More Active Posts
Front Page
Hillary’s problem
 |
 52 Comments |
When it comes to evaluating prospective White House couples, Newsweek’s Lisa Miller says Americans are looking for ”something more mythic than real”–they “want to believe that ‘husband’ and ‘prince’ are synonyms.” And therein is Hillary Clinton’s problem.
Hillary suffers at the hands of her critics, in part, because we all know her husband is no prince and her marriage is no fairy tale. Bill is a reckless philanderer who disrespected his wife, his daughter and the people who elected him because he couldn’t control his libido-and then lied about it. Much of the hesitance I hear about Hillary in my (admittedly small) circles is a hesitance over seeing that marriage(say it in irritated italics) back in the White House for four or eight more years. Who hasn’t played the snarky but fashionable parlor game “What’s up with the Clintons?” (I have.) Do they still love each other? Do they ever have sex? Critiquing the Clinton marriage is a favorite pastime of pundits, too. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times has derided the Clintons for having a “warped marriage” and chided them for living too much apart. More recently, when Bill was obnoxiously campaigning for his wife in South Carolina, Gail Collins, also of the Times, called for Hillary to push Bill into the background. Richard Cohen of The Washington Post accused Hillary of being a “creature” of her husband, while other columnists fretted that she couldn’t “control” him.
Miller reasons that, “There may be a million reasons not to vote for Hillary, but the quality of her marriage is not one of them.” Do you agree?
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Unfortunately, the Clintons are a package deal, two for the price of one. I believe they are the most power hungry couple in the history of this country, and a danger to the republic. Whoever would be chosen Vice President to President Clinton would be the number 3 person in the executive branch of government.
Anyone who thinks Bill would hush up and leave cabinet meetings to his wife alone is severely deluded, no?
I tend to think that the quality of a person’s interpersonal and communication skills can be seen in the quality of a person’s marriage.
A person’s home life can also be a distraction or a impediment to success at work.
When I hire someone, I want to know that they are going to be able to perform the job. If I know someone is struggling with their personal life, I would be hesitant to hire them and bring their problems to work.
I listened to a sound clip of Hillary reading out of her book about her husband getting knees on the news. She said she screamed and cried and wilted and pulled out her hair and almost fainted. It went on and on. This cannot be president. It was like every idiot sterotype of a woman rolled into one. I Love Lucy plus Mary Tyler Moore (from Dick Van Dyke) plus all the women in “Soap”.
Even her campaign seems to be coming from someone bi-polar. She doesn’t suffer, she’s nuts.
I think a candidate’s personal life is relavant to his/her selection to public office. It affects many things in anyone’s job performance and offers some clues as to their character.
Who the heck is Lisa Miller to say what can and can’t be a reason not to vote for Hillary?
How about these stated reasons for voting for politicians?
1. “Hey, he’s got a nice name. I think I’ll vote for him!”
2. “Well, he talks really well, and gives uplifting speeches, so I’ll vote for him.”
3. “She’s a woman. I’m a woman. So, I’m going to vote for her.”
Are they okay?
LawDawg3 nailed it at the outset, followed by Sawgunner. I think the Clintons are in shock that they’ve not only been figured out, but are being turned out. She may remain a senator, but this is it for them for the presidency. At least one hopes!
If Hillary didn’t want people questioning her marriage, she should have left the guy. People would have understood that. For someone who claims to be a feminist and capable to operate on her own, why stick with this guy? It’s all compromise on their part, and people have a right to reject that.
#6: How about these stated reasons for voting for politicians?
Look at the reasons people voted for Bush.
1. Mess with the gays and keep them from having equal rights.
2. Stop abortion.
3. Seems like an honest Christian.
Look at what we ended up with.
In a recorded conversation, said he would put the best person for the job into the job, even if he/she were gay.
Didn’t stop abortion.
Has proven himself to be very dishonest.
Says he discusses policy with “God”.
Doesn’t believe in science that disproves magic.
Did not we hear the “two for one” slogan in 92? I guess that is not the only old campaign material the Clinton machine is using. I saw last night that an old ad they are running has a girl who is now an adult and working for Obama. Do the Clintons know no shame?
RE#8
What’d you say about Hillary? I didn’t catch that part…
To me, one of the most interesting things about the Clinton’s marriage has been the number of conservative Christians who were (and still are) openly cheering for their marriage to break apart. They were positively giddy with the idea that they might divorce. They were furious when Hillary stood by him. And yet, with a straight face they tell us they’re for “family values”.
It bothers me, too, Anlir.
One of the things I like about Senator Clinton is she has remained married to the father of her only child.
I won’t be voting for her for other reasons.
There comes a point where a woman who turns a blind eye to repeated — and I do mean repeated — infidelitys on the part of her husband can’t expect the public not to conclude that there’s an ulterior motive for her remaining in such a marriage. There’s no dignity in what Bill Clinton has done to his wife over and over again. But there is at least a psychological reason for why Hillary Clinton takes this repeated abuse — and abuse is what it is. I don’t care if she remains married to the clown, but a woman who asserts she is capable of being the leader of the free world, a woman who seeks the most powerful political position on earth, would want more for herself — certainly some self-respect. It doesn’t compute that a woman who respected herself would repeatedly subject herself to this kind of treatment and then turn around and say women are strong. It doesn’t wash. If the positions were reversed, and Hillary had engaged in the conduct her husband has engaged in, he would have dumped her long ago and rightfully so. No one would vote for a man who was repeatedly betrayed as he repeatedly betrayed his wife because he wouldn’t be respected.
There’s something off here, and the kindest conclusion is that power means a great deal to the Clintons.
Hillary would like us to see her as an independent strong woman, but she also wants to use her husband’s presidency on her resume of “experience”. Weird. I admire her for sticking to her marriage vows, but there are plenty of reasons not to vote for her. She’s dysfunctional, somehow. She’s got too many distractions and too much emotion running around. (And, no, this is not typical of women in general–there are certainly some around qualified to be president.)
NJLAWYER: . . . the kindest conclusion is that power means a great deal to the Clintons.
Uh huh.
The desire for power is as normal as the desire for love or money. Conventional morality demands a bit of clothing, but underneath the costume, the politician is naked. One must be a fool to send flowers and valentines without a return of feelings. One must be a blithering idiot to work on Wall Street without making money. Politics wins hardly anybody love, and money is a no-no, so what motive is left?
What NJLAWYER calls Hillary’s lack of dignity is the saving grace of a remarkable absence of pride and arrogance. Like the scheming future Richard III, she bears a hump of scorn in the public eye while she waits for her time. NJLAWYER suggests that a woman humiliated in love cannot respect herself. That seems rather one-dimmensional to me, if not anti-feminist.
I’m not a Hillary supporter. The more the right wing characterizes her as a monster, the more valuable she is to the Democratic Party. On the one hand, Hillary Hatred undermines the right wing, as Stanley Fish explained a few weeks ago. On the other hand, the bigger the liability she becomes to Democrats, the more someone like Obama has to gain by standing on her neck.
One has to admire her for getting so close to so much power.
“Miller reasons that, ‘There may be a million reasons not to vote for Hillary, but the quality of her marriage is not one of them.’ Do you agree?”
Of course not!
#10: What’d you say about Hillary? I didn’t catch that part…
FROM #4: I listened to a sound clip of Hillary reading out of her book about her husband getting knees on the news. She said she screamed and cried and wilted and pulled out her hair and almost fainted. It went on and on. This cannot be president. It was like every idiot sterotype of a woman rolled into one. I Love Lucy plus Mary Tyler Moore (from Dick Van Dyke) plus all the women in “Soap”.
Even her campaign seems to be coming from someone bi-polar. She doesn’t suffer, she’s nuts.
If a manager of a business had been “intimate” in his office with one of the young workers, we would all expect him to be fired. We would also expect his wife, if he had one, to kick him out (at least temporarily) and demand proof of repentance, if she were ever to return to the marriage bed.
How is it a contradiction for Christians to uphold “family values” and to disapprove of a man’s fooling around with several young women while married to somebody else? It seems completely consistent to me. Mrs. Clinton has not done the Christian thing, in my opinion, by passively condoning her husband’s bad behavior. She is sending a terrible message to younger women–men are just that way, and we just have to accept it. The folks on this blog who don’t diapprove of Clinton’s sexual misdeeds had better keep their mouths completely shut the next time there is a Republican sex scandal. Honestly.
Thank you, Kyle.
KYLE A: The folks on this blog who don’t diapprove of Clinton’s sexual misdeeds had better keep their mouths completely shut the next time there is a Republican sex scandal. Honestly.
There already was a next time — several: Foley. Vitter. Larry. The Florida guy arrested in a rest area. I hope I’m not leaving anyone out!
In the current Democratic sex scandal, Democrats are telling Spitzer to resign.
Bottom line (sorry), liberals have a backlog of enough scandal credits to to play dirty with anything the Republicans hand them for several more scandals, at least.
Kyle A at #18: We would also expect his wife, if he had one, to kick him out (at least temporarily) and demand proof of repentance, if she were ever to return to the marriage bed.
How do you know she didn’t? Granted, you can’t exactly kick the president out of the White House, but it’s a big enough place that they could have had separate bedrooms for a while. And as for repentance, is there any shred of evidence that Bill has cheated on her since Monica? That was 10 years ago and while he’s still the butt of Jay Leno-level jokes for it, I’ve not heard of any serious allegations of subsequent affairs.
Come to think of it, I haven’t even heard any frivolous allegations. How do you know that the Lewinsky affair wasn’t the wake-up call they both needed to seriously fix the problems in their marriage?
And Anlir is completely correct in #11. The same people who speak so piously about the sanctity of marriage were the ones salivating over the scandal and the ones who were angry when they didn’t divorce.
You should be applauding them for weathering a storm that would have killed most marriages, and as far as I can tell, emerging stronger as a couple for it. But because they are so hated by the right, you can’t even afford them a modicum of respect for doing that … as NJLawyer shows in #13, you have to find nefarious ulterior motives to accuse them of.
SteveG - 21 - wrote; “The same people who speak so piously about the sanctity of marriage were the ones salivating over the scandal and the ones who were angry when they didn’t divorce.”
That’s a total farse, SteveG–a blatant and baseless smear. It’s a gross and unfair smear and nothing less.
Anlir,
Name an elected Republican or a leading Christian conservative who has been, in your words, “cheering for [the Clinton’s] marriage to break apart.”
You said there were a number of them. Well, how many? Name them and I will join you in criticizing their inappropriate cheering.
Exactly who was, in your words, “positively giddy with the idea that they might divorce?”
Any names? Perhaps there is an elected or leading Republican or office-holding conservative who has said this, but I don’t know who it would be.
Please back up your claim, Anlir. But what you claim, I have not seen or heard among responsible conservative Christians, let alone leading Christian conservatives.
Kyle A is such a typical conservative Christian. He broadcasts the worst possible interpretation of the Clinton’s marriage with the scantest of evidence (in fact no evidence). He presumes to know the mind and heart of Hillary and then proceeds to tell us of her evil intentions.
And it wasn’t just a matter of the conservative Christians berating Bill’s unfaithfulness. They were openly calling for her to divorce him. And when she didn’t they derided her for it.
All the while claiming to be for “family values”.
I’d call it blatant hypocrisy, but that would be an understatement.
You really do hate conservative Christians, don’t you, Anlir? I sincerely hope you find freedom from your debilitating attitude somewhere, someday. Your need to strain at any gnat you can to smear us all with gross generalizations seems rather obsessive.
Thou dost criticize a bit too loudly and proudly–but not so rationally.
And you really do hate the Clintons, Democrats, liberals, gays..basically anyone who doesn’t think and believe exactly like you do, Joel Mark.
You claim to be both a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, yet I see nothing that would convince me you are either of those things. I see no love, no graciousness, no kindness - none of the qualities that Christians are supposed to be known for.
If you’re trying to convince me (or anyone else) of the benefits of Christianity, I’m here to tell you that you have failed miserably! You might want to rethink your strategy.
There are so many other reason I don’t like Hillary and won’t vote for her. Her standing by her man like Tammy Wynette when she told us before that that wasn’t what she would ever do is not one of them. That falls under the heading of things I have said I would never do and have done myself. I was faced with evidence that the guy I was dating wasn’t completely committed to me in February of 2007 and didn’t give him the boot until Janury 1, 2008. I found every excuse in the book. Obviously those of us living in glass houses don’t need to sling mud. I have done many things I said I would never do.
Kim,
I often find that people who have faced their own difficulties become much less judgmental of others in similar situations.
We all have our fancy, single-minded rhetoric that we love to throw around, especially on blogs like this. But, if we were able to really see the lives of other people, we’d find them much more complicated and nuanced than is portrayed on here.
I commend you for your willingness to be honest about your own glass house.
Both Clintons are unconvicted felons. The children of our nation, the morally weak, the gullible, the uneducated, the naive, etc, will look to another Clinton presidency as affirmation that lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating, spinning the truth, etc, are to be rewarded.
Putting another Clinton in the White House would be a morally fatal mistake for this country.
Anlir, #26,
Your personal slander toward me, especially in the first paragraph of #26 was definitively irrational and 100% incorrect. Could one actually call your comment “judgmental?”
Anlir wrote, at #26, “I often find that people who have faced their own difficulties become much less judgmental of others in similar situations.”
Oh?
DAV, stongly stated and your point is well taken. Thanks.
ANLIR wrote; “You might want to rethink your strategy.”
I don’t have a strategy here, Anlir, except to speak my mind honestly. Whether I am kind, loving, gracious or even right is for any reader to assess for themself. But I strive to be truthful to what I beleive and if I know I have done that, then i don’t worry a lot about the results or the perceptions and criticisms of others. But I listen to the criticisms and weigh them with the same honesty that I share my own views.
While I don’t have a strategy beyond just sharing my convictions and interacting honestly, I do have a few mottos:
1. If you love to learn, you’ll learn to love.
2. Try to be a critical thinker, not a critical person.
3. Life is too short for pretense.
It’s a sham bogus marriage. Akin to the Potemkin villages or the infamous hellish prison countries which have the gall to deem themselves “Peoples Democratic Republics”
DAV: Both Clintons are unconvicted felons.
What an anti-American statement! The Clintons weren’t even indicted, let alone convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, despite tenacious investigations that dwindled into bad jokes. When you respect our civic traditions, you recognize only one process for accusation and disposition.
What did they steal? And why are you letting them off from murder?
George Bush is an unconvicted felon. So there!
Joel Mark,
Oh come off it - I did not slander you in #26. I merely parroted your self-righteous, judgmental language from post #25. Sometimes the appropriate response is to hold a mirror up to the other person’s face. Your inability (or refusal) to recognize that is, to put it kindly, interesting.
When a persons says they’re just “giving the truth” I roll my eyes because it’s usually an attempt to gloss over their self-righteous, judgmental, even hateful, language.
That you could care less what people think seems greatly at odds with the Christian faith you claim in my opinion.
And that’s what my comments are about you: my opinion. I base my opinion on the words and language you use, and to me they are mean, hateful, denigrating, self-righteous, and judgmental.
Now if someone were to tell me that my words were hateful, judgment, denigrating, and self-righteous, I would be hurt deeply. I would immediately take stock of the things I said and make some changes in the words I use and the language I use.
But most of all, I would need to acknowledge my self-rigteous language which I usually find is a cover for my pride. Pride will make a guy do and say some pretty sorry things. The answer is a good dose of humility.
Scroop Moth,
Bill Clinton was impeached. That is an indictment. That the subsequent trial was a mockery of justice says nothing about whether he was indicted. He also was stripped of his right to practice law in his home state. So yeah, unconvicted felon for sure fits Bill Clinton, and add the billing records and FBI files, stolen White House property… and I’m sure I could think of more if it wasn’t nearly midnight. I’m fairly sure we have both of them covered as “unconvicted felons.”
Last time I checked, in America we believe that a person suspected of a crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Do we not do that anymore?
Anlir, I stand by my response.
Anlir, you referred to “the number of conservative Christians who were (and still are) openly cheering for their marriage to break apart.” Anlir, you added, “They were positively giddy with the idea that they might divorce.”
Thus, I asked you to identify this “conservative Christians.”
Knowing that some examples indeed exist, I made it clear that I would join you in criticizing such attitudes and expressions.
I also asked you to name an elected Republican or a leading Christian conservative who has been, in your words, “cheering for [the Clinton’s] marriage to break apart.”
You said there were a number of them. Well, how many? Exactly who was, in your words, “positively giddy with the idea that they might divorce?”
Any names? Perhaps there is an elected or leading Republican or office-holding conservative who has said this, but I don’t know who it would be.
Please back up your claim, Anlir. What you claim, I have not seen or heard among responsible conservative Christians, let alone leading Christian conservatives.
#31: 1. If you love to learn, you’ll learn to love.
2. Try to be a critical thinker, not a critical person.
3. Life is too short for pretense.
Pretty words. Know what they mean?
Bill Clinton pled “nolo contendere” in Arkansas — neither admitted nor denied — and made a deal to accept a suspension of his law license and a fine. (Which is similar to what Spitzer is trying to do. He wants to avoid losing his license and going to jail.)
I will repeat that it doesn’t bother me that Hillary stayed with Bill, it won’t bother me if Silda stays with Eliot. That’s their business. But when a person runs for office or is in office, the voters have a right to evaluate that person. We may come to different conclusions regarding their marriages and how it affects their job performance. There are those who believe that Bill Clinton had an inferiority complex and that’s why he did his nonsense; now we’re hearing Spitzer has a power problem and thinks he’s above the law. Either way, do I want these people making decisions for me? No. They can’t run their own lives. They are unstable.
I’m not a psychiatrist, I don’t know why Hillary does what she does. All I have to work with is the knowledge that she has endured multiple infidelities over decades, including an allegation of rape. There is a reason someone stays attached to that. Perhaps it’s insecurity. Perhaps it’s a tradeoff for power. Moreover, there are allegations against Hillary that question her honesty: the billing records. The billing records alone does it for me. That’s a very odd thing that happened there. Hillary’s a lawyer. She knows what’s required of her ethically, and she knows how to hide the evidence and play “innocent until proven guilty.”
I don’t hate the Clintons, but I really distrust them. If the best you can do is call George Bush an unconvicted felon and add a “so there!” to it, what I conclude is that you are either unwilling to face the truth about the Clintons or you have very low standards for personal conduct.
Anlir: “Kyle A is such a typical conservative Christian.”
I try.
Anlir: “He broadcasts the worst possible interpretation of the Clinton’s marriage with the scantest of evidence (in fact no evidence).”
How did you write that line with a straight face? The evidence is more than most of us would ever have wanted to know.
Anlir: “He presumes to know the mind and heart of Hillary and then proceeds to tell us of her evil intentions.”
I hope I didn’t do that. I wrote about her public actions. That’s all that most of us can know.
Anlir: “And it wasn’t just a matter of the conservative Christians berating Bill’s unfaithfulness. They were openly calling for her to divorce him. And when she didn’t they derided her for it.”
I join others in asking for proof of that statement. I don’t know of any prominent conservative Christian who did any such thing. I never did. What I did was suggest that she should have sent him and the rest of the world a message that carrying on with young interns who work for you is not proper behavior. That doesn’t necessarily mean divorce, although it is hypocritical for feminists and their sympathizers NOT to expect her to divorce him in those circumstances.
Anlir: “All the while claiming to be for ‘family values’. I’d call it blatant hypocrisy, but that would be an understatement.”
I still don’t understand why you call it hypocrisy. We believe that men should be faithful to their wives, and we wish that Mrs. Clinton would have shown some kind of disapproval for her husband’s unfaithfulness. It seems completely consistent with our beliefs.
The hypocrisy appears to be with those who have imposed the concept of “sexual harrassment” on us but don’t apply it to the former president.
#40: The hypocrisy appears to be with those who have imposed the concept of “sexual harrassment” on us but don’t apply it to the former president.
I watched an interview with Monica once where she said she flashed the President her new “thong”. Maybe he harrassed other women, but it seems this one chased her. He’s a pig anyway.
Kyle A at #40: I still don’t understand why you call it hypocrisy. We believe that men should be faithful to their wives, and we wish that Mrs. Clinton would have shown some kind of disapproval for her husband’s unfaithfulness. It seems completely consistent with our beliefs.
It’s hypocrisy because you argue forcefully against divorce, and even allowing it as an option where infidelity is concerned, encourage couples in that situation to seek reconciliation.
Until a prominent couple whose politics you despise comes into that situation, and then you berate the woman for doing what you normally encourage women to do.
As I said earlier, I’ve not heard any allegations that Bill has been unfaithful since that time. For all any of us know, that could have been the proverbial final straw that brought them to the brink, and he truly changed his ways.
I don’t know one way or the other, but neither do you.
SteveG, I am not arguing that Hillary Clinton should divorce her husband, just that her judgment is suspect. I don’t see why we can’t have politicians who have their act together. Jesus Christ gave one reason for divorce — adultery. Once, twice, three times: how many times does a secure woman tolerate that? Where’s her judgment?
Maybe she loves the guy. Maybe she loves him enough to live out 1 Corinthians 13.
SteveG, she can love the guy all she wants. Loving him doesn’t entitle her to the presidency. We need a president who knows when to fish and when to cut bait. I wouldn’t vote for a man who had this problem in his household, so I won’t for a woman who does either. Maybe it’s because working for my judge, I encountered Ken Starr and know him to be totally above board and a decent man. If the Clintons were honest people, they wouldn’t have said then or continue to say now what they say about Ken Starr. Bill Clinton could have stopped all of that at any time just by telling the truth. It wasn’t in him, and Hillary backed him up. They lie.
#39… I’m speechless. That was fantastic! Bravo!
I’m not defending Bill Clinton’s perjury. I do think the questions he lied about were questions nobody had any business asking him–it should have been a private family matter–but once asked under oath, he should have been truthful.
But I will defend their right to make personal decisions about their marriage without a peanut gallery of critics second-guessing them. Bottom line is that nobody but the two of them knows why they didn’t divorce. Questioning Hillary’s fitness for office on the grounds that she chose to stay in her marriage is frankly bizarre.
We don’t know why she made that decision. Her critics will say she was pragmatically staying close to a person of power to preserve her own political viability … and that might be true. But it’s at least equally possible that Bill realized the gravity of the hurt he was causing and genuinely changed his ways, giving her a path to staying with him out of love.
As I don’t know the inner workings of their marriage (and don’t really consider it to be my business), I’ll assume the more charitable explanation until there’s real evidence to the contrary.
CHERYL D.: Bill Clinton was impeached. That is an indictment. That the subsequent trial was a mockery of justice says nothing about whether he was indicted.
Impeachment is not indictment. Impeachment is a political process, indictment is a juridical process. Different branches of government, different procedures, different standards of evidence, and different results. For a long time, Clinton was in jeopardy of indictment, but the most extravagant criminal investigation in the history of the world failed to produce sufficient grounds for indictment.
STEVEG: “Perjury” is a technical term not synonymous with lying. Perjury requires an element of material significance. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that Monica was irrelevant. Therefore, the deposition in which Clinton lied about being “alone” with Monica could not rise to perjury, although it did result in a sanction by the bar association. Maybe you are referring to what the Republicans (but not the special prosecutor) called “grand jury perjury.” As I recall, the testimony that incited the political charge of perjury, was Clinton’s statement that he did not touch Monica’s breasts during oral sex. The House prosecutors didn’t spell out this accusation in the articles of impeachment nor did they try to prove it in the Senate trial.
Scroop Moth:
Both are trials, just in different formats. It’s a mere technicality to say he was “unindicted” when he was impeached. A military trial is different, too, with different terms. He was, for all practical purposes, indicted–and on felony counts–but the trial was a mockery of justice.
You can say that many people accused Clinton of crimes, but not that he was indicted. The reason he wasn’t indicted is that an extravagant investigation, operating under the review of the courts, determined he should not be.
The only constitutional means for adjudicating crime and dispensing justice in America is a court of law. Courts martial are special courts within the Department of Defense, with slightly different rules, but their proceedings are governed by the Constitution and reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Good, responsible language isn’t a “mere technicality.”
Saying the Senate trial was a mockery of justice is like saying MacDonalds makes a mockery of haute cuisine. Impeachment trials are political, not juridical events.
There are two camps among conservative Christians concerning divorce. There are those who agree with the OPTION of divorce, given proper grounds, usually but not always limited to infidelity. There are those who oppose divorce in all cases even though scripture permits it, in the same way that some oppose alcohol, which they see as damaging even though it also is expressly permitted in the Bible. Confusing these two camps is probably what gave some people the impression that Christians uphold family values while calling for a Clinton divorce.
Now, my fellow conservatives here should bear in mind that the Clintons are not conservative Christians, and do not share such values. They can hardly be expected to behave as if their marriage is grounded in mutual and exclusive love. Marriages of convenience, like the Clinton marriage seems to be, are nothing new. Indeed, for the majority of humans through history, they have been prevalent. The marriage of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt is a fairly modern example, but through most of history, men usurped the purpose of marriage and made it a means of gaining power. For their desires and needs for intimacy, there were concubines. There have almost always been concubines, whether or not they were actually called that.
As I said, this was a usurpation of marriage and I am in no way condoning it–nor did Jesus.