Final Post for the Week of Hillary

All right. I didn't actually have any time to do more research than I've already done, because last night I went to hear my former professor Michael Pritchett read from his newly launched book, The Melancholy Fate of Capt. Lewis.  Michael was the head of my thesis committee and responsible for quite a bit of writerly angst on my part, but I did write some of my best fiction under his tutelage.  And there was free food.  I'll be reviewing my signed copy as soon as possible.

So anyway, I got home at 11 and didn't have time to research. So, I'm going to shoot from the hip to avoid ending Week of Hillary without any response at all to some the questions lobbed my way by the debaters.

To Cranial Midget, who wanted me to address these points, which to my best understanding, are true. I'm in blue italics.

The Clinton White House:

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Hillary was not the one getting blown. People might actually be less hard on her if she had. Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A blow job does not a president make. It was a really dumb decision on Bill's part. It was a dumb decision on any married person's part, and Monica's too. Dumb, dumb, dumb, all around. Sexual indiscretion, in my opinion, has little to do with your job performance. Yes, it might say something about your character, but not as much as say, owning slaves (ahem, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin).
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*  - Again, not Hillary.
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Really? Is that just because we don't investigate His Idiotness, who's committing crimes merrily and without remorse every day?
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - They were probably afraid of having their own blow jobs exposed.
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - Until they went hunting with Dick Chaney.
- First president sued for sexual harassment. - Not Hillary. I'm fairly certain she's never been sexual with any of her colleagues. Just a guess.
- First president accused of rape. - Again, this is NOT HILLARY.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation - From Wikipedia:

A New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that Clinton and his wife had invested in and lost money in the Whitewater development project.^[3] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in criminal charges against the two principals in the Whitewater project, but the Clintons themselves were never charged. Three separate inquiries found that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct in the land deal.^[4]

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case -

From CBS news:

Even if a campaign builds an expensive and extensive backgrounding operation, it’s still not completely immune from trouble, experts say.

Claims that other vetting systems would have picked up Hsu are “baloney,” said election law attorney Kenneth Gross, who has helped five campaigns implement vetting systems.

“The authorities didn’t pick this sucker up. They had a warrant out on him. I think it’s very cavalier and self-serving for any campaign to say they would have picked him up,” Gross said.

Hsu “was a bit of a perfect storm, because there was nothing easily attainable about him,” and his arrest predated widespread Internet use, Gross said.


- First president to establish a legal defense fund. - Bill's blow job. Not Hillary.
- First president to be held in contempt of court - BLOW JOB
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - See above
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - See above
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court - Not Hillary

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.  - I really don't see your point here. This is clearly spin - if there were like triple the number than some other, then I think you'd have a point, but I'm guessing if you compared the size of the administration to others, you'd see the percentages would be very close. Also, NOT HILLARY.

To SIL:  I think we agree to disagree. I don't think my views are immature, just different from yours. I think it's a poor word choice and a rather personal one in an otherwise political discussion. Just sayin'. But that said, I'm totally ready to let it drop. I do like your passion for politics.

To Logical One:

Could you please elaborate on how she is going to overcome the republican onslaught about a few small things like, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Hillarycare, Travelgate, Monica L, Bill Clinton, Mr. Hsu, Mr. Peter Paul, voting for the Iraq war and now voting for a war with Iran. I would just love to hear how you believe she can overcome that and how either Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards are not better candidates simply because they don't have all that negative baggage. Good luck and read you soon. The Republican spin machine is terrifying, so I think you've got a good point here.  I've addressed all but the votes in my above statements, I think...I think Hillary learned from the Iraq vote. I think the entire country was kind of freaked out during the Iraq vote, so honestly, I don't hold too many people responsible for that. We had misinformation. We were told there were WMDs.  I didn't agree with it at the time, but I wasn't swept up by it as I'm sure most of Congress was. I hold responsible those who misinformed us, not those who voted based on misinformation. I'm not schooled on the latest vote on war with Iran, so I can't speak to it. She may have done something with which I disagree. Obama doesn't have negative baggage because he's very inexperienced, and his wife didn't get a blow job. Same for Edwards. I think most of the baggage to which you refer is more Bill's than Hillary's. I heard today some flak from the last debate about releasing personal correspondence between Bill and Hillary from the National Archives and how Hillary is taking heat for being secretive. I think this is also a groundbreaking time, because never before has a president had to release notes from his wife, who is now running for president. I know I would not want my personal correspondence from my husband released. What if there is something about the blow job in there? What if there's a quickie reference?  This is a married couple's correspondence. Should they have been thinking about Hillary's future when they talked?  Yeah, they should've. But until they have time to look back through it and make sure what they are releasing is PERTINENT TO POLITICS and not private marital conversation, I understand. Yes, we as a public have a right to know how Hillary feels about Bill's politics, but I think she deserves her privacy about how she feels about his marital indiscretion. She's held up WELL under Republican fire on her husband's penis, and I am very impressed with her ability to keep it together under most circumstances - another reason I think she's the right choice for a first female president. It's going to be rough for the first woman. I don't want someone who's going to dissolve into tears. She won't. She hasn't. I don't even know if she knows how, but maybe that's a quality that will help against the inevitable Republican onslaught.

Back to Cranial Midget (the most verbose):

I realize we don't want to get into the whole "who suffers the most" debate...still, if a prime motive behind your vote is to dramatically change the face of leadership in America, then electing a black man as President holds the trump card over voting for a (politically entrenched) white woman. OBAMA IS ONLY THE THIRD BLACK SENATOR ELECTED SINCE RECONSTRUCTION. And that is just obscene... I'm not interested in voting for someone because they are suffering. I think Obama is great, and I think he'll be president. I'll vote for him someday. He's not ready, but he will be. I do have to take issue with your statement that electing a black man trumps electing a white woman. Black or white, men have been the only holders of our country's highest political office ever.  I don't understand why we're belittling the idea of a woman finally holding the president's seat. There has never been a Madame President, so why does NO ONE WANT TO SAY IT?  I think it's unfortunate that an African-American man and a woman regardless of color would have to go up in the same election in the same party.  But are you saying if Hillary were black, you'd be voting for her hands-down because of your argument above?  If that's true, are you voting for Obama on the basis of his skin color? And how is that different than what I'm putting forth here?  I'm saying that when groups haven't had a fair shot at an office, someone has to break the barrier. We have a viable black man, and we have a viable woman. Since no woman has ever been President, I think her race matters less. If we'd had only white women, then I think that would be a huge part of the issue. There isn't a black woman and a white woman; there's just a woman. How I wish Hillary were a black woman, because then the issue of race would be addressed in the African-American side as it is on the white side.  I don't think you're insinuating that I'm against Obama because he's black any more than I think you're against Clinton because she's female. You have a good point, and yes, it's disgusting that we haven't had too many black senators. We need more. But I don't think it's relevant to my argument about gender. There has never been a woman. And women should have a shot at it. This is the woman who's in queue. It has to happen sometime. She could do the job. All the arguments you guys have been making have not said "She can't do the job. She's unfit. She's inexperienced." None. She can DO THE JOB. And she can break the barrier at the same time.  So I don't care as much if she is plastic or cold or threw Socks out of the house after Bill's reign ended. I don't care if her husband got a blow job and got impeached for it. She did her job, she's doing her job, and for the most part, even upstate New York is happy with the job she has done as Senator. She's a good politician. She knows the system. She knows the White House. I think after eight years of an inexperienced politician, we need someone who can hit the ground running. I like Edwards, Obama AND Clinton. I really like the fact Clinton is female and qualified. If she's defeated in the primaries, I'll happily vote for Edwards or Obama - but I intend to do everything I can to support this woman in this unprecedented election. This is a big deal, and history in the making, and I don't think we've given that enough credence. Everyone's afraid to touch it.

Why?