<p>Cheers, they can do what they want - I don’t care - and having never been married, I’m certainly not about to try to judge - but - I cannot force myself to respect Hillary, that’s all. She turns me off, cold. Yuck. And I tend to view women who desperately chase men, cling to men, etc. as, well, desperate and pathetic.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m no Hillary fan either - I don’t make it habit to vote for wives of mass murderers of children. I just wish he’d spent a little more time with Monica, and less time plotting the deaths of folks considered to be allies and friends of the U.S., just ruled by a nasty dictator.</p>
<p>Love or hate or mock George ‘Crazy-Like-a-Fox’ Bush, at the end of eight years, he has helped produce an uber-powerful Republican political machine with presidential candidates lined up on a two decade runway–including his baby brother, for heck’s sake. Contrast that with the dreamy two term Rhodes scholar and the state of the Democratic party following his departure. </p>
<p>Not that I believe an uber-powerful single party is good for our democracy–or the Republican party in fact–but nobody is asking for my opinion, so there ya’ go. ;)</p>
<p>Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon. (Meaning: ‘No’)</p>
<p>(She did go…) nice try</p>
<p>Hanna, there are many places in the world where friends and/or colleagues touch one another as platonic gestures of friendship. Even executives - male and female - have been known to do this, although perhaps it is more common in some parts of the world than others.</p>
<p>By specifically raising the subject of Texas manners and what you apparently view as more acceptable Midwestern manners, IMO you were inferring that gestures that are fairly common in Texas are unacceptable. My apologies if that was not your intent.</p>
<p>By the way, apparently Margaret Thatcher wasn’t quite as uptight as you surmise: <a href=“http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/images/museum_exhibition_thatcher_greeting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/COM/Museum/museum_exhibition_thatcher.cfm&h=332&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=q7oXDbyYFAoXJM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=72&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmargaret%2Bthatcher%2Bronald%2Breagan%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN[/url]”>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/images/museum_exhibition_thatcher_greeting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/COM/Museum/museum_exhibition_thatcher.cfm&h=332&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=q7oXDbyYFAoXJM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=72&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmargaret%2Bthatcher%2Bronald%2Breagan%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN</a> (Scroll down to the bottom of the page where you will find Ronald Reagan’s hand on Margaret Thatcher’s elbow and arm.)</p>
![http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/images/museum_exhibition_thatcher_greeting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/COM/Museum/museum_exhibition_thatcher.cfm&h=332&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=q7oXDbyYFAoXJM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=72&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmargaret%2Bthatcher%2Bronald%2Breagan%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN[/url]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/images/museum_exhibition_thatcher_greeting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hofstra.edu/COM/Museum/museum_exhibition_thatcher.cfm&h=332&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=q7oXDbyYFAoXJM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=72&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmargaret%2Bthatcher%2Bronald%2Breagan%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Finally, since I haven’t said this directly, I suspect that GWB may regret his touching of Chancellor Merkel but I think he acted spontaneously and his gesture was intended to be friendly rather than provocative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. There’s an awful lot of overinterpretation of what is essentially an extremely trivial incident.</p>
<p>Mini, I don’t care at all about what Bill did or didn’t do re his “personal time”. I really don’t. He always struck me as sort of a snake oil salesman, but that’s just a personal reaction. Some women perhaps find him “charming” or even perhaps “attractive” but I always thought he was oily and gross. But he couldn’t run for election for a third term, obviously, therefore I don’t care if he had ten Monicas running around the WH. I didn’t vote for him the first two times, but then I wouldn’t have even if he’d been even slightly appealing. </p>
<p>My issue is with Hillary and how I could never, ever consider voting for her - that’s even before getting into the issues of politics, competency, etc. She has no self respect and no self dignity. I find her disgusting. </p>
<p>Perfect example - I was at a dinner in D.C. week before last - Washington International Trade Association’s annual dinner. Hillary was there to present an award to congressman Kolbe. Another congressman received an award first though (I forget which one, it had been a long day already). Anyway, Hillary gets up to present the award to Kolbe. She gives his accomplishments quite an oratory summary, and, to her credit, she seems to be a very gifted, talented speaker. </p>
<p>So when she’s finally done Kolbe comes up to get his award; Hillary steps away from the podium, and he steps up to speak and to thank everyone, etc. Kolby isn’t even into his acceptance remarks 30 seconds when he starts to address something Hillary said, and to thank her, and I hear him say “…is she still here”??? </p>
<p>Dead silence in the room until someone finally managed to convey that she’d already fled. Embarrassed silence for several seconds in this ballroom of what had to have been over 1,000 people. Even the people at my table - we all looked at each other in disbelief. She gives an award and then flees before the honoree even has a chance to speak. Cannot even be bothered to hang out another five minutes or so to let the man complete an acceptance speech. What was the big rush? It’s not like she had to walk all by herself to the Metro or something. </p>
<p>Kolbe recovered nicely and continued, but, that just struck me as rude and classless - even more so because Kolbe’s republican. </p>
<p>I’ll happily cast my lot with GWB any day, Bushisms and all.</p>
<p>Oh, let’s just savor the irony of conservative republicans excoriating a wife for staying with her unfaithful husband. What a horrible sin, to stay married to your husband who was unfaithful. (Hmmm. Perhaps “for better or for worse” was an example of typical liberal wimpiness?)</p>
<p>My original comments were not pointed to Hilary C, but rather to the republicans themselves. All I heard for 8 years was no one could trust Clinton because his wife couldn’t. Then all of a sudden Giuliani is the subject, and the immediate reaction is that we are to applaud him because at least his adultery was a mature response to a bad marriage. </p>
<p>I have absolutely no idea why anyone bothers to watch soap operas when we have modern American politics. We have the mid terms coming up soon. Better stock up on the popcorn. The only difference is that soap opera actors don’t send people to war.</p>
<p>Hayden, it’s not about the men. It’s about the women who cling, chase, and otherwise behave like desperate shrews - which is totally o.k., if that’s what they want to do - I’m just not going to be very interested in voting for them, that’s all. If Giuliani’s ex-wife were running for pres or some other office I would also be saying “gross”. </p>
<p>If Giuliani runs? Hmmm, he has the right to end his marital relationship, even if he could have done so in a more gentlemanly manner. It’s hard to judge from this great distance, but, sheesh, didn’t the woman get that it was OVER?</p>
<p>It is AMAZING that you have more respect for the man who cheats on his wife, then a woman who stays, and works it out</p>
<p>So the man, if he can’t keep it zipped, well he can handle it anyway he wants, stay married, get divorced whatever, but the wife, will no matter what she does, she is a shrew?</p>
<p>Well, gee, if you dad cheated on your mom, she should do what, exactly?</p>
<p>There have been other examples of hanky-panky in the White House.</p>
<p>Harding is alleged to have affairs while he was President.
FDR slept with another woman under the White House roof. So did Elinor. At the same time.
JFK - don’t know if he did anything under the White House roof (I mean I don’t know), but other places were fair game.</p>
<p>Any other tidbits?</p>
<p>Well, CGM, this goes way far afield of Cheer’s original post, but, broadly, without intending to cast judgement on individual situations, I don’t happen to view “cheating” as something one member of a marriage inflicts on the other member, or “does to” the other member, but rather a symtom of something that has gone seriously amiss between two people, and both parties in the relationship are to some degree accountable for it. </p>
<p>In Bill’s case - I’m sort of in agreement with Mini - I wish he’d spent a little bit MORE time with Monica, or perhaps with someone a little classier. In Hillary’s case, she had to have known - for years - that Bill was engaged in various relationships at different times. If there should be “blame”, I blame her as much as him. Regardless, she stays with him, over and over, no matter how publically, consistently he disrespects and embarrasses her. </p>
<p>It’s one matter to be in a marriage, something goes wrong, and the couple works together to resolve. It’s another thing entirely when the whole world knows about it, and when the behavior is chronic.</p>
<p>The double standards never cease to amaze me.</p>
<p>Still shaking me head!</p>
<p>Allmusic, there’s no double standard at all, in that they are BOTH wrong. Bill shouldn’t have relations with other women when he is married, obviously. But he does. And Hillary has clearly been completely unable to change his behavior, either the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. time he has done so. The last time that we all were aware of, his actions resulted in an impeachment proceeding (that was ridiculous - I don’t think he should have been impeached but that’s outside the point). Clearly, Hillary has no ability to influence, let alone control, his behavior. But she DOES absolutely have control over her own choices. And she chooses to stay with someone who treats her this way. On purpose. She could make other choices - she could chose to end the marriage and enjoy the freedom of being alone, or, perhaps engage with a life partner who doesn’t cheat. But she doesn’t do that. She stays will Bill. Fair enough - if that’s what she wants to do, great. </p>
<p>But that tells me a LOT about who and what she is - and therefore, I could never vote for her. </p>
<p>Sorry for the off topic subject matter Cheers.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is…our top leaders are not making any effort. By that I mean, you have to take everyone’s hand, JUST LIKE IN PRESCHOOL, elementary school, high school, police to neighbors,…make them all hold hands and make nice and make them be friends. HOW is this any different? CLINTON was right. You have to take their hands and make nice, talk nice, go for the nice photo op.
BUT here we are, Sect. Of State standing at a podium justifying major bombing when 2 soldiers got snatched in the night. Bush eating rolls and making talk with his buddy when he needs to take everyone’s hand and make peace. Be a leader.
I don’t get it.</p>
<p>I view world affairs as somewhat similar to raising children. As a nation, America worked to get along with other nations in the same way that kind parents try to get along with good children. After 9/11, things changed for me and for America. When it comes to nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, the only viable option is “tough love” because they don’t respond to reason or kind treatment. There will always be people that want to reason with children and nations, no matter how they behave and no matter how many chances they are given. I’m not one of those parents, and I’m not one of those citizens either. Let those nations show they have changed their attitudes and their behavior, and then we can sit down and talk.</p>
<p>I think tough love very often backfires, and this will be one of those cases.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Do they respond with a change in attitude and behavior when they are bombed? I haven’t seen that change occur in any society where a religious sect commands murderous/suicidal devotion. I see the digging in of heels, plus a lot of civilian deaths.</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that this is a good analogy anyway. If, in the course of raising children, I found it necessary to shoot my child, something is wrong with me, not the child. Killing people is never an act of love, tough or otherwise. At any rate, no one appointed us parent of these societies with the corresponding right to bring them up in our own image; we are and should be independent agents looking after our own best interests, which is the opposite of a parental role.</p>
<p>Hanna,</p>
<p>Perhaps my analogy is not apt. However, if you really believe that the US is and should be an independent agent looking after our own best interests, then you would be in favor of bombing terrorists that threaten and harm American lives and property.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m wholly in favor of bombing (or hanging, or shooting, or electrocuting, or poisoning) terrorists.</p>
<p>I don’t see that option on the table. I generally see the option of killing an unknown number of terrorists plus a substantial number of civilian bystanders and also some friendly troops. No matter what the final decision is, whether to do that ought to be an extremely tough question, every single time it is asked.</p>