Bill Clinton was arguably one of the best presidents in our Nation's
history. He made mistakes on a personal level. His wife has
forgiven him. His daughter has forgiven him. Utah's highly moral citizens
(most of them) just can't forgive him, even though the personal matter is
none of their business and forgiveness is one of the bragging points of their
"What does Campbell suggest I tell my children and grandchildren when they
ask who Clinton is or was?"A United States President maybe? I mean, just a suggestion!Or did that great period of
relative peace and economic growth between the two bad periods of Bush
Presidents who gave us nothing but wars in Iraq, debt, and economic stagnation
just never happen?It's hilarious to watch the right emphasize
Clinton's mistakes while ignore Bush's (lies about WMDs, torture, etc)
and Romney's (flip flops, hiding money in Swiss Bank Accounts, etc)
@David Terry, when speaking of unadmirable personal character issues who do you
refer, Clinton or Eastwood?
I suggest you explain to your children and grandchildren that Mr. Clinton was
President of the United States. As to his extramarital conduct,
imperfect people can make a positive contribution to society. I have great
admiration for Benjamin Franklin, for instance, but his personal life was
The GOP learned a valuable lesson during the Clinton years. Cooperate with a
Democratic president, even one embroiled in a sex scandal, and together they can
create economic prosperity and a surplus. This has resulted in Clinton becoming
one of the most popular past-presidents in history!They weren't
going to allow a new Democratic president clean up their mess with Bush,
however, and they've done everything to NOT cooperate with Obama to
"make him a one-term president" in the profound words of Senator
McConnell (KY-R). Obama will win re-election, and polls indicate
that Democrats will win more seats in the House and keep the senate. The worry
I have is that even with their diminished power in Washington, the GOP will
probably continue to be the party of "no," and America will have another
four years of stalemate.
Oh David."I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. Of you
it is REQUIRED to forgive all men."---I was not a
fan of Clinton as President. But he certainly knows how to give a good speech.
When your children ask "who is that", you can say: "He was a former
President of the United States". That is sufficient. There's no need
to bring up his "philandering"; why would you with your children?Also, if you take a good long look at both parties, Congress, the
Senate, there are plenty of "philanderers" among the ranks. You
can't go a single year without one or more of them making the news for
it.I doubt you were rooting for the Newt, but HE was also
philandering whilst persecuting President Clinton for the SAME THING.
What a ridiculous letter!"how do they reconcile a morally
corrupt philanderer as one of the more important faces of their party?"Seriously?A reasonable person would answer, "Bill
Clinton was a two-term president of the United States in the 1990's. During
his two terms in office America enjoyed balanced budgets and the best economy
and lowest poverty rates it's had in a generation."How hard
is that? Or do you really think that the single most important characteristic
of a national leader is whether or not he was ever involved in an extramarital
affair? If that's the case, then how do you explain Newt Gingrich's
speech before the RNC?Do you seriously expect me to believe that if
the Republican running against President Obama was Newt Gingrich that Utah
Republican voters would say to themselves, "President Obama has never been
unfaithful to his wife, but Mr. Gingrich has, multiple times, and so I'll
vote for the Democrat?"Morality has many facets. Yes, I am
troubled by marital infidelity. I'm more troubled by a candidate with
Swiss bank accounts who refuses to release his tax returns.
There's plenty of philandering men on BOTH sides of the aisle. I
don't know if you you really want to go down this road. Mark Sanford and
Newt Gingrich certainly would like you to choose another topic.....
"If that is the case, how do they reconcile a morally corrupt philanderer as
one of the more important faces of their party?"You mean like
Newt Gingrich? Didn't HE speak at the GOP convention? Didn't he lead
the race for a while?Get off your high horse. If marital fidelity
was a requirement for Congress, there would be many empty seats. Including some
of those with an "R" on them.I still love the Clinton quote.
"It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did"It is applicable in most political discussions these days.
This letter has hit the nail right on the head. No reasonable person can deny
that the Democrats' selection of Clinton as a keynote speaker perfectly
signifies their rejection of traditional family values.Right from
the start, both Clintons demonstrated that they would put the pursuit of
political power above family. The fact that they only "bothered" to have
one child so as not to hinder their pursuit of power shows where their true
priorities are.Inevitably, these skewed priorities led to wanton,
uncontrolled sexual excess on the part of President Clinton. The man who should
have led the Country towards morality instead led it into an epidemic of
immorality.The choice of Clinton by today's Democrats shows
exactly what their priorities are. All patriotic Americans who reject those
amoral values must reject that party.
I suppose you can tell your children/grandchildren that he was the president
that saw the largest increase in middle class income in recent history. Or
perhaps you can tell them he was the president who left us with a balanced
budget plan, and a plan to pay off the debt.If all you have to tell them
about is Monica, I think you might be overly preoccupied with sex.
The righties ignore Bush's lies, Mitt's lies, Paul's lies.But they keep bringing up Clinton.
The scriptures make it clear about this issue. I suggest David read and put into
practice some good solid advice:D&C 64:"9
Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to aforgive one another; for he that
bforgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord;
for there remaineth in him the greater sin.10 I, the Lord, will
forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all
men."David, for you own soul's sake, you need to repent. I
don't want you to be judged by the same pathetic judgement you are showing
towards your former President.Matt 7:2"2 For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it
shall be measured to you again."
Hasn't the GOP championed the three timed married Donald Trump, who never
met a super model he didn't want to "date", and what about that
fine example of fidelity, Newt Gingrich? I don't think that the
Republican party has any reason to claim the moral high ground on this issue.
There are at least 7 presidents (6 besides Clinton) who had affairs in office,
make sure you teach your child about them too.
As opposed to Obama, during Bill Clinton's presidency he did not impede
economic growth. This is far different from causing economic expansion. Clinton
is a likable good ol' boy, but he is not the person you would trust in a
room alone with your daughter. If Joe Biden is the intellectual face of the
liberals, Clinton is their moral compass. As billionaire David Geffin, a former
Clinton donor, noted when he withdrew his support, the Clintons make no
distinction between being truthful and being a liar.
@TruthseekerHow many of those presidents were accused of harassment,
or far far worse (remember Juanita Broderick who was quickly hushed)?You once asked me why I am hostile to feminists: Because they clearly value
ideological purity over actually real living breathing women.I am
hostile to the Klan too: because, despite their claims, they do NOT speak for
all whites, they are an embarrassment to millions who don't want to be
associated with such malevolence.Why do Democrats defile themselves
by accusing Republicans of a "war on women" when their own behavior is
so incredibly hypocritical, manipulative, (I am a victim therefore, I have a
right to perpetrate) and really very anti-woman. Why are they loathe to hold
Clinton to their own supposed high standards?BTW: Accusing someone
of trying to silence women because they dare question a feminist is like
accusing someone of being anti-religion because they question Fred Phelps and
the Westboro Baptist Church; It is incredibly disingenuous and reflects poorly
on the accuser. Indiscrimiate allegtions of racism, sexism and homophbia are
the primary indicators of passive/aggression and the biggest destroyer of
With all the moral pontification by the right in the comments above, I have not
heard the name of Ronald Reagan mentioned once. He conceived a child out of
wedlock - he married Nancy on March 4 and Patty was born on October 21. Do the
math). Was Reagan a morally corrupt person? Heavens no! He made a mistake.
He was human. We are all human.Thank you Ranchhand for reminding us
of our obligations as Christians. You know what they say about people who live
in glass houses.
@liberal larryNeither of your examples were ever actually nominated
for president, were they?And neither was accused of harassment (or
worse).Infidelity is not cool; but forced physical abuse is far
worse and your comparisons merely indicate the moral vapidity of the liberal
feminist defense of Clinton.
David Terry (no relation, I presume):If you are going to trash the
Democrats for putting Clinton in the spotlight, why don't you bring up the
Republicans, who actually claim to be the party of family values, and their
nominee in 2008, John McCain? His background makes Clinton look like a choirboy.
Interesting letter! Interesting to see that all is same in the world, with the
leftists trying to run cover and downplay the goings on with their hero
Clinton. As with most conservatives, I don't give a rip how many men or
women wild Bill can seduce, as long as they were willing participants
(questionable), and as long as he absolutely did it on HIS OWN time and with his
own resources (very questionable). If I did the things he did, while on the
clock at my job, I would be fired! If I compromised national secrets and
security the way he did, I would expect to spend time in prison! I have no
respect for the known and convicted liar-Clinton.
If one seeks for politicians who have been unfaithful to their wives, one will
certainly find it.Sanford, Newt, the list goes on and on and on.But why is this person concentrating on the negatives of Clinton? Why
not the positives that he either accomplished (a good speech, exciting speaker,
good President) or influenced (was Pres during a good economic run, balanced the
budget, etc)?Why focus on the negatives? Awww is it because of the D
that is right next to his name?This is exactly why I'm sick of
the shenanigans that the GOP has pulled over the past few years. Focus on YOUR
plans, what YOU CAN DO, YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Why focus on blasting the
"other guy?" why focus on the negatives on the "other party?"
Why mudsling?Until the GOP tells me how I'm going to benefit
rather than why I shouldn't think well of the "other guy or party"
I'm not voting for the GOP. Time to change. Thought they had
learned their lesson after 08. The negativity, the goofiness, the pettiness, the
ridiculous accusations...Guess not...
Ah, here we go. Now we have to figure out the degrees of crime so
we know who we can be indignant with.Obviously we cant set the bar
at infidelity, because my side did it too.Maybe we can go by the
number of times. Nope, that wont work either.OK, how bout this? My
philanderer was only a congressman. Your guy was a president.Or even
better. A bunch of us wanted our philanderer to be our nominee, but since he
lost, we are morally superior.I know, that sounds lame too. OK, Got
it. Your philanderer had to use force.BINGO. All is well with the
world again.Cmon people. Why defend the indefensible? Just accept
that we have a bunch of people in congress, or wherever who have moral failings.
Why is it so tough to accept that your side is no better? Geez, politics. Gotta love the mental gymnastics required to play the
There are two standards of morality according to so-called "conventional
wisdom", aka left wing thought.. One for conservatives and one for liberals.
A liberal accused of wrong-doing is just a human who deserves a second chance,
and is being attacked by self-righteous hypocritical conservatives. A
conservatives in the same situation is a despicable lowlife who is typical of
all self-righteous hypocritical conservatives. No mercy deserved. Immediate
resignation required and if possible we should prosecute to the full extent of
Depends, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson? Or that serial liar Mitt Romney?
No way around it, clinton fooled around. Still, aside from enabling you to get
righteous about so called family values, he was good for the country. If
you're doing your job, you kids will grow up well adjusted and unaffected
by clintons' indiscretions. And, like him or not, bill is an engaging
speaker who can really put a speech together on the fly.
So Trump and Gingrich etc. never occupied the oval office. Shrug off immorality
and infidelity if you choose, but the occupant of the Oval Office must be an
exemplary person for our youth to look up to and emulate. It is inexcusable for
any president to be morally corrupt. I can forgive past dalliances but sleaze
in office I cannot accept. Remember the prodigal son from New Testament. He
was welcomed home with open arms and forgiven but was not given the farm. There
is a huge difference. Seems to me Clinton had little choice but to govern
responsibly as both houses were GOP.
David- Tell them what you want about Bill Clinton. Here's what you can tell
them about Clint Eastwood. From Wiki;Eastwood has fathered at least
seven children by five different women and been described as a "serial
womanizer". He has had affairs with actresses Catherine
Deneuve, Jill Banner, Jamie Rose, Inger Stevens, Jo Ann
Harris, Jean Seberg, script analyst Megan Rose, James
Brolin's former wife Jane, columnist Bridget Byrne,  and swimming
champion Anita Lhoest. One relationship that could not be classified as an
"affair" was with Barbra Streisand, whom he briefly dated