I think we were better off when reporters didn’t focus on the private lives of our leaders–now there seems to be an obsession with number of wives, affairs, messiness of divorces, etc. If the nominees end up being Hillary and Rudy, maybe the dirt in their respective private lives will cancel out, and we can actually hear about issues. More likely, judging from the interest in 400$ haircuts, it is all we will hear about.

Since most candidates try to cover up the flaws in their background, I’m hoping that all of the dirt on these two has already been exposed ad nauseum.

Technically it wasn’t in the OO, it was in a side room, but that’s nit-picking

Hillary had an excellent opportunity to respond in the same way, but chose to give no comment, a plus in my book.

The issue to me is never whether both sides do it. The issue is that any side that does it should be ashamed of themselves.

This reminds me of a saying, “the first person to get angry in a negotiation loses”. The personal attack is akin to anger for me. Whichever camp has to resort to the personal attack has lost the debate, in this case, the, it would be the Clinton camp.

However, it was not said by Mrs. Clinton nor one of her close advisors, so it is really rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Those who co-opt self congratultory slogans lay themselve open to extra criticism when there is a failure. So does Giuliani when he asks for endorsement from the ‘values’ voters.

It’s not fair, because killing the messenger is not a valid way to debate an issue. Human nature will out, however, The impkied slur in the ‘values’ title HURTS, and the reaction is inevitable, as invevitable as Monica’s name being ressurected regularly for the foreseeable future.

I think it would be best if we kept morals and religion out of political platforms altogether.
The next best thing to do, IMO, is to move on to other topcis as quickly as possible.

But I still don’t like Giuliani, for many other reasons.

The issue to me is never whether both sides do it. The issue is that any side that does it should be ashamed of themselves.

Joe,
I still maintain that’s it’s justified when a politician is looking to legislate their version of morality. And only if their personal actions are relevant to that morality.

For example. It says this on Rudy’s website:

Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not—and has never—supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That’s why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Rudy’s personal history shows that he has never shown any particular deference for the “sanctity” of marriage. That’s why he shouldn’t be lecturing anyone, straight or gay, on the subject.

I’m on the road now…driving TOWARDS LA and the fires…the skies are dusty.

Uh, maybe you should quit typing and keep your eyes on the road! Jeez, California drivers

Seriously though, great comment. The attempt by some to justify the attack because the differences in circumstance are telling.

People attacking RG over a divorce should be cognizant of the number of people who actually do get divorced. ISTM that alienating such people by moralizing about RG is not a particularly bright thing to do.

The issue to me is never whether both sides do it. The issue is that any side that does it should be ashamed of themselves. And if people mention swiftboating, I ran into a LOT OF anger when that issue came up because both on my blog and when I was the weekend blogger on Dean’s world I made it clear that I felt it was an “issue” not worthy of coming up in the campaign, of being discussed or blogged. I did few posts on tmv on it except to say I felt it was political discredit garbage that did not belong in our national debate. So whether Democrats or Republicas veer into this area, they are cheapening the quality and substance of our national debate and making some independent voters more and more skeptical when they use double standards of outrage on issues like this being raised — that outrage is something that is selective. We have zillions of important issues in this country and we need to focus on THOSE. There was nothing wrong with many of the GOP zingers at last night’s debate, just as there is nothing wrong with the zingers Democrats hurl at Republicans. But Rangel’s comments are as repugnant as some of the comments Republicans (particularly on talk radio) made about Clinton. Satirists can do the same thing particularly if they use song parodies but that adds the dimension of cleverness and comedy. Rangel’s comments are as much political bilge as some of the stuff Republicans say about the Clintons. So to clarifiy: no side is “less worse” by indulging in this and this site did not feel the Swiftboats saga was more than a massive effort to discredit a candidate (a candidate that yours truly felt was as wooden as the dummies in my show).

Clinton was trying to hide his “affair” with Lewinsky..to the point of perjury.

Giuliani, on the other hand openly flouted it.

And the other point, we would not have known about Lewinsky if not for the 50,000,000 plus spent to ferret it out. Where as Nathan was common knowledge for years…so Giuliani can’t complain about it being personal when in fact it was very, very public.

I just think that comparing to the two men and their “private” lives is not correct..as Giuliani made no attempt to keep it private whereas Clinton did everything he could to do so.

Personally I don’t have a problem with Giulani’s “morals” ..marriages fail and adultery happens. It is how he PUBLICALLY treated his then wife AND CHILDREN that I find extremely distasteful.

Was Clinton openly flouting Monica? Did he go to court to gight a court order or announce openly to the world that he was dumping his wife for her?

To “out” Clinton’s escapades, the US taxpayers spent 50+ million dollars..because in the end, after sifting through anything else..including Starr’s original brief about Whitewater…Monica Lewinsky was what they ended up with. Clinton wasn’t parading around NYC with his mistress.

Oh, for heaven’s sake, I wasn’t making a point by point comparison- just showing that the one point you made (how the affair was more than just a private one) doesn’t negate some public interest in the Lewinsky affair. I also said nothing in support of the impeachment of Clinton- and for the record, I don’t think the country was well served by it.

And Clinton having sexual escapades with an intern in the Oval Office wasn’t?

Was Clinton openly flouting Monica? Did he go to court to gight a court order or announce openly to the world that he was dumping his wife for her?

To “out” Clinton’s escapades, the US taxpayers spent 50+ million dollars..because in the end, after sifting through anything else..including Starr’s original brief about Whitewater…Monica Lewinsky was what they ended up with. Clinton wasn’t parading around NYC with his mistress.

And my gosh, really..fighting a court order (again very public) to keep your mistress out of your family’s home…what does that say for his judgement…this is all public stuff.

And Clinton having sexual escapades with an intern in the Oval Office wasn’t?

Look, I have mixed feelings all around on these issues, as I think most people do. Some degree of knowledge of private morals as they reflect the character and job performance, is valid. But there’s also no doubt that some stones are best left unturned, that everyone is human, and that many people are able to compartmentalize so that their private vices don’t necessarily affect their public service.

But the topic at hand is whether those who universally denied any relevance of Clinton’s escapades would now see it differently when Giuliani’s are put out for public consumption. For example, saying that Giuliani made this fair game by trying to portray a close relationship with his current wife through the cell phone calls- how does this differ from the Clintons’ 60 minutes interview where they displayed their strong marriage? Does that not make his continuing infidelities fair game?

The devil on the other shoulders says: but at least Rangel is bringing up matters of more substance than a hair cut!

The devil won a long time ago, during Giuliani’s
NY days.