's so good at kicking Republican ass. And we do that at the cost of our integrity. But we all have apparently collectively agreed it is a price we're willing to pay.

      So now we're supposed to afford his wife the same immunity? I'm not aware Hillary Clinton has done anything in her personal life as repugnant as her husband - although she's been actively complicit in his refusal to acknowledge his crimes - but her tendency toward a neoconservative ideology is more relevant to her role as a presidential candidate, and could affect a lot more lives.

      I expect Hillary to run and to get the Democratic nomination, and then I expect to vote for her. But I don't see why we would want to pretend she's beyond criticism, or why we would want her to be comfortable in the belief we will support her no matter what positions she takes.

      •  Um, Bill Clinton is what...? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        Next, you'll be saying that we've been overlooking Obama's lack of US citizenship because he's such an inspiring leader?

        •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlueKing

          Maybe this isn't such a "reality-based" community after all.

          •  Do you also think... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lying eyes, Dr Swig Mcjigger

            ...Bill and Hillary had Vince Foster and Ron Brown whacked?

            •  lol - Doesn't everyone? nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Swig Mcjigger

              Proud to be a Democrat

              by Lying eyes on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 03:03:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course not. (0+ / 0-)

              Those are crazy, baseless conspiracy theories, like the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya.

              Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey both accused Bill Clinton of behavior that was clearly sexual assault. In fact, after Willey appeared on 60 Minutes, NOW president Patricia Ireland said, ""It's not just sexual harassment. If it's true, it's sexual assault."

              Is Patricia Ireland part of some crazy, right-wing conspiracy? Was Kathleen Willey, who was an ardent Clinton supporter?

              I know the accusations these women made were exploited by Clinton's enemies, but that doesn't mean the accusations aren't true or meaningful. And I know there were questions raised about the veracity of the two women's accounts, but if we weren't defending The Big Dog, wouldn't we be angry about that? Have we ever been willing to make so many excuses for any other man accused of sexual assault?

              Dismissing such allegations against a man who was obviously capable of grossly irresponsible sexual behavior is not intellectually honest.

              •  None of those allegations were close to (0+ / 0-)

                being proven.
                Willey's in particulary was pretty much debunked.

                In fact, after Willey appeared on 60 Minutes, NOW president Patricia Ireland said, ""It's not just sexual harassment. If it's true, it's sexual assault."
                This is right after. IF true. No evidence was ever produced to support it and subsequently, Willey's credibilty took many hits.  And what does true OR meaninful mean? If they aren't true they aren't meaningful.
                •  You're illustrating my point. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not sure what evidence Willey was supposed to present to support a groping that took place when she was alone with the president. I'd be curious to see any links you have that support the assertion that her story was "pretty much debunked."

                  I don't believe Willey ever formally charged Clinton with anything, as her story got entangled in Ken Starr's idiotic investigation.

                  After Clinton failed to quash her civil suit on the basis that he couldn't be sued while he was president, he was finally able to defeat her suit by arguing that she had suffered no material damages. He was famously videotaped celebrating this victory with a room full of male staffers by smoking a cigar and banging on a bongo drum.

                  Nevertheless, he eventually made it all go away by settling with Jones, reportedly giving her $850,000.

                  But we refuse to see this as a story of a powerful man using his influence, wealth, and a battery of lawyers to squash some woman who claimed he had used his position as Governor of Arkansas to secret her into a room where he dropped his pants and instructed her to suck his dick.

                  According to the Washington Post, Clinton's lawyers dug into her professional and personal past looking for things to use to discredit her. Here's an excerpt:

                  Venturing into more salacious territory, they interviewed as many as a half-dozen men who claimed to have had sex with her, including some who said they met her casually at parties or bars and then engaged in quick encounters, according to people close to the case. One former boss signed an affidavit alleging that she pursued him at work and that they slept together. After their short-lived relationship ended, he fired her -- in part, he said, because she dressed too provocatively.
                  How is this legal strategy any different than the typical effort to shame and discredit the woman making accusations?

                  But forget all that. Because Bill Clinton was a man of great personal discipline who would never lie about anything. I guess.

                  •  The third paragraph is meant to reference (0+ / 0-)

                    the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.

                  •  What is your point? (0+ / 0-)

                    Other than you like spewing discredited right wing garbage?

                    In an allegation like Willey's, any evidence would be her own testimony, which in her case proved to be worthless.
                    For example:
                     T

                    he problems began on October 2, 1998, when Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr conducted his high-profile “document dump.” (This was a major news event.) Included was the grand jury testimony of Linda Tripp, who worked with Willey in the Clinton White House. In the course of her lengthy interviews before the grand jury, Tripp was repeatedly questioned about Willey’s relationship with President Clinton. And, as her transcripts made abundantly clear, Tripp substantially contradicted the story Willey told on 60 Minutes.
                    A
                    ccording to Tripp’s detailed, sworn testimony, Willey pursued a romance with Clinton right from the start of her White House employment. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access along the Chesapeake Ba
                    y.

                    This is Linda Tripp, for God's sake. The woman who hated Clinton and helped get the Lewinsky ball rolling. What is her motive to lie?http://www.dailyhowler.com/...

                    Then there's Robert Ray's office, which found her to have lied under oath on multiple occasions:

                    he Final Report of the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey and President Clinton are the only direct witnesses to their meeting, and their accounts differ substantially on the crucial facts of what occurred." It also stated "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard."[3] According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s report, "Willey’s [Paula] Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident."[4]
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    If you want to report the Willey accusations as fact in 2014, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at the American Spectator.

                    •  So here's your argument: (0+ / 0-)

                      1. Linda Tripp is credible (but only in this one regard, of course), and Kathleen Willey is not.

                      2. Bill Clinton, a man who has been accused of sexual harassment and even sexual assault several times over the course of many years, a man who we all know had a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old intern in the White House, and then lied about it to his friends, supporters, staff, and the American people, is also credible when he denies Willey's allegations.

                      3. Willey is not credible because she gave the FBI false information about a previous relationship.

                      4. If I refuse to accept this double standard, I should just leave because I'm obviously not comporting myself according to the standards of ideological purity you feel participation in this community requires.

                      5. We all really do care about sexual assault. No, we really do.

                      Actually, you didn't make that final assertion, did you? I shouldn't put words in your mouth and accuse you of hypocrisy. Willey was also not comporting herself in proper accord with the requirements of ideological purity when she made the accusations, so who cares what happened?

                      •  Could you be more intellectually dishonest? (0+ / 0-)

                        1. My point isn't that Tripp is necessarily credible. My point is that Willey has enormous credibility problems and this matter, since it lacks things like physical evidence, documentary evidence and third party witnesses depends entirely on her credibility. Her's is shot having lied under oath on multiple occasions. A No one has contradicted Tripp's testimony on this matter and she has no motive to lie, since she's not a member of Team Clinton and if fact, was allied with his foes. It's possible, but highly unlikely that Tripp is lying.

                        2. He's been accused. Yes. Accusations are not proof. And that is why I don't believe the Willey accusation. Yes, Clinton has credibility problems as well, as he lied in the past. But he is not the one being undercut by the testimony of others in this matter, Willey is. Clinton doesn't have to prove anything here, Willey does and can't do it.

                        3. Not what I said. Read the links and educate yourself on this matter. Willey lied on numerous occasions. Not just about the boyfriend, but grand jury and deposition testimony varied significantly. She also made up ludicrous conspiracy stories like the Cody Shearer "Jogger" allegation, even though Shearer was on the other side of the country when this allegedly happened. Her ex friend Julie Hyatt Steele also testified that Willey asked her to lie under oath to provide "corroboration." Steele refused and was prosecuted by Starr in a GOP district in VA and Starr couldn't win a conviction. Wi

                        4. I am suggesting that your peddling of ancient, discredited right wing smears would fit better elsewhere.

                        5. I care about sexual assault. I have no idea if you do or not and don't much care. Caring about sexual assault doesn't mean accepting every allegation at face value, even when there are solid reasons to believe that they didn't happen, as with the Willey case.

                        •  I'm trying not to be intellectually dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

                          Don't you think it would be easier in every way for me to dismiss the allegations of Jones and Willey? I'm a Democrat and a liberal, but I believe in intellectual honesty.

                          1. No one has contradicted Tripp's testimony? Willey's account contradicts Tripp's testimony. You're just choosing to believe Tripp over Willey because Tripp is saying what you want to hear. You say it is illogical for Tripp to contradict Willey because Tripp hated the Clintons, but you find it perfectly logical that Willey would attack Clinton despite being an ardent supporter of the Clintons.

                          One thing that seems clear to me when I read about the role Tripp played in all this is that she was often driven by very personal, often petty impulses, and she had her own ideas about other people's motives and their "real" intentions, regardless of what they might say. Who knows what she thought of Kathleen Willey and her relationship with the president? If she disliked Willey and saw her as a Clinton supporter, that might have been motive enough for her to contradict Willey's account and claim Willey had the hots for the president. Who knows?

                          2. It is true that accusations are not proof, but it does not logically follow from the premise that an accusation is not proof that an accusation is not true. Willey accused the president of something that happened between them in private, with no witnesses, and nothing she alleges would have left physical evidence. There's no way to prove anything, one way or the other.

                          3. I don't see any reference to Cody Shearer in the link you provided. It's mostly about Tripp.

                          Bill Clinton was the most powerful man in the world. He had an army of lawyers who had already successfully defended him from similar allegations made by Paula Jones. They defended him using the same techniques powerful men always use when confronted with allegations of sexual abuse: they attacked Jones' credibility and tried to paint her as a wonton slut who was asking for it and then got mad when she didn't get it because the powerful man of course was not interested in such salacious shenanigans.

                          As soon as Willey went public with her account, she was placing herself right in the middle of a political and legal storm that had been ongoing for years. Caught up in all that, and having no weapon except her own account of the incident, I am not surprised if she made some desperate and bad decisions before she too was blown away.

                          Finally, the point is that neither of us knows what happened between Clinton and Willey that day. It is possible she made it up. But did Paula Jones also make it up? What about the handful of other women who made similar allegations over the years but quickly backed down?

                          Sexually, Bill Clinton was clearly a man with little self-discipline or common sense. Such traits are not criminal or even uncommon, but when combined with power, unabashed dishonesty, a lack of self-awareness, and an undeniable contempt for the professional boundaries that normally apply to an authority figure and his subordinates, it doesn't warrant faith in his credibility in the face of the various allegations.

                          But you're extending him that faith, because he's a powerful Democrat. That's not right.

                          It is long past time for Bill Clinton to come clean. We Democrats should be demanding that if we're going to continue to welcome his undeniable talents and his efforts to further our cause. He apologized for the Lewinsky affair, but there's obviously more there. If we really care about sexual harassment and sexual assault, we should demand he provide a more complete accounting of what happened between him and Jones and Willey, and not hide behind his legal muscle and partisan loyalties.

                          Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey were just two women I read about in the papers back in the 90s, but they were real people and they were women who claimed they had been sexually assaulted. That should matter to us more than the right-wing bullshit they stepped into, more than knee-jerk, partisan impulses, and it should matter more than loyalty to political celebrities.

                          •  "wanton," obviously. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  You aren't trying to be intellectually dishonest (0+ / 0-)

                            You are succeeding.
                            1) Yes. No one contradicted Tripp's testimony. No one.  Tripp's testimony is that Willey was in love with HRC and striving for a meeting. Willey doesn't deny this. Tripp says Willey had a joyous look on her face. Willey doesn't deny this.  More importantly, Willey contradicted her own testimony. This is fatal to any case where it is essentially a "he said, she said." Robert Ray, no friend of Bill realized this years ago. Why can't you?
                            And the hits to Willey's credibility, such as it is, keep on coming:

                             

                            Further damaging to her claims was Willey's admission to the jury that she was granted a second immunity deal from Starr's office after she admitted lying about the details of a relationship she had with a younger man. Willey admitted that she falsely told her then-boyfriend she was pregnant because he had humiliated her.

                            Willey also acknowledged telling a grand jury that Steele, a noticeably petite woman, was anorexic, and she told investigators that there could be legal problems with the adoption of Steele's son. She admitted to having an affair with a married man and asking Steele to cover for her when she left a family funeral to visit him in Philadelphia. And she acknowledged trying to avoid paying off the $274,000 her husband stole from clients. Edward E. Willey, a lawyer, killed himself over his financial troubles on the same day as the alleged encounter with Clinton.

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                            prosecutors, jurors, the public at large have trouble believing her, with excellent reason. Yet you, have no problem presenting her  unsupported allegations as fact. Any intellectually honest person would look at this and at least question whether it is true.
                            As for this:
                            I

                            f she disliked Willey and saw her as a Clinton supporter, that might have been motive enough for her to contradict Willey's account and claim Willey had the hots for the president. Who kno
                          •  You're becoming a bit redundant. (0+ / 0-)

                            But I guess I am as well, because we're going in circles.

                            I've said several times it's possible Willey could be lying. I recognize the weaknesses in her credibility, which you've articulated well, providing ample citations. I remember all of this from many years ago.

                            I also recognize the weaknesses in Clinton's credibility, and I recognize that Willey's accusations are similar to accusations made by Paula Jones and others. You've consistently ignored Paula Jones. I overlooked that because my reference to her part in this was done so clumsily in an earlier post that I had to add an addendum to clarify what I was talking about. But at this point your refusal to acknowledge her is clearly dishonest. You're finding it easier to attack Willey's character. But Jones should be an easy target too. Hell, she eventually posed for Penthouse, so slut shaming her should be a breeze.

                            I haven't argued that Willey's account is beyond question. I've explicitly acknowledged the opposite. It is you who are adamantly insisting on Bill Clinton's credibility, and, hilariously, Linda Tripp's. I am not blindly falling in with a right-wing smear, it is you who are blindly falling in line with a partisan consensus of denial.

                            Your points have merit, and I'm not feeling as confident of Willey's account as I was when we started. It was a long time ago and you've reminded me of some details I'd forgotten.

                            Like every other Democrat and liberal at that time, I was eager to seize on any evidence that Willey's account was incredible. We were all so sick and angry over Starr's idiotic investigation and the disgraceful political spectacle that would soon lead to impeachment. And weren't we all happy when she quickly went away.

                            But I never forgot Patricia Ireland's words, and I knew that we would have treated Willey's allegations differently if she had accused almost anybody else or if she hadn't made them at exactly the wrong time politically.

                            Because, after 12 years of Republican presidents redefining the nation's character, we weren't going to turn on the one guy who had the skills to beat them. We weren't going to let women like Willey provide ammunition to the only weapon the Republicans had against the Big Dog.

                            And so we made the same choice people so often make when a powerful, successful, productive, popular male assaults an anonymous female somewhere further down the hierarchy: We started making excuses and rallying around him.

                            And we had been doing this for Bill Clinton all along. We were happy to ignore Paula Jones, or better, mock her for being physically unattractive and low-class. We liberals were doing that. I remember.

                            I'm confident we'll never collectively confront this hypocrisy in ourselves. With Hillary's ascendancy pending, such reflection is as politically inconvenient as it ever was. But it has cost us. Because it supports the argument that we are no different than they are, just the mirror opposite, and we have no more of a commitment to what is just or true.

                          •  Re: Jones (0+ / 0-)

                             I don't think she made her charges up out of whole cloth. Very probably, an incident happened in much the way she described. However, there's a good body of evidence that suggests that she was a willing participant, and only became upset when the story was exposed in the American Specator. Danny Ferguson, the trooper supposedly involved in that episode, claimed that it was Jones who approached him and asked to be taken to meet the then governor, not the other way around. He also said that when Paula came out, she was happy and offered to be a regular girlfriend for him. Her own sister says that far from being upset about recounting the meeting, she was  excited and said she could smell big money coming. She did have a co worker who seemed to support her account and another one who contradicted her about being upset. She claimed she was denied merit raises after this alleged incident, but her personnel file proved conclusively that she did in fact receive several of them.
                                It's easy and legitimate to defend people based upon what they say and what they can back up with facts. It's generally the job of the accuser to prove her story. IMHO, she did not do that, nor did Willey.
                              I do think that mocking Jones for her appearance and background were unfortunate. I did not do this. Nor did most people that I know. James's Carville's comment about dragging a twenty dollar bill through a trailer park was reprehensible, but most people I know didn't make comments like that.  We thought Clinton was a horndog and wanted to move on.
                               Jones also played her hand very, very badly. Waiting until the last day of the statute of limitations to file her claim, making the announcement at CPAC. Hiring ultra conservative lawyers to press her case. I also found her to be a bit dis

                            ut I never forgot Patricia Ireland's words, and I knew that we would have treated Willey's allegations differently if she had accused almost anybody else or if she hadn't made them at exactly the wrong time politically
                            .
                            Ireland's words were "If true." If true, I would have believed them. I see no credible reason to believe that they are. In fact, there's good reason to believe that they are the product of someone who was desperate for money, mentally unstable and given to vindictive behavior. She's also still out there, now pushing the Vince Foster conspiracy theory and trying to tie it in with that of the death of  her late husband. And of course, she wants us to buy the book. I see a patter here, even if you are unwilling to. At what point can I stop believing her just because I want to feel good about myself for not being some alleged hypocrite for not believing every unsubstantiated allegation.
                                It's not that I think Bill Clinton has any great credibility, it's that the allegations  cannot be proven or in Willey's case, even supported. If Pete the Pathological Liar says he wasn't drinking after an accident, I don't have to rely on his credibility if there' no evidence that he drank that day. So it is with Clinton and Willey.

                             In terms of "coming clean", how can he do this to your satisfaction? What if Willey's allegations are false? It's pretty obvious from your posts that you take them at face value. If he said that they are false, would you believe him?

                          •  I think there is also a clear pattern in Clinton's (0+ / 0-)

                            behavior. Although I suppose if we discount these two women then the pattern is that of someone with a lack of self-control and common sense, which, again, is not illegal or even particularly scandalous. If every woman Clinton fooled around with was a willing participant, and Clinton's continued popularity results from everybody having seriously considered the allegations and drawn the reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that he was a victim of lies, then I guess there would be no more to talk about at this point. I just don't think that's what happened.

                            I don't feel this sense of closure you seem to feel. Clinton, after bald-faced lying to all of us, finally fessed up to his involvement with Lewinsky and apologized. His denials regarding Willey have the same false ring as his denials regarding Lewinsky, to me. But I guess his alternative narrative is that he remembers the encounter and although she was emotional and he may have tried to comfort her, there was no sexual touching. I guess that's his story and I have to either believe it or not.

                            I've looked up some of the issues that were raised about Willey's testimony. If she really was under the kind of pressure she claims, and intimidated after the incident with the jogger (if it's true), I'm not surprised her testimony was confused and contradictory as she struggled to overcome her fear. I'm not impressed by efforts to make a big deal out of the fact she may have tentatively identified the jogger as Cody Shearer, who we somehow know for sure was on the other side of the country when the alleged incident occurred. Somebody showed her a picture and asked her if that were the jogger and she thought it looked like the jogger. So what?

                            But, you're right, there's no evidence and Willey has since become a willing part of the silly anti-Clinton conspiracy circus, for whatever reasons.

                            So, without conceding anything with regard to how Democrats and liberals treated these women back then, I'll acknowledge that we don't know that Clinton ever committed sexual assault. That's not really far from my original position.

                            You seem like a reasonable guy, and I assume you basically agree that BlueKing has every right to question Hillary's foreign policy positions, even if he can't conjure a viable alternative candidate.

      •  I don't see anyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueKing

        claiming HRC is beyond criticism.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site