Should Hillary have left Bill?

[kenny]

... the whole idea people are judging her based on her husbands bad behaviour is a double standard.

Not quite.

I'm judging her on her behavior ... her choice to remain with 'that man' reflects on her priorities and therefor her character.

Again, if she was a member of the public I'd agree it is nobody's beeswax.

And yes, Bill's not alone.
And yes, if the genders were reversed I'd feel the same way.

Wedding vows matter.

 

[Rhea]

Then all the wedding vows matter.

for better or for worse,
til death do us part.

Not just the forsaking all others. The couple made a choice, for whatever reason, to not have the affair be a marriage breaker. That's their choice. I don't understand how it means her priorities are misguided. It could well be a marriage of mutual convenience. It could well be a loving and fulfilling marriage.

Besides, how on earth do we know what was in their vows? Does the above have to be legally included in whatever state they married in?

Wait, the affair was 18 years ago! You're judging someone based on something that happened nearly 2 decades ago? They have some sort of staying power as a couple. Their post-affair marriage, no matter why it's working, has lasted longer than most people's marriages!

 

[Bonfire]

As far as I'm concerned who cares that her husband cheated on her, nothing new there and it happens to many of us. She and everyone else in world choose which bed to sleep in whether it be for love, financial gain, or even future political gain (Her husband has helped her candidacy).

Now, we SHOULD be judging her for not handing classified docs properly. Having served in Armed Forces and still carry Security Clearance this topic makes me sick. She has denied at every turn and continues to. She should not even be able to run as a candidate if shes under investigation by the FBI (although they are protecting her because of her position). Do people even realize the crime she committed? The "hacker" who leaked all the info on Clinton is being extradited to the united states as we speak, it could get interesting going forward. The people supporting her recent actions are delusional, she should be in jail or house arrest (given her position). Not running for president.

Exactly

 

[MollyMalone]

Now, we SHOULD be judging her for not handing classified docs properly * * * She should not even be able to run as a candidate if shes under investigation by the FBI (although they are protecting her because of her position). Do people even realize the crime she committed? The "hacker" who leaked all the info on Clinton is being extradited to the united states as we speak, it could get interesting going forward. The people supporting her recent actions are delusional, she should be in jail or house arrest (given her position). Not running for president.

FYI for those not familiar with the hacker Guccifer, true name Marcel Lazăr Lehel: he has never claimed -- and he's not shy about self-promotion -- that he accessed Ms. Clinton's private server; the e-mails he released in 2013 were from Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account.

I think her decision to establish the private server represents a huge lapse in professional judgment, which is one of the reasons I'm less than enthusiastic about her as Presidential candidate. But as a former prosecutor (who had access to U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI materials that the general public & many law enforcement personnel did not), I'll say none of us presently has an informed basis for jumping to the conclusion that her use of the server constituted criminal behavior. E.g., the subsequent classification of documents-material is irrelevant to the federal misdemeanor of knowingly mishandling classified documents, a la General Petraeus, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1924:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

That a grand jury investigation is under way is not proof of your, mine, or any other person's criminal culpability. Neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's Office has free-wheeling, "office subpoena" power, and it's not a crime for anyone to refuse to speak to a representative from either of those offices. Consequently, the best way to explore whether anyone -- and more than a few grand jury presentments commence with no identified target -- may have acted criminally is to issue grand jury subpoenas to potential witnesses and have them produce physical evidence, testify under oath. (I will add here that a person's sworn testimony, given in the confidentiality of the grand jury room, can be very different than what they've said "out in the streets.")

Think this article, Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Classified? Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit, by Mark Stout, a former CIA team chief and jihadist terrorism intelligence analyst, is worth reading; he posted it yesterday on the War on the Rocks web site, a site that was recommended by a former Ambassador (under President Bush) at a program on international intelligence and diplomacy I attended:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/were-hillary-clintons-emails-classified-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/

 

[HollyS]

... the whole idea people are judging her based on her husbands bad behaviour is a double standard.

Not quite.

I'm judging her on her behavior ... her choice to remain with 'that man' reflects on her priorities and therefor her character.

Again, if she was a member of the public I'd agree it is nobody's beeswax.

And yes, Bill's not alone.
And yes, if the genders were reversed I'd feel the same way.

Wedding vows matter.

Yes, wedding vows matter.

That aside, there have been quite a few otherwise good presidents who have made some unwise personal choices . . . sometimes while in office. (In Bill's case, at his very desk. ) I don't look for my President to be without sin or fault, per se. I just don't want him/her to be a complete jackass. Both Clintons have walked a thin line at times (for me), but my issues with them are not about their marriage.

 

[ksinger]

Now, we SHOULD be judging her for not handing classified docs properly * * * She should not even be able to run as a candidate if shes under investigation by the FBI (although they are protecting her because of her position). Do people even realize the crime she committed? The "hacker" who leaked all the info on Clinton is being extradited to the united states as we speak, it could get interesting going forward. The people supporting her recent actions are delusional, she should be in jail or house arrest (given her position). Not running for president.

FYI for those not familiar with the hacker Guccifer, true name Marcel Lazăr Lehel: he has never claimed -- and he's not shy about self-promotion -- that he accessed Ms. Clinton's private server; the e-mails he released in 2013 were from Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account.

I think her decision to establish the private server represents a huge lapse in professional judgment, which is one of the reasons I'm less than enthusiastic about her as Presidential candidate. But as a former prosecutor (who had access to U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI materials that the general public & many law enforcement personnel did not), I'll say none of us presently has an informed basis for jumping to the conclusion that her use of the server constituted criminal behavior. E.g., the subsequent classification of documents-material is irrelevant to the federal misdemeanor of knowingly mishandling classified documents, a la General Petraeus, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1924:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

That a grand jury investigation is under way is not proof of your, mine, or any other person's criminal culpability. Neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's Office has free-wheeling, "office subpoena" power, and it's not a crime for anyone to refuse to speak to a representative from either of those offices. Consequently, the best way to explore whether anyone -- and more than a few grand jury presentments commence with no identified target -- may have acted criminally is to issue grand jury subpoenas to potential witnesses and have them produce physical evidence, testify under oath. (I will add here that a person's sworn testimony, given in the confidentiality of the grand jury room, can be very different than what they've said "out in the streets.")

Think this article, Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Classified? Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit, by Mark Stout, a former CIA team chief and jihadist terrorism intelligence analyst, is worth reading; he posted it yesterday on the War on the Rocks web site, a site that was recommended by a former Ambassador (under President Bush) at a program on international intelligence and diplomacy I attended:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/were-hillary-clintons-emails-classified-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/

Thank you for the excellent post. It's nice when someone offers up a dose of reason and good info to counter the usual pitchforks and hair on fire.

 

[arkieb1]

... the whole idea people are judging her based on her husbands bad behaviour is a double standard.

Not quite.

I'm judging her on her behavior ... her choice to remain with 'that man' reflects on her priorities and therefor her character.

Again, if she was a member of the public I'd agree it is nobody's beeswax.

And yes, Bill's not alone.
And yes, if the genders were reversed I'd feel the same way.

Wedding vows matter.

Wedding vows matter to you and many other people, they might not matter in the same way to them and to a million other people. Judging what is and isn't acceptable within a legal arrangement between two people is like judging someone for their sexuality, it's ultimately their individual choice not ours. I don't think sexuality and sexual choices are that black and white - there are many areas of grey in between.

If we are non discriminatory human beings we judge them for the choices they make in office that impact us, and our countries not choices that impact themselves. Bill made bad choices that I think impacted the whole country, then he tried to lie about it. Hillary on the other hand stood by him for whatever reason, ones we really aren't privy to be it for power, for their daughter, because she knew he was a narcissist, she may have had an affair or affairs herself.

I'd say we would all be shocked if we knew the real number of presidents, and prime ministers, royals and men and women in positions of power that were sleeping around outside their marriages, and by the number of partners that have had to deal with that.

I don't think many women and men for that matter set out to believe that their partners will cheat on them or lie about their sexual conduct or preferences when they make their marriage vows, I think marriages are things that evolve and change over time, years and decades later, for many, they don't and can't stay the same as the day people made those vows.

 

[december-fire]

She chose not to. So, I assume she had reasons for staying. I respect her choice.

I agree.

Her decision. Not mine. None of my business, regardless of her/his profession, etc. (unless, of course, matters of national security, etc., were jeopardized).

I'm confused about how anyone other than Hillary (and Bill) would know her reasons for staying.

And I think that in most cases staying or divorcing is not a clear-cut 'yes' or 'no' situation that reveals something specific about the character of the individuals involved.

Some couples call it quit immediately, some work through it, some recognize it as a symptom of a larger problem; but its up to the couple to determine what's right for them.

I have my own mental list of 'deal breakers', but they're only relevant to me, and some people would disagree with some of them. That's fine. And Hillary was (and is) entitled to her own decision about continuing or not with her marriage.

 

[kenny]

Judging what is and isn't acceptable within a legal arrangement between two people is like judging someone for their sexuality

Yeah, I was born gay, caucasian, and red headed too.

Judging me for my DNA is exactly the same as judging someone for choosing to stay married to a really bad guy just for the political power she gets for doing so.

Exactly the same.

 

[lulu]

There was no affair. It was a vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I do think she stayed because of her political aspirations. I am not a fan. I wouldn't have stayed but to each his own.

 

[arkieb1]

Judging what is and isn't acceptable within a legal arrangement between two people is like judging someone for their sexuality

Yeah, I was born gay, caucasian, and red headed too.

Judging me for my DNA is exactly the same as judging someone for choosing to stay married to a really bad guy just for the political power she gets for doing so.

Exactly the same.

Plenty of women in marriages that were arranged or have children they want to protect and look after stay with men because they have no choice, they feel they have no choice, or they cannot afford to do otherwise. So ummm yeah, I am not saying it's exactly the same but I don't think it is as black and white as you would like to assume. One of my best friends at school was a gay guy. I get it, I really do. I know lots of people married to men and women who cheat both in positions of power and not, and once when I was young and idealistic I would have judged them too, but now I have lived a lot of decades myself I don't think it is in many cases that simple. My point was both have a mile of grey areas in between.

This election will be about picking the candidate that will do the least harm to the country rather than someone who stands out as being a potentially amazing leader.

I personally would rather judge Hillary on her policies rather than on her husband being a douchebag. I've seen people on here judging you for what they believe/perceive as the immoral choices you make (which I don't agree personally btw) so how are you any better than them by doing effectively a similar thing.

People are making assumptions that she could not have become a candidate if she had of divorced him, who can actually confirm if that would have been true? Maybe she loves him and wants to grow old with him and is able to accept his shortcomings, and if that is the case then I for one don't know enough about their personal lives to judge. It is her choice, not mine or any of yours.

 

[MollyMalone]

Judging what is and isn't acceptable within a legal arrangement between two people is like judging someone for their sexuality

Yeah, I was born gay, caucasian, and red headed too.
Judging me for my DNA is exactly the same as judging someone for choosing to stay married to a really bad guy just for the political power she gets for doing so.
Exactly the same.

You said earlier that Hillary Clinton would get a black mark in your book if she had stayed in the marriage to the cheating jerk to maintain her political capital/financial status. 24 hours later, you jettisoned the if & avow you are judging her for her decision to stay married "just for the political power she gets for doing so."
You were able to pull her off the campaign trail for a private heart-to-heart where she confided in you, an utter stranger, that her polical ambition was the reason she did not divorce him 18 years ago or since? That Octavia of yours must be even more hypnotic in person than I have imagined!

 

[missy]

Judging what is and isn't acceptable within a legal arrangement between two people is like judging someone for their sexuality

Yeah, I was born gay, caucasian, and red headed too.

Judging me for my DNA is exactly the same as judging someone for choosing to stay married to a really bad guy just for the political power she gets for doing so.

Exactly the same.

Yeah it's just not the same in any way.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill for political reasons (which I think many of us can agree is the case) I still don't respect the fact that he cheated on her multiple times and she continued to stand by his side. Marriage vows do mean something otherwise one is making a farce of those (important) vows IMO. So no I don't respect a woman who stays with a man who sleeps around on her and publicly no less and IMO behaved disrespectfully towards her by doing so.

Listen, if they were a private not in the public eye couple great but they are very much in the public eye and what kind of example are they setting for the younger generations? A lousy one.
But that's only my opinion. And since she is sadly the lesser of the evils in this upcoming election she has my vote. But with much trepidation.

And I don't think one can divorce their poor judgment in their personal lives from their public lives meaning character shows through personally and publicly so you cannot really (IMO) compartmentalize public from private/political from personal. They blend together. That's why IMO personal integrity and good judgment matter when considering one for a high political position. Of course we all know what a fairy tale that is. An ethical person with high standards working for the general good of everyone being elected for public office.

Now, we SHOULD be judging her for not handing classified docs properly * * * She should not even be able to run as a candidate if shes under investigation by the FBI (although they are protecting her because of her position). Do people even realize the crime she committed? The "hacker" who leaked all the info on Clinton is being extradited to the united states as we speak, it could get interesting going forward. The people supporting her recent actions are delusional, she should be in jail or house arrest (given her position). Not running for president.

FYI for those not familiar with the hacker Guccifer, true name Marcel Lazăr Lehel: he has never claimed -- and he's not shy about self-promotion -- that he accessed Ms. Clinton's private server; the e-mails he released in 2013 were from Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account.

I think her decision to establish the private server represents a huge lapse in professional judgment, which is one of the reasons I'm less than enthusiastic about her as Presidential candidate. But as a former prosecutor (who had access to U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and FBI materials that the general public & many law enforcement personnel did not), I'll say none of us presently has an informed basis for jumping to the conclusion that her use of the server constituted criminal behavior. E.g., the subsequent classification of documents-material is irrelevant to the federal misdemeanor of knowingly mishandling classified documents, a la General Petraeus, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1924:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

That a grand jury investigation is under way is not proof of your, mine, or any other person's criminal culpability. Neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's Office has free-wheeling, "office subpoena" power, and it's not a crime for anyone to refuse to speak to a representative from either of those offices. Consequently, the best way to explore whether anyone -- and more than a few grand jury presentments commence with no identified target -- may have acted criminally is to issue grand jury subpoenas to potential witnesses and have them produce physical evidence, testify under oath. (I will add here that a person's sworn testimony, given in the confidentiality of the grand jury room, can be very different than what they've said "out in the streets.")

Think this article, Were Hillary Clinton's Emails Classified? Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit, by Mark Stout, a former CIA team chief and jihadist terrorism intelligence analyst, is worth reading; he posted it yesterday on the War on the Rocks web site, a site that was recommended by a former Ambassador (under President Bush) at a program on international intelligence and diplomacy I attended:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/were-hillary-clintons-emails-classified-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/

We will see what happens. Interesting indeed. And yes her judgment is extremely questionable in many ways.

 

[ksinger]

I have to allow my sense of ironic amusement to break through here.

I find it amusing how one vow of the traditional vows is elevated over another - the vow to cleave only to each other, versus the vow til death us do part. It very much used to be the other way around - by force of society and law, but now, at the first sign of trouble in a marriage, the advice is generally to exit the relationship as quickly as possible. And disdain is heaped upon the woman (in most cases) who stays. It seems pretty inconsistent to me, when people say vows matter, and then in the next breath choose (for someone else) which one they should break. But times, they do change.

Being on my second marriage, the state of other people's marriages is something I absolutely know down to my toenails, that I cannot know from the appearance they show to the world, and thus do not comment upon.

 

[missy]

Just to be clear I feel the responsibility is with both Hillary and Bill and is not the fault of just one. And of course we know nothing about the reality of their personal situation but what we see publicly is horrendous IMO. I don't care a whit (to quote a PSer) about their marriage but only how it might relate to their leadership abilities. I stand by my thoughts about both of them and specifically Hillary Clinton since she is the one running for President this time.

And I too don't comment on the marriage of others who are not in the public eye and running for political office.

 

[ksinger]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

 

[missy]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

The thing is I look at the current situation first and foremost and just because behavior was acceptable by many in the past doesn't mean I feel that way today. And I don't know what I would have thought if I was a voting adult during those specific examples. The thing is, I am talking about now and I also don't think just because something was ok in the past (and not saying it was) it is ok now just for that reason. Again it is the accepting of bad behavior just for the fact that's how it always was that doesn't feel good to me. Again just my opinion.

 

[MarionC]

I think they have an arrangement that has little to do with a traditional marriage.
I think they are the Underwoods from House of Cards. Kevin Spacey once commented that the characters are loosely modeled after actual politicians.

+1
and although people's personal business is none of my business, in this case we are talking about our leaders, who in a perfect world reflect the best in us. I felt that she compromised her integrity by staying with him, but when you read biographies of the Clintons is is clear that her ambitions played into the formation of their marriage right from the beginning.

 

[missy]

I think they have an arrangement that has little to do with a traditional marriage.
I think they are the Underwoods from House of Cards. Kevin Spacey once commented that the characters are loosely modeled after actual politicians.

+1
and although people's personal business is none of my business, in this case we are talking about our leaders, who in a perfect world reflect the best in us. I felt that she compromised her integrity by staying with him, but when you read biographies of the Clintons is is clear that her ambitions played into the formation of their marriage right from the beginning.

Scary because both Spacey's and Wright's characters are guilty of murder to get what they want and just proves my point. Questionable character at best. The Clintons I mean not the fictional characters in House of Cards.

 

[ksinger]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

The thing is I look at the current situation first and foremost and just because behavior was acceptable by many in the past doesn't mean I feel that way today. And I don't know what I would have thought if I was a voting adult during those specific examples. The thing is, I am talking about now and I also don't think just because something was ok in the past (and not saying it was) it is ok now just for that reason. Again it is the accepting of bad behavior just for the fact that's how it always was that doesn't feel good to me. Again just my opinion.

Well, first of all, if you were an adult in those eras you would never have heard of the state of their marriages, because reporting to the masses on such things was simply not done, because it was crass and because (wait for it) it was considered irrelevant to their leadership abilities. I think FDR, HWB, and Eisenhower, Johnson, JFK pretty much showed that to be the case.

I personally wish I did not hear about the sexual predilections of our leaders in every.single.news.outlet.

 

[missy]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

The thing is I look at the current situation first and foremost and just because behavior was acceptable by many in the past doesn't mean I feel that way today. And I don't know what I would have thought if I was a voting adult during those specific examples. The thing is, I am talking about now and I also don't think just because something was ok in the past (and not saying it was) it is ok now just for that reason. Again it is the accepting of bad behavior just for the fact that's how it always was that doesn't feel good to me. Again just my opinion.

Well, first of all, if you were an adult in those eras you would never have heard of the state of their marriages, because reporting to the masses on such things was simply not done, because it was crass and because (wait for it) it was considered irrelevant to their leadership abilities. I think FDR, HWB, and Eisenhower, Johnson, JFK pretty much showed that to be the case.

I personally wish I did not hear about the sexual predilections of our leaders in every.single.news.outlet.

On that we can agree. Wholeheartedly.

 

[AGBF]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

Wow. Eleanor. I helped my daughter do an oral report on her when she was in the third grade. She had to dress like her and her deliver the report to a room full of parents as well as classmates. At the time none of my daughter's emotional problems had yet appeared. She was a wonderful student and fascinated by the American presidents, the names and order of whom she had already memorized. We were so moved at what Eleanor Roosevelt Roosevelt had accomplished as "the eyes and ears" of FDR when he was in a wheelchair and could not fly during World War II. She was allowed only 20 pounds of weight with her on a cold, military plane, but she took her typewriter to use that weight requirement so that she could communicate with her husband about the war.

When she wanted to sit with the black women in a segregated southern church and was told it would be illegal, she took a chair and put it in the middle of the church aisle between the black and white areas, and sat there.

She was devastated that Franklin was in love with someone else, but she stood by him to the end. I think I may admire her more than any other woman in history,,,or at least as much as any other.

AGBF

 

[ksinger]

And I add, what about FDR and Eleanor, or HW and Barbara? Neither relationship was exactly lily white by today's inconsistently retro standards.

The thing is I look at the current situation first and foremost and just because behavior was acceptable by many in the past doesn't mean I feel that way today. And I don't know what I would have thought if I was a voting adult during those specific examples. The thing is, I am talking about now and I also don't think just because something was ok in the past (and not saying it was) it is ok now just for that reason. Again it is the accepting of bad behavior just for the fact that's how it always was that doesn't feel good to me. Again just my opinion.

Well, first of all, if you were an adult in those eras you would never have heard of the state of their marriages, because reporting to the masses on such things was simply not done, because it was crass and because (wait for it) it was considered irrelevant to their leadership abilities. I think FDR, HWB, and Eisenhower, Johnson, JFK pretty much showed that to be the case.

I personally wish I did not hear about the sexual predilections of our leaders in every.single.news.outlet.

On that we can agree. Wholeheartedly.

The point I'm trying to make is that unless you can point to any of those previous presidents and show how the state of their marriages adversely impacted their leadership abilities, then you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that it ever truly affects those abilities. To my mind you can't use that as a reason to tar the Clintons with a lack of judgement. (A lack of understanding of the insane tabloid media culture we have developed into perhaps, but the death of privacy has caught a lot of people off guard.) It's much more honest to simply say you're just not good with how they conduct their marriages, but to cast it as something that matters to the way they govern when it comes to legislation etc, is a stretch.

 

[missy]

Karen, I see your point and I agree that just because they conduct the personal business poorly (IMO not necessarily your opinion) doesn't guarantee they will conduct their professional business poorly.

However Hillary has shown herself IMO to be lacking what I consider good judgment in professional matters. But I do concede that yes you are correct. Conducting personal matters poorly does not mean they will make a mess of our affairs. Though I do believe it is part of the bigger picture (i.e. how one conducts their personal life ethically speaking that is) it is not a 100% predictor. Point well taken.

And to comment on what Deb so wisely wrote. Yes I too admire Eleanor Roosevelt greatly but not because she stood by her husband necessarily but for all the great things she accomplished. Good example to your point too.

 

[momhappy]

I'm surprised at the number of it's-none-of-my-business responses. Of course it's everyone's business because when you are famous, your private business is often public business (and they know that going in). He was the President of the United States, he was having an affair with a young intern in the White House, and his wife didn't give him the boot - how is that not anyone's business And we can't forget the allegations of sexual misconduct by 3 other women... Yes, lots of people engage in cheating & lying (and some of those are politicians and/or famous), but that doesn't make it somehow okay. The fact that he used his position/power to carry out the affair and then lied about it, is super shady and that's what the hubbub is about when it comes to Hillary. It's not just that her husband cheated and she chose to stay with him, it's the circumstances of this particular issue and that's why it becomes our business in terms of how we feel about their marital status.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

The relevancy of the issue for me is not the fact that this her choice, which of course is her right, but the fact that she now brings Bill back to the Presidency with her. Are they so tied together that we will have co-Presidents? Do you think Bill will be a house husband?
I once saw someone who captured the two of them together in an off guard moment. They looked so happy together. I think one has to ask, Am I better off with this person or not? Obviously she choose to stay. But, he is her baggage.

Women feel different nowadays than in FDR times ect. The 90's showed the attitude of power against abusing women is hopefully moving forward. Bill Clinton is a disgusting man and we will have him back in the White House.

Annette

 

[arkieb1]

A truckload of male presidents, and presidential candidates have cheated on their wives, were they good people, some might have been, some probably were not. Everyone is judging a person who is married to a guy who cheated by her very personal response to that. I've known a number of women and men who have continued to stay married to cheating partners. Does that make them bad people? No, many of them are smart, funny, intelligent, and generally lovely people, some of them are not so nice. All of them have different reasons for their responses to being placed in that situation.

People who have been cheated upon don't wish that upon themselves, it's something that happens to them. What they choose to do about it, is their choice. I concede that running for president makes your private life a target. Should it be, I agree with the posters above, if you sign up for being a candidate having your personal life under a microscope is something that they have to put up with but;

I also personally wish I did not hear about the sexual predilections of our leaders in every.single.news.outlet.

I wonder if it was a male candidate with a cheating wife would everyone react the same way? Not only must his values must be called into question because he stayed with his adulterous wife, but his ability to make honest, good and rational decisions should be questioned as well. Now that would be a turn up for the books.....

I guess what I am throwing out there, is there a double standard because she is a woman?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi again!

Bill Clinton was impeached. Try to remember that!

The So-called feminists on this board show their true colors. Presidents are exempt from accusations of abuse of power over treatment of women. Women came forward from his Governorship. And yes, they were credible.

Missy that was your point.- I guess the boys will be boys . No feminists there.

Annette

 

[Rhea]

Hi again!



The So-called feminists on this board show their true colors. Presidents are exempt from accusations of abuse of power over treatment of women. Women came forward from his Governorship. And yes, they were credible.

Missy that was your point.- I guess the boys will be boys . No feminists there.

Annette

Whoa! Really? I haven't seen one person here, including this feminist, say that presidents are exempt from accusations of abuse of power. Nor have I seen anyone say the women weren't credible. Or that Clinton didn't abuse his power. This feminist believe that yes, it was an abuse of power. No, it shouldn't have happened. But at the same time just because it did does not mean that I have a right to judge another woman and her decision to stay in her relationship, a relationship that doesn't involve me. Her personal relationship, her decision. Isn't it going against feminism to make judgement about Hillary based on her decisions concerning her sex life? Her body, her choice.