Unless it was Hillary who was in the other hotel room, unless Hillary was getting paid as an "escort", unless Hillary was Mrs. Elliot Spitzer and not Mrs. Bill Clinton, this has NOTHING to do with her or her campaign. It's an absurd question to begin with. But since you went there, shall we also ask the following:

If Elliot Spitzer has been backing away from his support of Clinton in recent weeks and moving towards Obama, what does Spitzer's lack of judgement say about Obama?


it's absurd. I can't even believe I read this.

Don't you deserve to be called on this?

In one breath, you claim that Spitzer's problems are his own. I have argued the same thing on this board. In the next, however, you imply that a non-existant connection to Obama should be brought into question.

Is this rally how slanted your world-view has now become?

I think the article (even though I think the whole thing is BS) is pointing out that people don't want to have to deal with that kind of thing in the White House, and that, for some reason, they think Clinton will somehow bring it back (because Republicans will go after her and her family again). That is based on the assumption that they will *not* go after Obama.

I think it's a load of bullshit full of false associations and misprojection regarding issues that weren't anyone's beeswax in the first place. Bill Clinton broke no laws by having an extramarital affair, while Spitzer did by hiring a hooker.

I don't know, but people are just....dumb...they don't want to bother with "the details,"--they just want to judge, feel superior for a few minutes, and then move on to the next opportunity to gloat over someone else's mistakes.

I also wonder if Obama might fall pray to the same weaknesses that the "great men" who went before him have. He's a "happening, magnetic guy" and we all know what happens when "happening, magentic guys" get in the White House (it happens *every* time). So either Obama really has to be the saint that he claims, or...we're in for another 4 years of intern BJs and Marylin Monroes.

Maybe an "unlikable schoolmarm" *is* exactly what the doctor ordered.

I agree and have said so several times on this board. But if the meme now is to somehow try to turn the whole thing on Obama, who really has nothing to do with it, then where does that leave our argument? A tenuous connection is unfair unless an even more tenuous one can be implied for the other side? Sounds like a recipe for moral bankruptcy to me.

I am actually defending Clinton on this one, but not if her supporters are going to try to turn an unfair sucker-punch on their campaign into an even dirtier smear on their opponent. Particularly if he had nothing to do with it.

No one had anything to do with it. But the personal trials and tribulations of Bill Clinton have become an issue in his wife's campaign. I have heard Obama supporters bring up that issue over and over and over again (as they are no doubt doing it at this moment). And Hillary Clinton is as little responsible for her husband's indiscretions as Obama is for being a sexy guy. So if this is going to reflect in any way on her, and Obama supporters are going to use this to their advantage, than I'm just proving that it can just as easily reflect poorly upon Obama.

You want to call my words "even dirtier." Why? They're not any more or less dirty than anyone else's. And if you choose to defend Clinton on this one, it's because you *should* defend Clinton on this one (it's not supposed to be up for discussion). Both connections are entirely unfair, and if you don't like mine (which I consider to be an interesting point--every young, sexy, magnetic man who has ever entered the White House has fallen pray to one or more sex scandals), then perhaps it should be a call for Obama supports to cease and desist their own unfair attacks on Clinton's candidacy.

Implying a connection between Spitzer's behavior and the Clinton campaign is dirty politics. Implying a connection between Spitzer's behavior and a campaign he has actively worked against is 'even dirtier.' I find this discussion of ther morality of campaign tactics very enlightening, however.

I actually have been calling on Obama supporters to lay off on this one and I am defending Clinton on this because the attacks on her over this are bad form.

That doesn't imply, however, that the decision to try to use this to sling mud at your opponent is any better. I think it very interesting that you seem to believe otherwise.

No, I don't think it is better. I think that sometimes people need to swallow a bit of their own medicine in order to see something for what it is--unfair, ridiculous, and dangerous.

I'm glad that you personally acknowledge that the entire thing is in bad form. However, some people need different kinds of convincing and sometimes it helps to show them, a little more personally, why their behavior is incorrect. So turn it back on me if you would like, and I will just take that as an indication that you know *exactly* why such attacks are potentially dangerous as well as gross (not because it's merely "wrong" to lower the bar, but because it invites your opposition to do the same).

Or perhaps you are just a blatant sexist.

True and fair enough. But why not fight for what you think is right in each individual case? Isn't that easier and ultimately better for your candidate/your reputation as an advocate?

Checks,

I have been doing that, repeatedly, but you know, it just doesn't seem to work. I have explained over and over and over why the issues are what is important, and how the rest of this is gobbledy-gook. But no one seems to care about that. All they want is dirt and seediness. Why? Not because it actually has anything to do with Hillary Clinton or her candidacy, but because it makes their candidate look better in their eyes, and they want him to win, no matter what they end up doing or saying.

And it's been pretty gross. It's as if, because Obama is trying to take the highroad, his supporters feel it is their duty to take the...other road. So what happens when they finally come to realize that that line of attack doesn't always work in their favor--that the low-road can just as easily and just as inanely apply to their candidate? I assume they'll think twice about it.

And it's better for my candidate most definitely. It's not as if "not mentioning it" because it's "wrong to mention it" would work in her favor. That seems to imply that she still holds some guilt here that she should pay for through the silence of her supporters.

Not a chance, not in this case. I *will* mention it because it has nothing to do with her, because she is innocent, because it is blatantly sexist, and because people need to see how this type of specious disgusting attack can affect any innocent person, and cannot be allowed.

you missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that they SHOULD be brought into question. I was suggesting the parallel absurdity. I think both questions are foolish but felt the need to point out that only the one is asked. Media bias perhaps? And as to my world view, one comment on a news blog hardly gives you a window into that.

Again, fair enough. Although I also think it was a fair question for me to ask.

Best

sure. I dont mind that. I'm actually a voter who listens to both sides and who isn't afraid to admit when my side is wrong. we're a rare breed. like unicorns.