Evan should study medicine so that he can one day be Dr. Strange. Maybe the Clintons will feel bad about backhanding him and let him come visit Chels and Hill on the bus.

Well, you heard it here first, Chelsea is a chip off the old block, or in this case a thread off the old brassiere. Too bad that thinking on your feet is reserved for con women and shysters.

Must we all live in reality ? YES

Should it matter who someone in power sleeps with (most of the time) ? NO

Does it matter in the world we now live in ? YES

Didn't Bill know that when he was with Monica ? YES

In the real world, would another Bill Clinton affair be a distraction to a theoretical Hillary presidency ? YES

If Chelsea fell in love with her boss at her current job, would it be perfectly OK for him to go ahead and use her intimately anyway ? NO

Is Hillary running for president in '08 ? YES

Is Hillary claiming the previous Clinton record is relevant in this election ? YES

Has Hillary ruled out the possibility of appointing Bill to a major government position in her theoretical administration ? NO

Is Lewinsky relevant to '08 election ? NO

But IS CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY RELEVANT TO THE '08 ELECTION ?

YES

Can any Hillary supporter answer the NEXT TEN questions in any honest way other than the answers below which were also given earlier today ? NO

Does Hillary's failure to produce the tax forms mean she is hiding something ? YES

Did Bill undermine our country's legal system when he argued that lying under oath is not a serious offense ? YES

Have the Clintons been caught planting questions in an audience before ? YES

Is that relevant to credibility ? YES

Do Hillary's "I mis-spoke because I am human" excuses adequately explain the gross exaggerations she made about sniper-fire in Bosnia ? NO

Are these exaggerations about Hillary's "warfare" experience relevant ? YES

Are these isolated examples ? NO

Is Hillary's credibility relevant to the '08 election ? YES

If there was no video to prove Hillary was lying about Bosnia, would Hillary still be making those claims ? YES

If there were no DNA evidence linking Bill to Monica would Bill still be denying that affair ? YES

*************************

Assuming Obama does not quit the race for some unforeseeable reason, is their ANY realistic way for Hillary to take nomination without overruling the will of those who have voted in DEMOCRATIC primaries ?

NO NO NO

take care - yall have a great week

Expect him to get job offers not for his thick skin but his political bias. The questions alone show a manipulation of the news.

The Monica incident doesn't matter because Hillary has already destroyed any integrity she might have had by lying so much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLfZtwoVyj8

"Unfortunately, Clinton’s fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy".

"Clinton has credited herself with “creating” the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and “helping to pass” the Family and Medical Leave Act".

"Like the Tuzla story, both of these claims turn out to false—raising serious questions not just about the rationale for Senator Clinton’s campaign, but about her willingness to adhere to the truth".

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-exaggerations-in-her-domestic-record/

"VOTER SPEAKS"

WHAT WAS PRIVATE ISN'T ANYMORE. MY QUESTION WAS PRIVATE, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN A PRIVATE, PROFESSIONAL MANNER.

SENATOR CLINTON'S PRIVACY ISN'T ANYMORE, SO MY QUESTION THAT WAS PRIVATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN A PRIVATE, PROFESSIONAL MANNER.

SIMPLY SAYING IT WAS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. KEPT MY PRIVATE QUESTION PRIVATE, AND SHOULD NOT OF BEEN ANSWERED PRIVATELY OR IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER.

SO PRIVATE QUESTIONS NOT ANWERED ARE NOT PRIVATE ANYMORE AND SHOULD BE ANSWERED PRIVATELY, AND PROFESSIONALLY.

HECK I'M JUST A VOTER, I REALLY DIDN'T MEAN TO ASK, IT WAS JUST A QUESTION. I GOT AN ANSWER. SO I GUESS I'M STILL JUST A VOTER, WHO HAS QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED, BOTH PRIVATELY, AND PROFESSIONALLY.

I KNOW I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU, I'M VOTING FOR YOUR MOM, BUT CAN YOU GIVE UP THE DIRT. SO WHAT IF IT IS PRIVATE TO YOU. YOU ARE NOT RUNNING, YOUR FATHER ISN'T RUNNING. YOUR MOTHER IS. NOW SHOOT STRAIGHT AND LET AMERICA KNOW HOW YOU FELT ABOUT IT!

BECAUSE WHAT IS PRIVATE ISN'T PRIVATE, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING AND JUST SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF! PLEASE

What a gutless wonder the guy who asked Chelsea the question about her mother. If I were a fellow student I'd have kicked his butt. But I came from an era where men didn't take cheap shots a girls.

Should it matter who someone in power sleeps with (most of the time)?NO Does it matter in the world we now live in? YES Didn't Bill know that when he was with Monica ? YES In the real world, would another Bill Clinton affair be a distraction to a theoretical Hillary presidency ? YES

Paterson seems to be just fine. You are insinuating he'd do it again. Thinking the worst of people. It would ony be a distration to Clinton OCD people like you.

If Chelsea fell in love with her boss at her current job, would it be perfectly OK for him to go ahead and use her intimately anyway ? NO

If she fell in love I'm guessing it was consensual.

Is Hillary running for president in '08 ? YES Is Hillary claiming the previous Clinton record is relevant in this election ? YES

Hillary is not and can not claim Bill's Indiscractions.

Has Hillary ruled out the possibility of appointing Bill to a major government position in her theoretical administration ? NO

Prove it. I'm looking for "I will not rule out him in a gov position." VS. some of your detective work.

Is Lewinsky relevant to '08 election ? NO But IS CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY RELEVANT TO THE '08 ELECTION ?YES.

Monica is not relevant to Hillary's Character in 08.

Can any Hillary supporter answer the NEXT TEN questions in any honest way other than the answers below which were also given earlier today? YES

Does Hillary's failure to produce the tax forms mean she is hiding something ? Maybe, maybe not. You could only answer that question definitively if you have a bias towards someone. Would I like them released? I would.

Did Bill undermine our country's legal system when he argued that lying under oath is not a serious offense ? YES And the criminal code does not criminalize a spouse solely based on association without evidence.

Have the Clintons been caught planting questions in an audience before ? YES Is that relevant to credibility ? NOT ALWAYS.. I've seen people plant questions so the person has a chance to get out what they want to get across, and inspire other questions. What is said in the prepared question and answer goes to credibility and knowledge.

Do Hillary's "I mis-spoke because I am human" excuses adequately explain the gross exaggerations she made about sniper-fire in Bosnia ? NO. But she is right, she has given a correct account of the trip before. She does make a lot of speeches. I've seen her throat dry out a lot.

Are these exaggerations about Hillary's "warfare" experience relevant ? YES.

Are these isolated examples ? YES.

Is Hillary's credibility relevant to the '08 election ? YES

If there was no video to prove Hillary was lying about Bosnia, would Hillary still be making those claims ? NO. Eventually she'd have to face them before a Republican. Republican Walk in the Baghdad Park McCain.

If there were no DNA evidence linking Bill to Monica would Bill still be denying that affair ? YES, what sane individual would incriminate themselves?

So, Lou Fogle, are you indicating that Sen. Clinton's supporters are gutless wonders? Re-read the second-to-last graf.

Congratulations to the questioner. This was a real event in the Oval Office. Your tax dollars help keep that place running. This was not a private tryst in a personal home. Only a fool would think there was no preparation on how to handle such embarrassing questions.

Remember, Chelsea was also asked at several colleges about her mother's version of sniper fire in Bosnia. "I was with her" Chelsea originally responded, and said she agreed with her mother as to what happened....(It has only been the last two days that Chelsea is no longer saying that....)

Obama's pastor problem AGAIN.
He needs to stop defending this moron.
Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 26, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

"He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others. The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

Every issue of the magazine published last year included Wright's column, "The Message," in which he covered a range of subjects, including his views on other African-American churches as expressed in his April 2007 commentary "Facing the Rising Sun."

"In a world that is controlled by white supremacy, in a country that is on its way to hell in a hand basket because of lying politicians, in a culture that still thinks 'white is right' and with young people who do not have a clue as to our story, our history, our legacy or our destiny, we still have African-American Christians who are more concerned about 'bling bling' than about freeing our minds," Wright wrote.

In a nationally broadcast speech on March 18, Obama distanced himself from Wright by saying he "condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." But Obama also said, "I could no more disown him than I could disown the black community."

According to his federal income tax return for 2006, Obama gave the Trinity United church that year $22,500 in contributions.

The Clinton campaign has not commented on the controversy, but in an interview Tuesday with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said actions speak louder than words.

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.

"You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (a radio talk show host who was fired for making racially insensitive remarks about black female basketball players at Rutgers University), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said.

"I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving," she added.

Trumpet Newsmagazine started publication in the 1980s in Chicago and distribution expanded in March 2006 to several other cities, with broader circulation through subscriptions. On the magazine's masthead, Wright is named as the magazine's CEO and Wright's daughter, Jeri Wright, is the publisher.

Requests for comments from Jeri Wright, the magazine's marketing staff, and the Obama campaign were not answered by press time.

The last Trumpet to be published was the November/December edition, a double issue that featured a remembrance of "Pan-Africanist" Hilliard and a profile of Louis Farrakhan, who was the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter" award at the magazine's 25th anniversary gala late last year.

Farrakhan has called Judaism a "gutter religion" and said Jews are "bloodsuckers," as reported in The New York Times.

Trumpet Newsmagazine also included myriad articles and regular features geared toward the black community, ranging from health, parenting, music and the arts, to profiles of successful members of the community and tips on everything from dating to spiritual well-being.

Many political observers have said that Obama's speech last week limited the damage of the ongoing Wright controversy, but others say the issue is continuing to hamper his campaign.

"I don't think it's going to go away," Ralph Reed, a long-time conservative activist and political strategist who now runs Century Strategies based in Duluth, Ga., told Cybercast News Service.

"Because while Obama's speech was thoughtful and eloquent, it didn't address the central issue, and that's why he would have someone as such a close spiritual advisor with such extreme views," Reed added.

"Let me be clear," Reed added. "I don't think any candidate should have to answer for the theological views of their pastor, church or denomination. But (Wright's) were not theological views, but political statements."

"I think it's more likely to be a serious issue in the general election, more than in the primaries," Reed said.

FAIR ENOUGH BIG - G

have we both made our points ? YES

but please let me rephrase a few of those questions in light of your comments

you wrote

"If Chelsea fell in love with her boss at her current job, would it be perfectly OK for him to go ahead and use her intimately anyway ? NO

If she fell in love I'm guessing it was consensual."

*Does this indicate that you (like many clinton supporters) totally ignore the standard definitions of sexual harrassment in the workplace ? YES

you wrote

"Monica is not relevant to Hillary's Character in 08"

*Isn't that basically what I said ? YES

*Did I not differentiate that the behavior with monica applied to bill and the recent lies by hillary apply directly to hillary's credibility ?? YES

*Is credibility related to integrity and character ? YES

you wrote

"Has Hillary ruled out the possibility of appointing Bill to a major government position in her theoretical administration ? NO

Prove it. I'm looking for "I will not rule out him in a gov position." VS. some of your detective work."

*Do I understand what the heck you are talking about ? NO

you also wrote

"Did Bill undermine our country's legal system when he argued that lying under oath is not a serious offense ? YES And the criminal code does not criminalize a spouse solely based on association without evidence."

*Is the issue of bill's integrity and behavior entirely relevant so long as Hillary does not rule out her placing him in a high government position ? YES

you wrote

"If there was no video to prove Hillary was lying about Bosnia, would Hillary still be making those claims ? NO. Eventually she'd have to face them before a Republican."

*Would she not STILL be making those same FALSE claims RIGHT NOW as she runs against Obama if there were no video ? YES

you wrote

"If there were no DNA evidence linking Bill to Monica would Bill still be denying that affair ? YES, what sane individual would incriminate themselves?"

Isn't the answer to that part about "what sane individual would incriminate themselves?" an "honest one" ? YES

*If there were no DNA evidence linking Bill to Monica would Bill not STILL be denying the truth even if he were under oath when he denied it (oh yes, he was) and even if he had to harm Monica to maintain that deception ? YES

you wrote

"Does Hillary's failure to produce the tax forms mean she is hiding something ? Maybe, maybe not. You could only answer that question definitively if you have a bias towards someone. Would I like them released? I would."

*Wouldn't hillary have already released those documents like the other candidates if there was nothing to hide from the voters of Pennsylvania ? YES

PREGUNTA ULTIMA

Isn't it very likely Hillary will contest this race against Obama as long as possible even if Obama still leads in pledged delegates and number of states won and in the popular vote after the primaries are finished ? YES

God bless you

happy hump day

Obama's pastor problem AGAIN.
He needs to stop defending this moron.
Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr
"I think it's more likely to be a serious issue in the general election, more than in the primaries," Reed said.

Posted by: Sd | March 26, 2008 9:02 PM

Just like Hillary, her cheerleaders like "Sd" are desperately trying to change the subject back to Obama.

Hillary is all out of Ammo and now it's her turn to start answering some questions.

Wanted From Hillary:

~Papers showing ALL of her past dealings with jailed fundraising felon, Normon Hsu

~Papers showing what involvement she had in the Marc Rich pardon

~Tax returns from more than just last year

~Papers from Whitewater

~Papers about her involvement in getting NAFTA passed

~ The $$$ donor list to the Clinton Library and the Bill Clinton foundation.

Hillary and her cheerleaders have brought this all on themselves and they have no one else to blame but themselves because the kitchen sink goes both way and unlike her claim, Hillary is Far from being "vetted"....

BIG - T - TOM-----
Is it Hillary's fault for being in love and marrying a man who cheated? NO
Is that relevant to HER credibility ? NO
Is it anyones business to ask Chelsea about it? NO
Does it relevant to Hillary's campaign? NO
The thing is that...if you ever took the time or interest to read Hillary's book, you would know that she didn't know the truth until right before he admitted it to the whole country. Is it normal for a man who is cheating to lie about it? YES.
Is it right? NO
But the whole problem is that men..and some women..do it...more often men. No one can say that they would leave that person if they found out that they had cheated. I know people can say that they would leave, but in reality, most do not when it actually happens to them. It's easy to joke about it happening to other people, but it's not really funny...at all. I think it does show a great strength in her to stay married to him. You can tell, in her book, that it really broke her heart...but maybe it's true that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I think it was very disrepectful for the student to ask Chelsea about it...even if he meant to help. You could tell by the look on Chelsea's face that it totally caught her off guard and for a second, I don't think she knew what she was going to say. She reads all the crap that people spew endlessly about the affair and she has grown up living in a family torn from it. I wish people would just leave it alone...it serves no purpose but to make the person bringing it up look really immature and hateful. Just like people saying crap about her looks when she was a kid...because she had braces and was at an ackward stage in life for a girl. She is a beautiful young adult now with a heart, mind and soul that is not only human, but very real, which is something I think people miss in all these discussions over the years. I only hope the same happens in your family, with your parents and your kids...if you believe "what goes around, comes around"...then here's to your cruelty in the future and hoping you the worst.

BREAKING NEWS!!

THIS JUST IN!!!

Hillary's campaign has just provided proof that shows she really was dodging sniper fire during her trip to Bosnia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

The Clinton campaign has a total hands-off policy regarding Chelsea-- no interviews, no questions from the press.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If she is out campaigning for her mother, she is subject to the same rules that apply to any surrogate of the candidate.

Still, it's nice to see the Clintons so protective of their 28 year old daughter.

If you can't ask Chelsea a question without the Clintons going ballistic, just think what they would have done if, when she was say a 22 year old intern, the 49 year old CEO of the company used her as a sexual toy?

Too bad they forgot that Monica was somebody else's 22 year old daughter when Bill took advantage and the whole Clinton team geared up to destroy her--until the blue dress evidence made that smear campaign pointless.

Well of course the little weasel is going to vote for HRC, he was probably paid by her for asking the staged question!!! It was an opertune time to put the heat back on camp Obama. The Clintons are so sick to watch.

First Q-No, I am not dismissing the definition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct on the basis of gender. If she fell in love then I'm guessing it was consensual. Nothing in your question leads me to believe that "the use" was unwelcome by her on her part. Nothing in your question leads to believe that "the use" was tied to things concerning her employment. Nothing in your question would lead me to believe that "the use" resulted in a hostile environment intimidation or poor performance. She could have fallen in love and he took advantage of it, "used her," for sexual gratification. It didn't have to be unwelcome, tied to anything, affect her performance, alter her work environment, her work performance, or intimidate her. She could have welcomed it (love), and ,aside from bruised feelings, both able to continue work as usual. Or she was in love and didn't mind being used for sexual gratification. That's because it was a sexual based love: where both were in it to "use each other." Booty call and business as usual.

Second Q- Maybe, it's hard to tell when you asked one question concerning Monica's relevance in 08, and then FOLLOWED it up with, "BUT is character and integrity important," which would lead one to believe that you are overriding the answer to the former question

Third Q- Prove it. Show me where Hillary Clinton has explicit said, "I will not rule Bill out for an official gov position in my administration," or "I will rule Bill out for an official gov position in my administration." Anything, less will be speculative.

Fourth Q- His views on the law are only relevant IF he were to hold a position. So I'll give you that. Most people think he should not be in the role of an official position or official adviser. I tend to think that he won't be.

Fifth Q-No, she would not "still continue making these claims" once the public got a hold of the news about them. She wouldn't address them without a video. That is until McCain Walk in the Baghdad Park would make an issue out of it. He wouldn't need a video to have to get her to address it. It would be enough that there were conflicting reports of that day.

Sixth? No, a sane individual would not incriminate themselves without evidence. You are innocent until proven guilty under the law. Earth to Martian, in practice, crime has little to do with honesty. In practice, it usually comes down to evidence. A sane individual would get a good lawyer because the system isn't set up to reward honesty. The system is set up to punish crime. If you aren't careful your honesty will cost you more than someone who lied and got away with it.

Last rebuttal (hallelujah)-Not really. Sometimes it has less to do with "something to hide" and more to do with, for good or bad, strategic disclosure. I'm not saying, just saying.

Isn't it very likely Hillary will contest this race against Obama even if Obama still leads in pledged delegates and number of states won and in the popular vote as long as possible after the primaries are finished ? YES

Might or might not. I'm sure she might bring up the media and the atmosphere, which Obama and his supporters, contribute too. She will most certainly bring up Michigan and Florida. She will bring up her view point on the decision to nominate. Contrary to popular belief, this is a race where each side has what the other wants. Therefore, there is some legitimacy to argue on some basis--look I'm a better choice based on this criteria. Obama leads overall. Since it is close, there is room to contest on other factors. I think even if she voiced her concerns, they would not be for as long as possible after the primaries. I honestly think she'd welcome the nomination--support it. And welcoming it and supporting it doesn't mean she can't share her views on the race to it.

I'm not looking for you to agree with me on this one. I'm just sharing my opinion.

Hillary has entered into an alliance with the REPUBLICAN party/media to focus their full attack on Barack. Look at Fox news or any other conservative show and they will not say negative things about Hillary and they are urging her to continue in hopes that their media machine and her acidic attacks will find a way to get to and break Barack.

The Clintons arrogance is so bad that they just decided to flat out LIE so that they would have - the foreign experience to counter McSame with in the fall. And now that her campaign damaged beyond repair - she is on a kamakazi mission to bring down Barak with her.

And the Republicans are hoping and praying that they get the over-aggressive, sleazy Clintons instead of the near ideal Obama and his masses of NEW voters. They are cheering Hillary on while they are in the garbage cans and back alleys searching for something to help them with Obama. Because they know that after that speech, that Jeremy Wright controversy is all but dead. They need the Clinton to keep FRESH attacks on Barack until the fall, and they have promised to help her in the media.

If the questioner really meant to show his support for Hillary he should have phrased the question differently. I think he is back peddling now. How insensitive of him to ask this question about her parents- this is clearly an emotional topic fo her. Ask Senator Clinton but not her daughter. Hillary's relationship with her husband and her decisions regarding her marriage our none of anyone's business- even if she is running for president. Hasn't John McCain admitted to extra- marital affairs in his first marriage (again, none of our business). Why is this only an issue for Hillary, especially when she was not involved in the affair, only the person hurt from it.

Bummer- the follow up question after Chelsea's simple-yet-stupid response: "Do you think it's important we know how a presidential candidate responds to difficult personal and political situations before we ever consider them for the presidency, or is that none of our business as well, you idiot?"

BIG G - nice discourse

you've taught me that there are still some Hillary supporters who try to be logical and objective (though they are increasingly hard to find).

just FYI - most definitions going back to the late 80's (not of my own making by any stretch of the imagination) contend that sexual harrassment in the workplace also occurs whenever the activities (no matter how consensual) might risk creating a "hostile working environment" (so - even if the affair were truly consensual - unless no one else in the workplace that might be uncomfortable about an affair or pattern of "consensual" affairs could have suspected the affair(s), then you would still be at great risk of meeting common definitions of harrassment - to include federal definitons that were law in 1992 (and still currently in place) - it may seem a little prudish, but think about how would it be viewed if the subordinate who was involved in the affair were promoted for any reason - earned or otherwise - or was not promoted for any reason - fair or unfairly) - also it is usually considered to be out of line for a person who is essentially the boss to take advantage of the superior situation due to psychological reasons (some would even argue that under these circumstances there are so many subconsious issues at play that the subordinate is not even capable of giving what would normally constitute valid "consent") - both of these arguments are frequently made by feminists (I.E. NONE OF THIS WAS UNKNOWN IN 1997-8) - you seem to know a lot about law - ask any defense attorney if he would be eager to handle a case of a harrassment lawsuit in which the sex was easy to prove but the only defense for the boss was "consensuality" - I am not sure why feminists suddenly failed to take up this argument as they usually do whenever other politicians do what Bill did (or even much, much less) - case in point, Clarence Thomas never even asked Anita Hill for sex by Anita's story NOR did she ever even tell him that his "flirting" made her uncomfortable - by her story he asked her out and he readily took "no thanks" for an answer and never, ever used her "no thanks" against her in ANY way - and this was years before harrassment laws were passed - look how the feminists treated Judge Thomas - it's even a joke in "Jerry McGuire" (but I have some suspicions as to why feminists supported Bill anyway).

Bottom line - a U.S. military officer or CIA/FBI/ATF/NSA supervisor would NOT be allowed to hide behind consensuality in any military/federal workplace definition of harrassment in the 90's (at a minimum he would have been fined and lost or delayed promotions for doing so - most likely worse) which also brings up the question of why was the commander in chief not held to that standard.

All of this is not to mention the fact that Bill knew Monica was in love with him but allowed her to perform the sex acts anyway knowing full well he would never be in love with her - there are old fashioned definitions which underscore why this is just plain "wrong" and no one would want that to happen to Chelsea.

This even begs a review of the golden rule.

I'm curious if Monica ever got an apology from Bill. Do you know ? My guess is he has never spoken to her at all since the Paula Jones case deposition under oath.

Last issue (hallieberry - looooya) is one we seem to agree upon - Hillary should make a statement that she will not use Bill in any official capacity - that would end a lot of this 90's crap (but she won't spare us all of this because when all is said and done too many people like Bill more than her and heck, she seems to like it when all of this stuff comes up because they get to play the role of victim - a role the Clintons are very, very comfortable with).

hope you get this BIG G

take care