Ross says that Chelsea doesn't need to answer questions about Monica but that Hillary does. In fact he says that Bill's prior infidelities are "remarkably pertinent" to her campaign. My immediate reaction is to dismiss this concern: The President's peccadilloes never amounted to an illegal activity, endangered national security, or slowed the markets. Perhaps I lack imagination, but I can't think of one single question to ask about the Clintons' marital life that would inform my vote. Maybe Ross will offer three questions the answers to which ought to matter to Democratic voters in the primary or American voters in the general.
Posted by Kriston at April 14, 2008 3:47 PMLying about it under oath did constitute an illegal activity, didn't it?
Posted by: b at April 14, 2008 8:52 PMYes. But putting the cart after the horse, I don't think that's the part Ross is talking about.
Posted by: Kriston at April 15, 2008 10:13 AMPerhaps I lack imagination, but I can't think of one single question to ask about the Clintons' marital life that would inform my vote.
I can see an argument why Clinton's willingness to lie about his marital life would inform a decision whether to vote for *Bill* Clinton, but he isn't going to be on a ballot any time soon. How is this a legitimate issue
Posted by: Gabriel at April 15, 2008 11:02 AMThe issue of Bill's infidelity informs my vote, sure.
But there's no answer to the issue that would influence my vote either way.
That ship has sailed, as I think it has for most people.
Posted by: Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey at April 15, 2008 4:43 PM