<p>A new book alleges Bill Clinton assaulted Hillary Clinton and the result was Chelsea. The author is a left-winger, Ed Klein, who is the former foreign editor of NEWSWEEK and former editor in chief of the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE.</p>
<p>I am not a big fan of Hillary, but I have a tough time believing this one. Even if true, I can’t see how it would hurt Hillary’s chances at the Presidency. Stories based on annoymous sources are often untrue. </p>
<p>I would think that a story alleging that Bill “assaulted” Hilary would only reflect badly on Bill. If the GOP wishes to short-circuit a possible Clinton run for the Presidency in '08, it had better come up with something more damning that that. How lame!</p>
<p>I do not necessarily see it as a political liability for Senator Clinton–it seems outrageous-- however, B Clinton was no boy scout when it comes to matters involving his intimate (though not political) attentions to women and their well being–unless a whole lot of women who knew him in this way were lying from both the left and the right (blame the victim?). </p>
<p>Maybe he was just, in his peculiar (sexually amoral) way, bragging about a sexual conquest of his very spirited and intellectually/socially superior wife in his salad days…though even this would be repugnant behavior to those who have not already made him into an Arkansas Saint.</p>
<p>As I recall, Kline is a liberal of the Clintonian-variety: Very peculiar accusation indeed. It would be a very curious thing to see the reaction amongst those of the neo-liberal crowd to a report like this one from say, Robert Novak, or Pat Buchanan if it written about George Bush I, or R Regan.</p>
<p>Yes, the story must be part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.</p>
<p>My biggest concern about Hillary is how she’s “positioning” herself to be a moderate. Doesn’t anyone in the voting public care what candidates really believe and feel? Are we really stupid enough to fall for someone “positioning” themselves to gain votes?</p>
<p>Kind of like “compassionate conservative”? Posturing and packaging is, unfortunately, the way it is these days. Ask Karl Rove and James Carville – they problem is, it works. And as long as something works, the consultants are going to do it.</p>
<p>Doesn’t anyone else belive she is the worst possible role model for our daughters? Staying married to a man who has cheated on her again and again? She has been so marginalized, it’s hard to believe she has values she will stand up for.</p>
<p>Zagat - yes, she is a horrible role model, exemplifying the old adage of “Forgive and forget: women forgive, men forget.” Get a freakin’ backbone!</p>
<p>That all said, I don’t think that “The Truth” about Chelsea’s conception reflects badly upon her. I thought we had moved beyond blaming the victim for rape…</p>
<p>Zagat, no, I don’t think she’s a horrible role model. Her marriage is between her, Bill, and God. I find much to admire in the daughter and <em>something</em> must have worked right.</p>
<p>I give no particular credence to Klein, simply because some of his other breathless contentions, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s alleged contempt for Clinton, has already been refuted. The purpose of books about celebrities is to sell books; one believes in what sensationalism one reads with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Also, the account doesn’t fit the “smell” test to me. Bill’s modus operandi seems to be an impish smile over a base of charisma.</p>
<p>Kinda reminds me of the old joke: Q to a woman: Would you have sex with Paul Newman for a million dollars? A: It would take me a while to raise the million dollars. </p>
<p>I don’t get it, myself, but there’s a lot in this world I don’t get.</p>
<p>Thedad, on what basis are you judging that Chelsea is to be admired? Talk to any of her LSE classmates, they do not admire her.</p>
<p>Sorry, like any other celebrity, we do get to judge how Hillary handles herself. She is an educated, powerful woman who does stand as a powerful role model for all of our girls. That she has allowed herself to be made a fool of over and over, to go on national television and protect a man that has lied to her myriad times…it’s just sad for all women.</p>
<p>Well, she won’t be elected because she’s a woman. </p>
<p>Personally, I think the GOP would be happy to see her nominated (though there’s no chance she will be).</p>
<p>Sorry girls - it’s not right, but the country just isn’t ready. We have a long history of electing war heros, cowboys, and all around “warriors” (even phoney ones who just landed on a carrier in a flightsuit). It’s an image thing, and I think more than ever people are looking for protection. I don’t think they’ll view a woman as the same type of strong, protective, almost “macho” symbol regardless of how skilled she may be.</p>
<p>Take my word for it - if she runs she’ll lose, BADLY.</p>
<p>Even “feminine” men have had an awful run at trying to take the office throughout history. It’s just not going to happen. The office is a symbol of protection and power (hence why the people have put war heros and cowboys there for the past 240 years).</p>
<p>Now more than ever people are looking for the “protection” thing.</p>
<p>Aside from the “she’s a girl” thing many, many people (even democrats) just don’t like her.</p>
<p>Maybe you’re young enough to have been raised through the “anything guys can do girls can do too - probably better” attitude of the last 20-30 years. I know I am, but the fact remains many voters were not, and they simply will not elect a woman no matter how qualified.</p>
<p>She became Senator, and she has the potential to become president. </p>
<p>You say that the office is a symbol of protection and power, but what does that have to do with hilary and the election. And what do you mean by the “protection” thing?</p>
<p>As far as many democrats dont like her, I can agree with you on that. But, many democrats also didnt like Kerry. But that didnt stop him from running, did it?</p>
<p>You have to get the fact that women has taken a major role in American politics. We have some female Senators and we have a female Secretary of State. So I dont see why a feminine president isnt possible.</p>
<p>Zagat, I have two “uppity women” in my family and they would disagree with your assessment of HC.</p>
<p>Hillary was lied to by Bill?</p>
<p>This is akin to trying to impeach BC because he lied about a consensual sex act whereas Bush can pile lie after lie on about Iraq and it’s no big.</p>
<p>Some of us realize what’s trivial and what’s important.</p>
<p>Enjoi, the Dems may have a spirited fight for the nomination…or not, because HC is the 800-lb. canary in that if she wants the nomination, she gets it: no one else can touch her for dollars, staff, organization, and star power. However, whoever gets the nomination will get extremely high support from the Democrats because of the alternatives. Bush has succeeded in driving up Democratic voting loyalty to Republican levels. I see no prospect for a change under any potential successor: Frist, Cheney, Brownback.</p>
<p>(If anyone wants to bet on Giuliani, McCain, or Condi Rice, please have your money ready in small unmarked bills.)</p>