Can anyone really blame Obama looking at his wife?

Can anyone really blame Obama looking at his wife?

classy.

 

Yeah, thanks. I kinda knew that. What I didn't know is why you claimed this particular piece of info made a "huge difference" between the two offices in any respect, which is what I tried to ask. Personally, I could care less if any candidate cheated; not because I think "character" or even "morality" is unimportant, but because I don't know the specifics of their relationships and try to base my votes on their positions on other issues. I think this is a total non-issue; you seemed to term it "huge" (at least in relation to the president) and mentioned avoiding another Clinton, as if a candidate's past indiscretions meant we'd be in for more blue dresses, special prosecutors, and impeachments. I wasn't sure what you meant and was trying to understand. Still am.

 

I believe Clinton was rendered almost useless during the Lewinski hearings and the final couple years of his Presidency. Any action he would take was judged based on "tail wagging the dog". I would prefer to not repeat the spectacle of a President explaining blow jobs in the Oval Office to Congress and the American people. Also, when the President takes the oath of office, I would like to think he actually understands what an oath is. Perhaps you are comfortable with him doing it with "his fingers crossed behind his back", but I am not.

 

Your positions change easier than your character.

 

What I termed huge was the difference between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, not the acts in question.

I believe Clinton was rendered almost useless during the Lewinski hearings and the final couple years of his Presidency. Any action he would take was judged based on "tail wagging the dog". I would prefer to not repeat the spectacle of a President explaining blow jobs in the Oval Office to Congress and the American people. Also, when the President takes the oath of office, I would like to think he actually understands what an oath is. Perhaps you are comfortable with him doing it with "his fingers crossed behind his back", but I am not.

 

Your positions change easier than your character.

 

What I termed huge was the difference between the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, not the acts in question.

 

I guess I care more about the president's constiutional oath than his marital one, and I don't see how a violation of one risks a breach of the other (Nixon, by all accounts, was a faithful husband to Pat), nor do I see how a past indiscretion as a senator or governor would necessarily make another Lewinsky crisis more likely once that official became president or VP.

 

However, I do get your point as it relates to the value of one's word with respect to oaths in general, and I appreciate your explanation.

Sad when being a role model isn't even factored in as President of the United States.

Sad when being a role model isn't even factored in as President of the United States.

 

The thing is, it's such a new phenomenon, that these scandals are reported on. It's now well-known that JFK cheated on his wife, that FDR cheated on his wife, most of our founding fathers had mistresses, and yet we look at them as great leaders and great morally. Now if you are caught with a mistress your career is over and you are a pariah. For personal reasons I hate people who cheat on their spouses, but it's clear the type of personality fearless to lead a country are likely the kinds that are fearless to risk their careers.

How about sexist, keep that crap out of here.

Before we get further down this road, let's try to keep the accusations of sexism and racism out of here. Also, let's try to be at least a little bit respectful of the PERSONS we are discussing. Feel free to deride their leadership abilities, politics, etc.

 

Anyone believe the Hillary/staffer rumors early in the primary? I sure didn't. I don't buy the Obama rumors either. There's only one candidate of the four that is publicly known as an adulterer and no one cares (including me).

The reason edwards' was so much more acidic is how he used his wife's battle with cancer, and the fact that people love Elizabeth Edwards, to gain some political capital.

And there is a huge difference between THE candidate having these issues and the VP candidate. Do we really want another William Clinton in office?

So which candidate is more like Bill Clinton?

In politics, dead girl = live boy. So I guess that would make live girl > live boy, hence the reporting.

I don't want to go down any road. I just didn't know if that post was even for me, because i didn't say anything sexist. I was just pointing out what someone else said....and that wasn't even sexist...it was just stupid.

My warning was for everyone. Just wanted to head off a thread disaster before it took hold. Not directed towards you specifically.

 

 

Sad when being a role model isn't even factored in as President of the United States.

 

I guess it depends upon how you define role model. By all accounts W has been a faithful husband to Laura, but for many years he was an irresponsible boozer and had a DUI. Driving drunk isn't being too stellar of a role model either. In fact, some might consider illegal behavior that recklessly endangers public safety more reflective of poor character than getting a BJ from another conseting adult.

 

I know what you're saying, but I don't see this as "sad" so much as realistic. President as hero/role model was probably always a naive, mythical notion anyway. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a coin across the Potomoc, Thomas Jefferson was banging Sally the slave on the side, and I'm sure plenty of presidents besides FDR, JFK and Clinton couldn't keep it in their pants.

 

I prefer to do the role model thing myself, and thankfully for my kids I'm up to that task. I much more prefer the president to be good at all the other important matters I'm unable to get around to, like foreign and domestic policy.

I guess it depends upon how you define role model. By all accounts W has been a faithful husband to Laura, but for many years he was an irresponsible boozer and had a DUI. Driving drunk isn't being too stellar of a role model either. In fact, some might consider illegal behavior that recklessly endangers public safety more reflective of poor character than getting a BJ from another conseting adult.

 

I know what you're saying, but I don't see this as "sad" so much as realistic. President as hero/role model was probably always a naive, mythical notion anyway. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a coin across the Potomoc, Thomas Jefferson was banging Sally the slave on the side, and I'm sure plenty of presidents besides FDR, JFK and Clinton couldn't keep it in their pants.

 

I prefer to do the role model thing myself, and thankfully for my kids I'm up to that task. I much more prefer the president to be good at all the other important matters I'm unable to get around to, like foreign and domestic policy.

You also have to figure in the attitude of society at the time. When W was drinkin and stuff, there wasn't the social stigma that there is today. A lot of people excused drinking and driving, and even drug use up until some time in the 80's. That doesn't excuse it, just explains it. If he were dwi today, that would be pretty bad (unless he was in LA, since they seem to let every famous person go scott free). However, he did those things when he was younger, and not when he was in office, with the possability that someone could use that information or activity as leverage to get him to act a certan way. Doing that crap while in office is a sure way to get blackmailed, or maybe recruited by a spy as an asset.

 

Now all that said, I just have a question. If W's younger activities turn you off, why doesn't Obama's admitted drug use do the same?

 

I would add that I too prefer to do the role modelling thing myself. That is a good choice you are making there.

Edited October 15, 200817 yr by Alpha Dog

You also have to figure in the attitude of society at the time. When W was drinkin and stuff, there wasn't the social stigma that there is today. A lot of people excused drinking and driving, and even drug use up until some time in the 80's. That doesn't excuse it, just explains it. If he were dwi today, that would be pretty bad (unless he was in LA, since they seem to let every famous person go scott free). However, he did those things when he was younger, and not when he was in office, with the possability that someone could use that information or activity as leverage to get him to act a certan way. Doing that crap while in office is a sure way to get blackmailed, or maybe recruited by a spy as an asset.

 

Now all that said, I just have a question. If W's younger activities turn you off, why doesn't Obama's admitted drug use do the same?

I disagree with the first part of this post big time. To me, that's a cop out. In my eyes, what makes people most admirable ("role models," if you will) is a willingness to stand up and do what's right (and not do what's wrong) regardless of what is currently popular or "the attitude of society at the time." When I think of a good example of a role model, I think of attorney Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird," who, at great risk to himself and his family, went against societal stigmas to do what he believed was right. DUI is and always has been illegal; "everybody does it" or "its not a big deal" doesn't lessen the offense. It, like adultery, is wrong; period. But at least adultery is not against the law (10 commandments aside) or a direct threat to the public safety (STD's aside).

 

That said, I don't think adulterers, drunk drivers, or drug abusers make good role models, and I am equally turned off by W's dui, Obama's drugs, and Bubba's cheating. Which is to say even though I don't like it, none of that would, by itself, keep me from voting for any of them. Again, I stopped looking to politicians (and athletes, and celebrities) as role models a long time ago. I vote for a chief executive, not the Kiwanis Man of the Year. All real human beings are imperfect, and most have done something they're not proud of. Maybe that's why I've had to resort to works of fiction to find a decent "role model."

Edited October 16, 200817 yr by PlaySumFnJurny

I disagree with the first part of this post big time. To me, that's a cop out. In my eyes, what makes people most admirable ("role models," if you will) is a willingness to stand up and do what's right (and not do what's wrong) regardless of what is currently popular or "the attitude of society at the time." When I think of a good example of a role model, I think of attorney Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird," who, at great risk to himself and his family, went against societal stigmas to do what he believed was right. DUI is and always has been illegal; "everybody does it" or "its not a big deal" doesn't lessen the offense. It, like adultery, is wrong; period. But at least adultery is not against the law (10 commandments aside) or a direct threat to the public safety (STD's aside).

 

That said, I don't think adulterers, drunk drivers, or drug abusers make good role models, and I am equally turned off by W's dui, Obama's drugs, and Bubba's cheating. Which is to say even though I don't like it, none of that would, by itself, keep me from voting for any of them. Again, I stopped looking to politicians (and athletes, and celebrities) as role models a long time ago. I vote for a chief executive, not the Kiwanis Man of the Year. All real human beings are imperfect, and most have done something they're not proud of. Maybe that's why I've had to resort to works of fiction to find a decent "role model."

I didn't mean to imply that because attitudes towards drinking were lax a while ago that that should make hima role model now, just pointing out that attitudes were diffferent then. Glad to hear your thoughts about that extend towards Obama. You don't get that from the original post. I agree with your second part. I try to expose my kids to people that they can loop up to, besides myself, and stay away from politicians and sports figures.

We tell politicians that it is ok to be less than trustworthy and honest in some areas, but not others. We deserve what we get when the lines blur and they are dishonest.

We tell politicians that it is ok to be less than trustworthy and honest in some areas, but not others. We deserve what we get when the lines blur and they are dishonest.

 

Not to further hijack this thread, but I think that this is a problem that is inherent with a republican system of government, in which our leaders are elected from among us. "We the people" are human and therefore flawed. Not all of us are outright criminals, of course, but most are "less than trustworthy and honest in some areas", whether it be with respect to disobeying speed limits, surfing the internet at work, taking creative liberties with our tax returns, or keeping the incorrect change handed over by some clueless cashier.

 

Its sort of a Catch-22 of democracy that we want our leaders to be "one of us," and yet better than us at the same time. To a degree, some dishonesty in politics will always be inevitable because "power corrupts," and the faithful and the sober are not immune from its effects, even if the cheaters and carousers are more vulnerable. Nevertheless, it should NEVER be tolerated, accepted or condoned. That's not what I'm saying at all.

 

IMO, we "deserve what we get" only when we fail to provide proper oversight and accountability, and therefore create an environment where shenanagins can go unnoticed or be ignored or excused; not by sending flawed, imperfect people to Washington who then act imperfectly once there. Sadly, that's probably always going to happen despite our best efforts to screen it by voting only "honest" people in. Therefore, imo, we should focus our most intense scrutinty on our officials' present behavior, rather than their pasts (especially with respect to unrelated, personal indiscretions like adultery), as past behavior is not always indicative of future performance, and, in any event, everyone has warts and skeletons to some degree.

 

 

Can anyone really blame Obama looking at his wife?

I think Michelle is really pretty. Certainly better looking than he is.

 

Anyway. I take what I call the Elliot Spitzer approach to cheating/immoral activities. In general, I don't care. Truly don't care. It's not my business. I've made personal mistakes and I hope that I am not being judged by past mistakes. If it doesn't affect your job performance (and isn't illegal), it really isn't my business. It's a personal matter.

 

I DO care when someone is really hypocritical in their dalliances (ala Spitzer). Don't claim to be pro-family and marriage if you're going to cheat on your wife. Don't crack down on prostitution stings if you're getting services from the prostitutes. Don't lecture me about drug usage when you're popping the vicodin. Don't be a dick about gay rights if you're into anonymous gay sex.

 

I think Michelle is really pretty. Certainly better looking than he is.

 

Anyway. I take what I call the Elliot Spitzer approach to cheating/immoral activities. In general, I don't care. Truly don't care. It's not my business. I've made personal mistakes and I hope that I am not being judged by past mistakes. If it doesn't affect your job performance (and isn't illegal), it really isn't my business. It's a personal matter.

 

I DO care when someone is really hypocritical in their dalliances (ala Spitzer). Don't claim to be pro-family and marriage if you're going to cheat on your wife. Don't crack down on prostitution stings if you're getting services from the prostitutes. Don't lecture me about drug usage when you're popping the vicodin. Don't be a dick about gay rights if you're into anonymous gay sex.

 

I care about Spitzer because he broke the law.