If anyone saw the Clintons as a real family, maybe so, but most people see them for what they probably are in reality--a loveless business partnership that required at least one child to carry the veneer of sincerity.
 

I strongly object to the snarky line "Is this the first presidential campaign when the Democrats are actually more upstanding family-values types than the Republicans."

I think you are buying into the Republican machine caricature of Democrats, which is completely undeserved. Ok, so Clinton and JFK were dogs, and Bush Jr. seems like he's never even looked at another woman. But beyond those examples -- there have long been rumors about Bush Sr., and Reagan of course was divorced and a womanizer (at least before Nancy). Eisenhower was a dog, and Harding died during sex with his mistress, as did Nelson Rockefeller. Meanwhile, Democrats like Truman, Stevenson, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis were/are hardly sex machines.

Then there is the whole issue of how blue states look better on moral issues than red states (they have lower divorce rates, lower children out of wedlock, etc.)

Just because Democrats don't rail against the decline of morals in the country and just because they recognize that things like divorce are here to stay and issues like two parent families, child care, teaching sex ed in school and so forth are issues that need to be addressed -- that doesn't mean that Democrats are themselves immoral. It means they understand what's going on in the country.
 

Fair point, #2. I wasn't going very far back....
 

Anon 2:10 -- how do you know that? Do you know them personally? Or are you just guessing based on articles written by other people who don't know them.

I've met them both and I can tell you they there is very genuine affection between the two of them. She clearly loves him, and he loves her too I think. They have a much more complex relationship than people realize.

I don't think it is possible to really gauge what is in someone's heart. After all, if you just look at this from the perspective of political expediency, and she "needed" him to get elected to the Senate, she could have divorced him by now. It might have helped her because she could be viewed just on her own.
 

Anon 2:10 - How many children do you require to be so baselessly cynical?
 

If you get the chance, tune in to RNN's "Real Politics Live" at 8pm on ch. 91 on Time Warner (19 if you have Cablevision). Giving your post a hit in our blog segment. Good stuff.
 

If you can't be cynical about the Clintons, who can you be cynical about?
 

I'll Tivo it, thanks....
 

I'd like to give a blunt a hit right about now....
 

go for it dude
 

The Friday afternoon buzz is the main best buzz of the week
 

Just to pile on a bit: does anyone ever give any thought to what kind of PARENTS these 'family-oriented' Republicans seem to be? The Reagan kids are ideological exhibitionists, W and his father make the collected works of Sophocles look like "The Happy Hollisters," and the Bush twins are total wastes of space. Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton, the Gore girls (and mostly the boy too), and Kerry's daughters (an MFA with a couple short-film festival prizes to her credit, and Harvard Med) are almost universally described as gems of humanity. No, I'm not exaggerating.

Check out Spike Jonze's short film on Gore with his family if you haven't seen it.

And Bradley, quit reciting right-wing talking points: in this case, the one that says Clinton's philandering were the last word on all Democratic families. Gore sacrificed his relatively easy 2000 win on the Clinton economic record, and distanced himself from the immensely popular horn-dog, in order to kill that myth. You'd think that that silver lining at least could be preserved from the national wreckage that has ensued.

How about, instead of asking Democrats when they stopped cheating on their wives, we start asking this question of 'family-oriented' Republicans:
"If abortion should be illegal, what should be the punishment for a woman who has an abortion?"
There's a meme for you to chew on.


Standing Eagle
 

correction in penultimate paragraph: read 'was' for 'were'

SE