What you think about the Clintons
Reaction to my recent column on the Clintons ran the gamut. Here's a sampling of the notes I received.
Bill Brennan of Annandale, Va. Virginia, wrote:
Between what you wrote, Clinton's problems on the left because of her initial support of the Bush Iraq invasion and her food fight with Obama, she's no lock for the nomination despite all her millions of bucks.
Obama's lack of experience - really - and the undercurrent hardly mentioned about racism do not leave him with the pole position either. What he has to overcome makes it tough enough, but now he's dishing out trash about Hillary as fast as she's tossing it back. Sounds like the making of a stalemate. Could Big Al fit through that ever widening opening? Keep your eye on his waistline as he judges his prospects. Stranger things have happened in picking presidents and Popes.
Peter, from Wellesley, put fingers to keyboard to say:
I am not defending Clinton, for what he did was wrong. But nothing is ever printed about the ''private lives'' of JFK, FDR, Johnson, Eisenhower, just to mention a few.
Herb Yood of Vero Beach, Fla., wrote to say:
Geffen's comments on the Clintons veracity also hit the mark. After all, Clinton is a convicted perjurer, and a disbarred lawyer. And, however solid you think his performance as president is, it is a fact that he is the only president in the 20th Ccentury to be impeached. And, with his attention diverted to defending himself, exactly what was slipped under the rug? And how does that affect our nation adversely today?... .... As for Hillary: She has brains and policy savvy, but she also screwed up healthcare reform, and it is hard to see where her savvy would improve things much on that note. As for anything else, foreign or domestic, her record is only that of a senator, which means she can say anything she wants, and we all can point to positive and negative votes on the same issues, just like any other senator.
David, from parts unknown, added:
As a conservative, I must confess a complete and utter enjoyment of the Clinton-Geffen-Obama incident. No one is talking about Hillary's biggest problem though - her caution. It's uninspiring and transparent. Bush was elected, despite his warts, because people felt as though they knew where he stood......
Holly Hand emailed from St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, to say:
Fine column on the Clintons. So many of us Dems are debating the question: who would we love to see in the WH versus who could actually win. Tough decisions for the primaries, and no easy answers.
And Lisa Spencer, formerly of Pembroke, Massachusetts, but now living in Lille, France, wrote to say:
Hello Scot, Lisa, the flaming liberal, chiming in again. The problem with Hillary is that other people have a problem with her marriage. I don't like her policies, like I didn't like Bill's policies, because they are too moderate. But to attack her because he's a philanderer, and even to enter his philandering into the equation judging his presidency, is so frustrating. Americans seem to prefer a GWB, who is faithful to his wife, totally clueless about politics, and lies about important things to a Bill Clinton, who was/is unfaithful to his wife, was brilliant politically (if you like his politics), and lied about his sex life. That preference says a lot more about America than it does about Hillary. Arrrgh!
