Comments about ‘Letter: Clinton's smutty joke’

Bill Clinton was arguably one of the best presidents in our Nation's history.

He made mistakes on a personal level. His wife has forgiven him. His daughter has forgiven him. Utah's highly moral citizens (most of them) just can't forgive him, even though the personal matter is none of their business and forgiveness is one of the bragging points of their "Christian" attitudes.

"What does Campbell suggest I tell my children and grandchildren when they ask who Clinton is or was?"

A United States President maybe?

I mean, just a suggestion!

Or did that great period of relative peace and economic growth between the two bad periods of Bush Presidents who gave us nothing but wars in Iraq, debt, and economic stagnation just never happen?

It's hilarious to watch the right emphasize Clinton's mistakes while ignore Bush's (lies about WMDs, torture, etc) and Romney's (flip flops, hiding money in Swiss Bank Accounts, etc)

@David Terry, when speaking of unadmirable personal character issues who do you refer, Clinton or Eastwood?

I suggest you explain to your children and grandchildren that Mr. Clinton was President of the United States.

As to his extramarital conduct, imperfect people can make a positive contribution to society. I have great admiration for Benjamin Franklin, for instance, but his personal life was imperfect.

The GOP learned a valuable lesson during the Clinton years. Cooperate with a Democratic president, even one embroiled in a sex scandal, and together they can create economic prosperity and a surplus. This has resulted in Clinton becoming one of the most popular past-presidents in history!

They weren't going to allow a new Democratic president clean up their mess with Bush, however, and they've done everything to NOT cooperate with Obama to "make him a one-term president" in the profound words of Senator McConnell (KY-R).

Obama will win re-election, and polls indicate that Democrats will win more seats in the House and keep the senate. The worry I have is that even with their diminished power in Washington, the GOP will probably continue to be the party of "no," and America will have another four years of stalemate.

Oh David.

"I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. Of you it is REQUIRED to forgive all men."

---

I was not a fan of Clinton as President. But he certainly knows how to give a good speech. When your children ask "who is that", you can say: "He was a former President of the United States". That is sufficient. There's no need to bring up his "philandering"; why would you with your children?

Also, if you take a good long look at both parties, Congress, the Senate, there are plenty of "philanderers" among the ranks. You can't go a single year without one or more of them making the news for it.

I doubt you were rooting for the Newt, but HE was also philandering whilst persecuting President Clinton for the SAME THING.

What a ridiculous letter!

"how do they reconcile a morally corrupt philanderer as one of the more important faces of their party?"

Seriously?

A reasonable person would answer, "Bill Clinton was a two-term president of the United States in the 1990's. During his two terms in office America enjoyed balanced budgets and the best economy and lowest poverty rates it's had in a generation."

How hard is that? Or do you really think that the single most important characteristic of a national leader is whether or not he was ever involved in an extramarital affair? If that's the case, then how do you explain Newt Gingrich's speech before the RNC?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if the Republican running against President Obama was Newt Gingrich that Utah Republican voters would say to themselves, "President Obama has never been unfaithful to his wife, but Mr. Gingrich has, multiple times, and so I'll vote for the Democrat?"

Morality has many facets. Yes, I am troubled by marital infidelity. I'm more troubled by a candidate with Swiss bank accounts who refuses to release his tax returns.

There's plenty of philandering men on BOTH sides of the aisle. I don't know if you you really want to go down this road. Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich certainly would like you to choose another topic.....

"If that is the case, how do they reconcile a morally corrupt philanderer as one of the more important faces of their party?"

You mean like Newt Gingrich? Didn't HE speak at the GOP convention? Didn't he lead the race for a while?

Get off your high horse. If marital fidelity was a requirement for Congress, there would be many empty seats. Including some of those with an "R" on them.

I still love the Clinton quote. "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did"

It is applicable in most political discussions these days.

This letter has hit the nail right on the head. No reasonable person can deny that the Democrats' selection of Clinton as a keynote speaker perfectly signifies their rejection of traditional family values.

Right from the start, both Clintons demonstrated that they would put the pursuit of political power above family. The fact that they only "bothered" to have one child so as not to hinder their pursuit of power shows where their true priorities are.

Inevitably, these skewed priorities led to wanton, uncontrolled sexual excess on the part of President Clinton. The man who should have led the Country towards morality instead led it into an epidemic of immorality.

The choice of Clinton by today's Democrats shows exactly what their priorities are. All patriotic Americans who reject those amoral values must reject that party.

I suppose you can tell your children/grandchildren that he was the president that saw the largest increase in middle class income in recent history. Or perhaps you can tell them he was the president who left us with a balanced budget plan, and a plan to pay off the debt.
If all you have to tell them about is Monica, I think you might be overly preoccupied with sex.

The righties ignore Bush's lies, Mitt's lies, Paul's lies.
But they keep bringing up Clinton.

The scriptures make it clear about this issue. I suggest David read and put into practice some good solid advice:

D&C 64:

"9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to aforgive one another; for he that bforgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

David, for you own soul's sake, you need to repent. I don't want you to be judged by the same pathetic judgement you are showing towards your former President.

Matt 7:2

"2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Hasn't the GOP championed the three timed married Donald Trump, who never met a super model he didn't want to "date", and what about that fine example of fidelity, Newt Gingrich? I don't think that the Republican party has any reason to claim the moral high ground on this issue.

There are at least 7 presidents (6 besides Clinton) who had affairs in office, make sure you teach your child about them too.

As opposed to Obama, during Bill Clinton's presidency he did not impede economic growth. This is far different from causing economic expansion. Clinton is a likable good ol' boy, but he is not the person you would trust in a room alone with your daughter. If Joe Biden is the intellectual face of the liberals, Clinton is their moral compass. As billionaire David Geffin, a former Clinton donor, noted when he withdrew his support, the Clintons make no distinction between being truthful and being a liar.

@Truthseeker

How many of those presidents were accused of harassment, or far far worse (remember Juanita Broderick who was quickly hushed)?

You once asked me why I am hostile to feminists: Because they clearly value ideological purity over actually real living breathing women.

I am hostile to the Klan too: because, despite their claims, they do NOT speak for all whites, they are an embarrassment to millions who don't want to be associated with such malevolence.

Why do Democrats defile themselves by accusing Republicans of a "war on women" when their own behavior is so incredibly hypocritical, manipulative, (I am a victim therefore, I have a right to perpetrate) and really very anti-woman. Why are they loathe to hold Clinton to their own supposed high standards?

BTW: Accusing someone of trying to silence women because they dare question a feminist is like accusing someone of being anti-religion because they question Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church; It is incredibly disingenuous and reflects poorly on the accuser. Indiscrimiate allegtions of racism, sexism and homophbia are the primary indicators of passive/aggression and the biggest destroyer of credibility

With all the moral pontification by the right in the comments above, I have not heard the name of Ronald Reagan mentioned once. He conceived a child out of wedlock - he married Nancy on March 4 and Patty was born on October 21. Do the math). Was Reagan a morally corrupt person? Heavens no! He made a mistake. He was human. We are all human.

Thank you Ranchhand for reminding us of our obligations as Christians. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

@liberal larry

Neither of your examples were ever actually nominated for president, were they?

And neither was accused of harassment (or worse).

Infidelity is not cool; but forced physical abuse is far worse and your comparisons merely indicate the moral vapidity of the liberal feminist defense of Clinton.

David Terry (no relation, I presume):

If you are going to trash the Democrats for putting Clinton in the spotlight, why don't you bring up the Republicans, who actually claim to be the party of family values, and their nominee in 2008, John McCain? His background makes Clinton look like a choirboy.