So what if she was in the White house? It's not like its a one roomed tin hut or she has ESP that tells her to go see what her husband was up to.

No who cares. Why are we airing dirty laundry. Do you not think this may be hurtful to her. Sighs. Does this have any baring on how she will be president. No, move on.

Furthermore, what does this say about President Clinton doing this while his wife was at home and I hope not his daughter.

it says that he is and was a skeevy perv.

Yeah, I see why people wanted the records released to see what she did policy-wise during her time as first lady, but who cares about Lewinsky any more; it's old news.

Only if they're funny, like the really old SNL sketch where Pat Nixon was writing in her diary about Dick. "Dear Diary,..." I think it's on the Best of Dan Akroyd.

I think it was far more telling that the documents show that she actively promoted NAFTA.

Ugh, gross. She was on the premises during the whole cigar thingie? Gross. And she knew she was there too, and she's still with that creep. Ok, I still have no sympathy for her. Chelsea yeah, Hillary no. You're right, syako, "skeevy perv" hits it exactly.

Oh for the love of....Who cares!

So what? The White House is probably 50,000 square feet.

Their marriage is none of my business. Jillness made a good point. These documents may reveal things far more important than her personal life. Hillary isn't my favorite person, but spare me the heartbreaking details. I have my own personal life to worry about, much less speculate over her problems, why she stayed with him, blah blah. There are more important issues at hand.

Jillness, How can you be worried about something as trivial as Hillary being involved in a Trade Agreement that helped to send jobs out of the US when there is evidence that Hillary, Bill and Monica were all around at the same time?!

I think you might need to re-evaluate your priorities.

jillness I agree with as usual. After reading about on abcnews.com, I wondered why this isn't all over the news. Clinton stated that she was always against NAFTA but she told a room full of women how great it would be for the economy. It seems that Hillary Clinton believes whatever benifits her politically at the time.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html

I think it's really big news because you know Bill Clinton was the first president to ever cheat on his wife so we really need to scrounge up every single detail. The Starr Report was a good start, but now we're really getting to the juicy stuff.

That was said sarcastically, btw...just want to make sure no one takes that seriously!

2m, you can try and cover up your comment by labeling it as "sarcasm," but I know the truth.......

please hillary paid monica to distract Bill while she shopped online for eyebrow tweezers.

The Time article is great. No talk of Monica. Just a look whether her claims can be backed up. It seems obvious to me that she exaggerated her role in Northern Ireland, Macedonia, and with getting the children's health care bill passed. If the media is so hard on Hillary, why is she not being questioned on these issues? These issues are supposed to be part of her "35 years of experience".

Yes, the media sure is selective about what they are hard on her for. Lying? No. Pantsuits? Yes.

I really didn't need the detail about the Monica story, but Senator Clinton has taken a lot of praise for various achievements during the Clinton Presidency, as well as distanced herself from some, so this will clarify things.

"The documents also fail to shed light on the most controversial of the eight years the Clintons were in the White House.

On Dec. 7, 2000, the former first lady's schedule lists all private White House meetings with no names attached.

It was the very time her two brothers and others were trying to broker pardons for convicted drug dealers and billionaire fugitive Marc Rich."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4484076&page=1

Lil: I know! And it would be the most important part of the puzzle! Why are no one talking about this!?

I didn't even think about the Monica connection until I saw this article... I was fascinated by the Time piece though. Finally, her "experience" can be shot down as next to useless.

"It seems obvious to me that she exaggerated her role in Northern Ireland, Macedonia, and with getting the children's health care bill passed. If the media is so hard on Hillary, why is she not being questioned on these issues?"

Good question!

3M, I know, my priorities are like, so lame!

Has anyone ever, for five minutes, thought that Hillary was aware the whole time and perhaps she just didn't care?

There are thousands of couples all over America who have open relationships. WHY would it be so surprising if Hillary & Bill had one?

To be honest, they've never seemed like your typical "We married because were passionately in love" couple. They have always seemed to be a couple that married eachother because of what they could attain politically together.

Seriously. I don't think Hillary cared he did it, I think she was mad he got caught.

But seriously, I honestly don't care if Hillary was in the White House while Bill went at Monica. Seriously, why does it matter? It's almost ten years ago.

Oh well, the President got some nookie. So has pretty much every other President from the dawn of time. And one of our most revered, most cherished, most lamented Presidents of all time, JFK, had the most well known Mistress of any President, ever. The world knew he was shagging Marilyn and nobody cared!

Cripes. Get over it.

It's what I expected. So far, the records aren't really backing up her claims much, are they?

Her lies about NAFTA really need to be made an issue here, and I look forward to that happening. These much-touted 35 years of experience are much less substantial than she would have us believe.

I don't care about her marriage. I never did. I'm over it.

But I am so glad now that it's obvious how she exaggerated her experience.

I always thought it was proposterous that people could be believe she didn't support NAFTA. She was married to the man who got it passed into law, and I never rememebered her at all being outspoken about NAFTA. Ironically I remember hearing at times Laura Bush doesn't agree with some of Bush's social policies, but never once have I heard that about Hillary. Her and Bill are very much on the same page.

I simple believe Hillary has no integrity and her releasing these papers just prove.

lula29 - Your comment about Hillary having no integrity got me to thinking, and it makes you wonder:

Do all politicians who have en masse experience and have been around the block in Washington lose their integrity after so long?

I'll be honest, it seems to me that in many cases, Hillary hasn't had much of a choice on her integrity. The difficulty in climbing to where she has as a woman has made it nigh impossible for her to EVER do the right thing by everyone's standards.

I'm not saying she did what was right (just so everyone knows), simply musing over whether or not it was essential for her to do so to ascend to where she is now.

Anyone have any thoughts to throw into that pot?

I actually kind of disappointed in the Time article. They don't mention NAFTA, and when discussing Ireland they don't mention that Lord Trimble said, "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around."

Also, the meeting she took with women in the area only had around 7 people! Another witness said, "So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active...She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols1...

I don't think you can or should try to do the right thing in EVERYONE'S standards. It's impossible. Vote the way your think/feel and let the people decide whether that's the person they want in office. Simple enough to me, and the way our system is SUPPOSED to work. Damn interest groups.

Matredalia--

You raise some interesting points.

I definitely agree that it does seem that corruption is a constant in politics, but I don't think that Hillary's particular ethics issues stem from her being a woman. It's not her gender that's decided her choices, such as the blatant lies she's told or the exaggerations and not-quite-truths she perpetuates: almost all politicians, as you mentioned, have a few of those sorts of slips to their name. It's her ambition. She has made it her mission to become President, by whatever means necessary and at whatever cost necessary. That's what has led her to do the things she's done.

Her dishonesty is nothing new, however, and there were questions about her dealings in Clinton White House and pre-White House financial affairs and other issues that have not been satisfactorily answered even now.

I don't think a lack of integrity is at all necessary to ascend to her position, but it certainly is the easier way. It gets you money, it gets you influence, and it gets you the votes of people who might see you as a far shinier and cleaner icon than you really are, because they haven't heard the questions or debate surrounding your assertions.

Now, what it says about her that she has, to my eyes, climbed as high as she is now primarily by riding on the back of her husband, that's another question.

"one of our most revered, most cherished, most lamented Presidents of all time, JFK"

eeeeeeeeeeeek. overstatement much.

Jude C - Oh, I'm in absolute agreement that it was not her being a woman that made her choices. What I meant was that climbing the political ladder (which is already a challenge and generally seems to require a lot of BSing) as a woman is an extremely difficult challenge and she's had to get her hands dirty along with the rest of them, maybe even MORESO because she's a woman. Does that make sense?

And I agree that she wouldn't have made it this far in our society without Bill (sadly). HOWEVER, I honestly think that it was Hillary who wanted the White House, not Bill. While he is an intelligent man, despite what people think, the Bill Clinton I've seen over the past 18 years or so (I live in Arkansas) is not the type of man to want the White House. I truly believe Hillary pulled many of the strings and orchestrated a lot of what happened because of HER political aspirations.

syako - I could be wrong, but I have rarely, if ever, heard anyone bash JFK. Honestly, I can not recollect a single time in all my years that I've heard someone talk badly about him. I have constantly heard people mourn his passing, talk about all the wonderful things he was trying to do for our country, etc. I have heard so many people refer to JFK as "the greatest President ever", it's not even funny. I was not trying to be sarcastic or make an overstatement, just be honest as to what I've seen over the course of my life in the media and on a case by case basis.

And for the record, while I think JFK was pretty amazing, I don't think he was the best President or even perfect President. I honestly hold him high esteem, but not nearly to the degree that others do.

Matdredalia,

You know what I don't like, is that at some point in this game Hillary Clinton has become the only woman to ever ascend to great heights. I get that she's the only woman with a viable chance at the White House, but she's not the only woman ever to have such a role of power ever. There are other examples and those women did it with integrity. So to say that she has to play the game this way is false to me.

She's playing the game this way because this is the type of woman she is. Not all women play this game and I don't feel her behavior should be extrapolated to all of womanity in order to redeem Hillary.

syako, you better run for cover

well perhaps the circles you are in are a lot different than mine. I was fed that b.s. in high school by a crazy history teach/coach that JFK was the best thing ever, I did my own research and study and came to a completely different conclusion and I think many others have too.

no covering for me, that's just b.s.

lula29 - Oh, I don't think she has had to, per se. I don't think by any means that she has any excuse for throwing her integrity out the window. As a matter of fact, Hillary's hypocrisy is one of the biggest reasons that I am not supporting her right now. I completely agree that there are other examples of women who have ascended to great hieghts, around the world as a matter of fact. I was simply pointing out that the political field we live in is a mishmash of lies, deceit, and hypocrisy, and being a woman playing in that field adds a new twist to the old games.

I am *NOT* attributing this to all women or even saying Hillary HAD to choose this path. I am simply wondering if ANY of our politicians keep their integrity after so long, and seeing as she is one of the foremost women in politics at the moment, wondering if perhaps her high aspirations and the challenges she has had to face to get where she is have affected her judgement.

I'm not condoning it, saying it's right, or making her excuses. I think what she has done is EXTREMELY wrong and I detest her hypocrisy and her lies. I am simply raising a discussion to get other opinions. Does that make ANY sense?

And just so it doesn't seem like I'm a hypocrite later on, I'll say it now: While I do dislike Hillary's tactics, there are things she has done that I admire and respect. If she is the Democratic nominee, I will be championing for her in the 2008 election. However, right now, I'm praying we get Obama.

cine_lover - why should she run for cover? She has a very valid point.

syako - As I said, I admire JFK, but I don't think he was the greatest President ever, not even close. I, like her, have done my own research, but I have to disagree that most people in our country have as well. I'm going to be very rude here, so please, don't take this as being in any way aimed at you or anyone else here, but most Americans choose to remain ignorant. Much of our country chooses to ignore the past, hell, even ignore our present, and focus on their own little world. Once many of them get out of high school, or even college, they don't really care about learning or studying or finding out more about the world around them. They want to live their day to day lives and that is that. I honestly believe that there are very few people who take the time and effort to actually learn the facts and base their views and ideals around them.

Honestly, I think America has a lot of the mob mentality and goes along believing a lot of what they hear and see, without thinking for themselves. Thus why I was referring to JFK as one of our most revered. I honestly believe that many people hear what they want to about him and don't take the time to dig deeper. Does that make sense?

Oh, I understand you better now, Matredalia

"I truly believe Hillary pulled many of the strings and orchestrated a lot of what happened because of HER political aspirations."

That, to my mind, is more disturbing than many other things I also think about her. I know that it seemed much more impossible to women of her generation than mine that a woman could become President on her own steam, but there were women Senators, and she could have chosen that route to power, however slower and less covered in immediate glory it might be than getting her husband elected President. But I guess that's just speculation, and I'm trying not to judge her poorly on that (there are plenty of non-speculative things for me to judge her poorly on anyway).

I think your question is a difficult one precisely because it's Hillary Clinton, whose political background and career are rather different than other female politicians who may have the same aspirations. I don't think that any of the ethically questionable things she's done were done in any effort to break through some horrendous glass ceiling that was preventing her from advancing. That might have been the case for a different person, but at this stage in the game, not for her.

Oh, and as for the "integrity" question--I think there's a difference between the compromises one has to make to ascend politically, and repeatedly telling bald-faced lies outright to deceive the general voting public. Just my opinion.