Hollow

Andrew says a hypothetical scandal in which Bill Clinton is revealed to have been conducting a post-presidential affair would be very bad for Hillary Clinton:

I may not care about the personal details of a president's marriage, but, given the Clintons' history, purple state Americans may not be so sure. The story could remind them of the psychodramas of the 1990s, dramas that impeded a president's ability to govern. It could remind them of how hollowed out Hillary Clinton's psyche has had to become - for enabling her husband's foibles as the price for her own political advancement.

Meh. I'm pretty sure most people would trade the "psychodramas of the 1990s" over the present situation. Meanwhile, it's just not the case that most people see Hillary's relationship with Bill in this light. The reality of the situation is that her highest approval ratings ever all come from 1998 and 1999; people view her and her handling of the situation sympathetically. After all, I don't actually think it's particularly unusual for a married couple's relationship to be strained by infidelity and for them to stay together nonetheless.

Comments

Sully writes a blog post critical of Hillary Clinton. In other news, the sky is blue.

Posted by NCProsecutor | November 18, 2007 9:51 PM

Who does Ron Paul have to sleep with before Andrew stops obsessing over his Hillary hate?

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 18, 2007 9:51 PM

Andrew Sullivan may be a smart guy but he has no understanding of men or women.

Posted by ken | November 18, 2007 9:55 PM

Let's all take everything Sullivan writes with respect to the Clintons with a Gibraltar-sized chunk of sodium chloride.

Posted by Jasper | November 18, 2007 10:14 PM

Andrew Sullivan is a psychopath. His entire entry posted above is about a scandal that's in is head, and he discusses both how Hillary and Obama would handle it, but also how the Republicans would handle it, and how "purple America" would handle. And he's talking about scandal that hasn't happened!

He then writes, "I have no inside information on this, and no solid evidence of either an Obama "scandal" or a Clinton one" HAHAHA I like how the Obama scandal gets quotation marks and Clinton's made-up scandal gets a few hundred words. Classy.

Posted by rex | November 18, 2007 10:17 PM

Frank Rich aptly wonders why plowed-over Clinton scandal territory is revisited when Giuliani's fields are ripe and rich and (in this metaphor) virginal.

Posted by Emphyrio | November 18, 2007 10:21 PM

I may not care about the personal details of a president's marriage

Hee hee. Surely he doesn't think he'll be believed on this, does he?

Posted by El Cid | November 18, 2007 10:27 PM

i have come to the conclusion that the only sexual release experienced by the andys and tweetys of the wdc commentariat is their endless obsessive yammering about bill clinton's dick and where they think he puts it.

Posted by anon | November 18, 2007 10:29 PM

"It could remind them of how hollowed out Hillary Clinton's psyche has had to become"

This is one of the hallmarks of Clinton hatred: the need to pathologize perfectly ordinary behavior. As Matt says, lots of marriages survive adultery, even serial adultery.

You see the pathologizing everywhere w/r/t Clinton: Giving away Socks the cat indicates some deep character flaw. Or, remember Patrick Healy's front-page NYT article on how many hours each month the Clintons spend together in bed? Yeah, well, as I believe he admitted later, their time together was pretty average for a senatorial couple, but that didn't stop the NYT from putting it on the front page or the Village (sorry, Matt!) from obsessing over it for a week.

Posted by pdp | November 18, 2007 10:29 PM

Andy dreams this stuff because of his stiff desire for some hot Drudge action.

Posted by notanumber | November 18, 2007 10:31 PM

When I read Andrew Sullivan's hypothetical "what if . . . " post, I couldn't help thinking about an alternative hypothetical: would he even comment on the sex lives of a committed gay male couple, both public figures like the Clintons, both interested in elected office, etc.? Would Andrew Sullivan turn his fevered gaze onto the sexual behavior of those men, speculating whether or not rumors of peccadilloes should serve as a litmus test for office? Does he expect gay male politicians in committed relationships to refrain from outside sexual activity, to remain sexually exclusive with their partners? He'd argue that it was nobody's business whether or not the Barney Franks of the world do or do not have "open" relationships . . . and he'd be right. But why the double standard for the Clintons? Bizarro planet.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | November 18, 2007 10:32 PM

Sullivan, although very perceptive about many things, has admitted for years that he has "Clinton derangement syndrome." SO let's just ignore anything he says about the Clintons, and move on. If he wants to be read, write about somebody else, because when he write about Clintons: "Lalala I can't hear you." Which is a shame, because he is often so perceptive, but not about these folks. And I'm not a Clintonista. I support another candidate.

Posted by sab | November 18, 2007 10:42 PM

It may not be a well hatched conspiracy, but Sullivan's pathological hatred of the Clintons seems to directed at achieving such an effect for the Democrats: nominate Obama, and get creamed in the general election.

Anyone who says that Obama is electable in the general elections overestimates America's tolerance.

Posted by gregor | November 18, 2007 10:43 PM

I love reading Andrew.

However this obsession with Hillary is getting on my nerves. Every day, three, four, five posts about Hillary.

Stop it!

Posted by Maggie05 | November 18, 2007 10:50 PM

Of course Little Roy doesn't like Hillary. She doesn't have a scrotum he can suck. She can't tea-bag him. She can't unload her milky load on his face in a bukkake-like way. She's - and I believe this is a direct quote - "icky."

Posted by jbk | November 18, 2007 10:51 PM

It would seem that red and purple state Americans would be precisely the people who would believe that a wife should stay with an unfaithful husband and that Hillary's behavior would make her more appealing to said folk.

If Sullivan really wants to go down this road, why not a post about how Hillary won't make it out of the primary because of us divorce-pimping blue-staters?

Posted by Quixote | November 18, 2007 10:54 PM

What about Rudy's even more disgusting psychodramas? Why isn't that a problem for Sully?

Posted by Rich | November 18, 2007 10:58 PM

i have come to the conclusion that the only sexual release experienced by the andys and tweetys of the wdc commentariat is their endless obsessive yammering about bill clinton's dick and where they think he puts it.

Posted by anon

The Ultimate Penis Envy?

Posted by 1Watt | November 18, 2007 11:00 PM

What happens when Andrew "Gay Marriage Advocate" Sullivan has a post-marriage "scandal".

Posted by Rich | November 18, 2007 11:02 PM

I also think it would be damaging to the Obama campaign if it there were a hypothetical scandal that revealed that Michelle Obama were a space alien from the Alpha Lyrae VI sent as an infiltrator by the Vegans to use psionic control over her husband to take over the U.S., Earth's most powerful nation-state, so that Earth could be incorporated into their empire and humans drafted into their space navy to serve as cannon fodder in their millenia-old war with the Arcturans.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 18, 2007 11:09 PM

Honestly, I don't mind Sullivan's focus on Clinton. Has everyone in the progressive blogosphere simultaneously forgotten that A) Senator Clinton has huge negative ratings, often over 50%, B) Senator Clinton has avoided even the most insubstantial questions C) Senator Clinton has been an unapologetic supporter of some of the worst Bush administration excesses.

I'm not ready to call this primary over and it offends me to see that the progressive blogosphere has thrown in the towel. Everywhere I read it's more and more pro-Clinton postings.

I do not accept Hillary Clinton as my nominee. I don't want her, and I don't want her and her husband's brand of politics. They DO NOT stand for what most of us care for. She WILL sell us all out eventually and she's not fighting for US.

I'm a proud Democrat and a proud Liberal. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not be my presidential choice. If that's how it is, I'll sit out 2008. I will not vote for Senator Clinton because I believe she'd be just as bad as any Republican nominee. She does not work for us -- she works for all the moneyed interests that have made her campaign possible.

FOR SHAME, LEFTY BLOGGERS. YOUR CAPITULATION TO THE CLINTON MACHINE SHOWS YOU ARE NO MORE INDEPENDENT THAN THE NATIONAL MEDIA.

You're just another bunch of suckers.

Posted by James Hare | November 18, 2007 11:10 PM

I may not care about the personal details of a president's marriage, but, given the Giuliani's history, purple state Americans may not be so sure. The story could remind them of the psychodramas of the 2000s, dramas that impeded a mayor's ability to govern.

Fixed Sullivan's typos.

After all, won't Rudy try to move his next mistress into the White House while the (current) first lady still lives there? What will we tell the children?

Posted by TheOtherWA | November 18, 2007 11:16 PM

I'm a proud Democrat and a proud Liberal. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not be my presidential choice. If that's how it is, I'll sit out 2008.

I'm not doing it either. I'm looking at transfering to Hong Kong or London. I still can't believe this is happening.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 18, 2007 11:20 PM

You know, for as much as I loathe the idea of giving into their insane demands, I'm already half inclined to think we should just give in and dump Hillary as the nominee. Not that they won't slime any Dem nominee, but it's obvious that the Clintons trigger a special level of insanity for these fools. Of course, I say that as someone who already has Hillary at the bottom of my favorites, but all the same, I really don't want to go through another nine years of this shit.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | November 18, 2007 11:24 PM

Wow, lots of Sully hate here. Personally, I don't want to deal with more of the Clinton bedroom bullshit for eight years. No, it's none of our business and No, it's not relevant to Hillary's ability to lead. But if it happened -- and I'm not saying it will, I'm saying if -- it would be a huge, huge distraction we do not need. Again. One of the things in the 9/11 report that saddened me the most was the description of how tentative Clinton was during the all-Lewinsky/all-the-time period to bomb Afghanistan because of the wag-the-dog cries from sick Republicans. Yes, I blame the Republicans, but I also blame Clinton. Did that period make Hillary enormously sympathetic with women? Yes. Did it, in fact, propel her Senate bid? Yes. But those are the exact reasons I want to wash my hands of the whole family. I liked him as president, I respect Hillary in the Senate. I just don't want to see the Clintons in the White House again.

Posted by cms | November 18, 2007 11:25 PM

I now realize that the media whore corollary to everything being "good news for Republicans" is that anything else is "bad news for the Clintons."

Posted by Hank Essay | November 18, 2007 11:26 PM

After all, it's not like Giuliani had any history of extramarital—oh, wait a minute....

Posted by DrBB | November 18, 2007 11:30 PM

"Bareback Andy" heads for the fainting couch because he finds speculation about "personal details" distasteful? How odd.

I always enjoy reading Sullivan, and he's sound on torture, but he's sure got a hair up his ass about Hillary. As others have pointed out, all the stated reasons for his loathing of Hillary apply to Rudy, in spades. And if Sullivan wants to become the Bob Novak of his generation, trading on sinuendo and playing "Let's you and him fight" wth Democrats, then good luck to him.

To James Hare:

This is the tired argument that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. It's just not so. It's like saying there's no difference between the Emperors Caligula and Augustus. Sure, neither of them are going to end the empire -- which is really what I want -- but given the givens, I'd rather not be ruled by sociopaths. And given what the Conservative movement and its Kool-Aid drinking base have become under Bush, that's exactly what's going to keep on happening if a Republican gets elected. Weak and venal the Democrats may be, but last I checked, none of them spent their happy childhood hours blowing up frogs, as Bush did. So, you plan a Naderite strategy of sitting election 2008 out? Bonne chance. Maybe things will work out better this time.

Posted by lambert strether | November 18, 2007 11:38 PM

You assume that Sully is talking in "hypotheticals" about a "post-presidential" affair of Bill's. But if he's heard the stories that New Yorkers who have ties to Harlem residents have, he is referring to real, persistent rumors.

I wish Americans weren't the puritanical voyeurs that most of us are, but we can't pretend that this wouldn't be a major political-distraction/boon for Republicans for the next 4-8 years.

Posted by glib | November 18, 2007 11:41 PM

As God awful shit as this current decade is, the 1990's was not some belle epoque that we should revere in posterity. Bill Clinton did some pretty crappy things in office, and please, for the love of God, let's stop ignoring the fact that if Hillary were elected to national office, we wouldn't be replaying that absurd drama from day one of her presidency.

Posted by Nasara | November 18, 2007 11:56 PM

The republicans live in this alternate universe where "everybody hates Hillary Clinton." They talk about her the way that we used to talk about Nixon.
If the Democrats proceed to nominate her, as seems likely, the sewers of Hillary hatred will go up like geysers. "Beat the Bitch" will be on bumper stickers in your neighborhood. She will crush them in the general election, not in spite of the fact that they hate her, but because their hatred will will frighten and disgust the middle. It will be our national vengeance for all that Clinton Second term hypocritical hysteria. No greater blow can be given to the conservative movement than to be beaten by the one candidate that they have promoted as their bogey-person. It is a real wake-up call, a message that the world is not at all like you think it is.

Posted by Tom in Ma | November 19, 2007 12:09 AM

I disagree with many of the comments here.
In 98 and 99 alot of sympathy was going for Hillary but, in the years since, that has given way to her just being Hillary.
Many democrats know there is a high possibility of a bimbo eruption coming. No one actually believes everything is just fine with the Clintons. And Bill has mended his ways.
I think in the years since the Clintons with the horror of the Bush years, too many have tended to forget the bad and only remember the good.
Many forget that Bill not just embarrassed democrats everywhere but, also the sheer tawdriness of it all left alot of democrats ambivilant towards Gore's run.
And because of Bill's behavior we ended up with Chimpy. that was the result of the American people as a whole, not just republicans, feeling a sense of exhaustion from the drama and soap opera of the Clintons and they ran to the Boy King.
So, fall out from the clintons has serious bite back.
And you can believe the years since the republicans have collected alot of potential embarrassing things.
I do think it was very smart of Obama to come out fast and early on this smear attempt. And I do not think even Novack would be so sloppy to just make something up like this. If he did the clinton campaign would have been all over it immediately. Clinton is known to use republican sources for dealing her dirt. She has no loyalties.
I personally can do without either the bush or clitnon family and their psycho dramas and dysfunctional behavior and divisiveness.
I am voting for Obama as I see him as the only tonic to the poison from the rule of both families.

Posted by vwcat | November 19, 2007 12:16 AM

People may have viewed Hillary's handling of the Lewinsky scandal positively, but if Clinton has continued to have dalliances outside of the marriage (a big "if" given that we're not even at the fake-Edwards-affair-scandal level yet) more and more people will begin to see the Clinton marriage as a sham maintained solely to further Hillary's political ambitions. I can't imagine that won't cost her votes in purple states.

Posted by Led | November 19, 2007 12:26 AM

99.9% of the people upset over Clinton's sexuality don't get laid often or well...

Posted by Mr.Murder | November 19, 2007 12:26 AM

People may have viewed Hillary's handling of the Lewinsky scandal positively, but if Bill has continued to have dalliances outside of the marriage (a big "if" given that we're not even at the fake-Edwards-affair-scandal level yet) more and more people will begin to see the Clinton marriage as a sham maintained solely to further Hillary's political ambitions. I can't imagine that won't cost her votes in purple states.

Posted by Led | November 19, 2007 12:27 AM

Personally I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is a classy lady and will make an outstanding president.

I do not think that hating on Hllary is rational and when the general campaign begins I would expect most Americans will see just how competent, intellegent, hard working, and decent she is. I believe she will handily beat any Republican running against her.

Posted by ken | November 19, 2007 12:29 AM

Andrew has a bug up his ass about Hillary, but he does recognize that Rudy is a small man in search of a balcony. Andrew's head will explode if the two parties both end up nominating their current front-runners.

Andrew likes Obama. Well, so do I -- except I consider his post-partisan schtick a demerit, whereas Andrew sees it as a plus. To win the White House, a Democrat doesn't need to "bring us together", but to BEAT THE REPUBLICAN. A chorus of Kumbaya is only possible AFTER the general election.

Andrew also buys into the "Social Security crisis" bullshit peddled by the same wingnuts that think he and his husband will burn in hell. It takes a certain amount of erudition to be that foolish. People who can do simple arithmetic know perfectly well that Social Security is NOT in crisis.

It will be interesting to see where Andrew comes down on the latest GOP-manufactured "crisis", namely "illegal immigration". He's a perfectly legal immigrant, I'm sure, but I wonder how long it will take him to glom on the the fact that the GOP is opposed to immigrants, not illegality.

Andrew's main problem is that he is smart enough to outwit himself, a lot of the time.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | November 19, 2007 12:45 AM

Ken, with all due respect, you sound like an very intelligent fifth grader.....yes, indeed, wouldn't it be nice if the world, and most Americans, thought this way....I ain't holding my breath.

Posted by nick | November 19, 2007 12:46 AM

Staying married is proof of political ambition, not of commitment or love.

Up is down.

Posted by Mr.Murder | November 19, 2007 1:13 AM

Should HRC become president I hope she has a fling with an intern. Even better would be George Clooney poping out of a cake and singing 'Happy Birthday, Madame President.' And when the Republicans ask her about it, she should say, 'Yes, Jake Gyllenhaal went down on me in my Chief of Staff's office.'

Posted by the hypocrisy | November 19, 2007 1:24 AM

for the love of God, let's stop ignoring the fact that if Hillary were elected to national office, we wouldn't be replaying that absurd drama from day one of her presidency.

by all means, let's let the Republicans blackmail us with the threat of repeating the Clinton witch-hunts.

Let's once again allow the GOP to buffalo Dems into doing what Republicans want us to do.

Posted by r€nato | November 19, 2007 1:40 AM

It's not just a question of "affairs", or where Bill Clinton wants to "stick it". Lewinsky was perhaps an "affair". The problem is that Bill Clinton has a long record of serial sexual harassment about which only the most deluded partisan nincompoops could remain in doubt. Hillary Clinton was part of the cleanup crew that mopped up after all his messes, threatening and intimidating his victims, destroying their reputations in the press, encouraging decent Democrats to indulge in vile sexist ridicule about "bimbos", playing the poor deceived wifey when that's the part that was called for, and more.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice. The way I see it, I already put in my Clinton duty. I held my nose and stuck up for him repeatedly in the face of Republican attacks, because I was determined not to let them drive "or guy" from office. I hated having to do it, but I did it. And I assumed the Clintons would have the decency, after dragging the party and country through their tabloid slime, to go off into the sunset following the end of their two terms. But they are both shameless and power-drunk narcissists who won't give the country a break.

The prospect of four or more years with this pair in power literally fills me with nausea. I cannot fathom what sort of twisted, pathological self-loathing and self-destructiveness would lead so many Democrats to even consider bringing the Clinton freak show back to Washington. What's the problem? Do we think Democrats still have too much dignity left, and we need to destroy the last bits that weren't destroyed in the nineties?

It would be one thing if the Clintons were stalwart progressive heroes, whose great efforts of behalf of progressive social change would justify overlooking their massive personal flaws. But they aren't. They represent a gang of pro-corporate, DLC-based, money-dazzled, influence-peddling, suck-up Democrats that I hoped we had seen the last of.

Of course some maniac partisan hacks are still determined to believe that the Clintons did nothing to deserve this opprobrium. It's all the Republicans and that evil Ken Starr who slimed the Clintons and created all the troubled. But the Republicans didn't have to throw slime at the Clintons. The Clintons proved quite effective and cooperative at manufacturing their own slime, and the Republicans just had to expose it.

What the hell is wrong with some of you people? You're all so damn obedient. All it takes is little criticism of the Clintons, and you're out on the barricades again, defending the tawdry twosome and shamelessly attacking their critics. A little Andrew Sullivan column brings forth a vomit of revolting homophobia. But we don't have to do this anymore. This is what this pair did to us - they started a cycle of bitter and reactionary vengefulness, shame and fanaticism that won't go away until they leave the scene. The Clintons should be retired from the White House - permanently. Enough is enough with these two. They had their presidency.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 19, 2007 1:59 AM

Who gives a flying f*ck what the Clintons do in their bedrooms? I mean, we're not friendless 13-year-olds, are we? "Raw Muscles Glutes" and the rest of the Serious People are, sadly, still obsessed with the Clenis, but Bareback Andy has a special stalker-style fascination with Hillary Clinton, and simply cannot shake it. It's pathological. Let's remember too, and I say this as someone who's not a big fan of Hillary Clinton or her Reagan wannabe hubby, that this Bareback Andy is the same person who had such little character that he was calling liberals a "fifth column" of traitors after 9/11 and such miminal foresight that in addition to championing George W. in 2000, he was rooting for the Iraq-Mire in 2002 and 2003. Unfortunately he's still given too large a platform, when he should go hide in a box, but take his Hillarism for what it: sheer, nutcase hysteria. I'm sure there's a prescription drug for it, so if someone knows pharmacology, please suggest it to little Andy to calm his frenzy.

Posted by Dave Wedziorek | November 19, 2007 2:27 AM

Does anyone remember why there were Clinton "scandals" 24/7?
The Republicans pursued them like rabid dogs. A lot of it was exaggerated bullsh*t. To say that the Clintons caused the scandals is to blame the targets of the hate fueled righties...and believe me, they are. I have personal experience with how obsessed they are with hurting people that seem to have an advantage over them. And the paranoia, hoooboy. The wingnuts are gonna be fabricating and pushing BS at the expense of the country no matter who the Dem is. The advantage of a Clinton is that they know how to fight. The fact that it's a woman IS unsettling to a lot of folks. "I just don't trust her...she's driven by ambition...she's ruthless". No one describes male candidates that way.

Posted by scoutt | November 19, 2007 2:32 AM

"by all means, let's let the Republicans blackmail us with the threat of repeating the Clinton witch-hunts.

Let's once again allow the GOP to buffalo Dems into doing what Republicans want us to do.

Posted by r€nato"

Bravo renato. Right on the money.

The people above who say they'll sit out 2008 or that they'll oppose Hillary because they can't stand the thought of Republicans flinging bullshit are part of the problem and another anecdote chronicling our decline as a nation.

Hillary is not my preferred candidate. I've been supporting John Edwards.

But, if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll support her, campaign for her and vote for her.

Sitting home helps the right-wing scum who've been running the country into the ground. Sitting home or voting for some whack-job is a childish act of simpering of vanity.

Whatever anyone thinks of the Clintons in general and their less than liberal policies it should be noted that the Clinton administration decreased the number of political appointees in federal agencies, appointed people to head the various agencies who were competent and ended up with one of the least if not the least corrupt administrtations in our history.

Remember that voting for or otherwise aiding the election of a Republican to the White House is a guarantee of continued incompetent, unresponsive government, continued erosion of American rights,
continued moronic foreign policy, continued politicization of federal agencies, continued appointment of Federalist Society wanks to the federal judiciary, continued destruction of the separation of powers, continued gross fiscal irresposibility, continued erosion of the social safety net, continued abstinence "education", continued empowerment of religious fanatics, continued delay on environmental action. This could go on and on.

The point here is that it's a matter of 'values.'

To the person above who identified himself as a proud liberal Democrat who would sit out the election if Hillary were nominated I have to say that you are no Democrat at all if you don't support the party's nominee. Hillary is no liberal but she also is NOT, by any stretch of the fevered imagination, a conservative schmuck. Grow up.

Posted by cal1942 | November 19, 2007 2:43 AM

It's funny that Andrew has a sex scandal that's much much more irresponsible than anything Bill Clinton did, but he's able to forget it and be moralistic about sex at the same time. Imagine Clinton putting ads for bareback sex in a magazine and claiming it's just his privacy? Once again, it's the hypocrisy - I don't care what Andrew does.

But here Andrew's able to grab on any unsubstantiated, purely invented or long debunked fantasy and add just one more data point to his hate. He's simply weird.

Posted by Desider | November 19, 2007 3:06 AM

Hillary is no liberal but she also is NOT, by any stretch of the fevered imagination, a conservative schmuck.

War with Iraq: conservative.
Continuing war with Iraq indefinitely: conservative.
No single payer health care: conservative.
War with Iran: conservative.
Welfare refrom: conservative.
Not negotiating with countries we don't like: conservative.
Israel's eternal capital in undivided Jerusalem: conservative.
No driver's licenses for illegal immigrants: conservative.

She is a far right extremist-- if you want to argue that the Republicans are farther right, fine, but if you want liberals to vote Democratic, nominate a liberal, not a reactionary. Period.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 19, 2007 3:13 AM

"I'm a proud Democrat and a proud Liberal. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not be my presidential choice. If that's how it is, I'll sit out 2008."

Oh Please! Senator Clinton is not my first choice either, but I'll be damned if I let my misgivings about her benefit the Republicans!

Posted by synykyl | November 19, 2007 3:28 AM

Ha ha ha, glib mentions "real, persistent rumors", I suppose ones that are different from "unreal, persistent rumors". Sorry, a "rumor" is unsubstantiated, and I suppose you can qualify it as "likely" or "not likely" if you really have some way of knowing.

Unless I missed something, Bill's total documented messing around in 8 years at the White House was 10 blowjobs in a rather discreet manner with a single female. So discreet it had to be pulled out through lengthy court proceedings and cross-examination. If Bill behaves this discreetly with Hillary in the White House, there should be no problem, right? Their business.

The Kennedy's in the early 60's would take over a Malibu whorehouse for the evening, as one example. This is not what Clinton did, despite the hysteria of the press. The press simply hated Clinton, get it? Clinton never said, Gary Hart style, "Catch me if you can." The press just played it that way.

Posted by Desider | November 19, 2007 3:33 AM

Arguing that you don't care are the private details of consenting adults while you simultaneously write about the private details of consenting adults doesn't seem cogent, to me.

Is this what passes for a sound logical argument at Oxford and Harvard these days?

Posted by JoeCHI | November 19, 2007 6:25 AM

Re: And because of Bill's behavior we ended up with Chimpy. that was the result of the American people as a whole, not just republicans, feeling a sense of exhaustion from the drama and soap opera of the Clintons and they ran to the Boy King.

Perhaps you live in an alternate universe? Here, the voters preferred Gore in 2000, but Bush was invested by the Supreme Court. Also, in this world the voters showed their disgust with GOP scandal-mogering (not with Clinton himself) in 1998 by handing that party some major defeats in the congressional election of that year.

Posted by JonF | November 19, 2007 6:39 AM

"I don't actually think it's particularly unusual for a married couple's relationship to be strained by infidelity and for them to stay together nonetheless."

Not for Democrats maybe, Republicans usually cheat on their wives and then divorce them.

Posted by aleks | November 19, 2007 7:02 AM

For JoeCHI,

No, sorry, it's that it's irritating for one of the most shrill Bill & Hillary haters to be specifically acting like Bill's sexual activity is outlandish when Sully's activity is miles beyond in any standard terms of promiscuous, indiscreet, and irresponsible.

Short of this obvious hypocrisy, I can't imagine I'd have any other context to think or care about it. I'm not a prude about sex, people do things I wouldn't do and it doesn't bother me - I frankly don't consider candidates' sex lives when deciding on whom to vote. Remember, Sully is the self-proclaimed "Libertarian" - but suddenly a puritan when it comes to Bill Clinton though forgiving when it comes to the sex lives of all the actual candidates, except for condemning Hillary because of her husband's sex acts, not hers. Oh, he calls himself a "feminist" as well. But then he thinks Maureen Dowd is also one.

Posted by Desider | November 19, 2007 8:36 AM

I guess I should add that "private" doesn't completely apply in a self-posted ad with pictures (sans headshot), and the part about not revealing HIV+ to a prospective partner starts to get into legal territory, which is probably the main reason anyone knows about this at all.

Posted by Desider | November 19, 2007 8:44 AM

Desider:

I agree with you completely!

My point was that, in addition to Sullivan being a hypocrite, his argument is also logically flawed.

Posted by JoeCHI | November 19, 2007 9:09 AM

You can see it coming--2004 da capo. In 2004, the election turned on an alleged "scandal" about one of the candidates' war record. Oddly, it was the candidate who had been decorated for heroism in combat, rather than the candidate who used his father's influence to secure a cushy National Guard slot--then skipped out on his service obligations.

In 2008, chances are we'll have a Clinton-Giuliani race--and the way the election gets covered in the mass media is going to be all about sex. Oddly, the discussion of sex scandals will not mention the serial adulterer, cousin-marrier, 3-times loser, turns-command-center-into-love-nest, announces-divorce-to-wife-via-press-conference, cross-dresses-in-spare-time candidate . . .

Posted by rea | November 19, 2007 9:17 AM

Wow -- thank you Dan Kervick! You've stated beter than anyone exactly why Hillary won't be elected. Half her own party cannot vote for her. Establishment dems -- don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by donna | November 19, 2007 10:09 AM

Dan Kervick is a concern troll.

Posted by r€nato | November 19, 2007 10:34 AM

I'm guessing the comments here are the reason Sullivan doesn't allow comments on his site. He's a hypocrite and whiny and incredibly dishonest in his writing. No sense in having his readers pointing it out on a regular basis.

Thanks Matt for the opportunity.

Posted by jenniferm | November 19, 2007 11:39 AM

I haven't read all of the comments, so maybe someone mentioned this, but ...

Knowing what we know of Bill Clinton, isn't is a pretty safe assumption that he's continued to have affairs since leaving office? I bet if you took a poll, a large majority of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Bill Clinton cheat on his wife?" People already know this, and they've factored it into their opinions about Bill and Hillary. Maybe that's why her negatives are so high. As you might say in the stock market, the price of Hillary's stock already reflects the information, even if it's just rumors. And Hillary's stock remains pretty healthy.

Posted by too many steves | November 19, 2007 11:41 AM

What the f*ck is a "concern troll?" Someone who tells you the truth about something you don't want to face?

Posted by donna | November 19, 2007 11:59 AM

In this case probably, yeah, you got the definition right.

A concern troll regarding Hillary would say "I *heart* Hillary Clinton, she's a great hero but she her negatives are just there, fair or unfair".

If you say flat out Hillary is a piece of shit you aren't concern trolling in the correct usage. I think the implication is that you can't think Hillary Clinton is a sleaze and a crook without being a Republican and he is wrong there.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 19, 2007 12:07 PM

Precisely right Ed Marshall. I have never argued - in concern troll fashion - that I think Hillary Clinton would be an awesome president, but am just worried some unnamed others won't vote for her. I obviously dislike her and dislike her politics.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 19, 2007 12:32 PM

I don't know if a Dan Kervick is a concern troll or not, but I don't think Ed Marshall is correct in his definition.

A concern troll could also be someone claiming to be a Democrat who trashes Hillary Clinton and brings up a bunch of right-wing talking points to make the case. You don't have to say I *heart* Clinton and then trash her. You could also say I *heart* the Democratic Party and then trash her.

Of course a genuine Democrat could also trash Hillary for completely sincere reasons, and I have no reason to think that Dan is not sincere.

Actually, I think Dan, in his post above, makes a good point about Hillary:

It would be one thing if the Clintons were stalwart progressive heroes, whose great efforts of behalf of progressive social change would justify overlooking their massive personal flaws. But they aren't. They represent a gang of pro-corporate, DLC-based, money-dazzled, influence-peddling, suck-up Democrats that I hoped we had seen the last of.

I pretty much agree with this and I wish that people who don't like HRC and would prefer to see someone else nominated would make the case this way.

All of the talk about how we "know" how sleazy the Clintons are, how scandal plagued, what a serial adulterer Bill was, a sexual harasser, how he trashed the country and dragged us through sleaze--well people who say things like this should be careful about calling other people "obedient".

In fact, aside from receiving blow jobs consensually, there is absolutely zero evidence to support any of the allegations of financial or sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton and an absolute mountain of evidence of a large and effective conspiracy to invent scandals out of whole cloth.

Dan Kervick says the Clintons "started a cycle of bitter and reactionary vengefulness, shame and fanaticism that won't go away until they leave the scene." This gets the facts exactly backward. The Clintons did no such thing. They were bitterly attacked by reactionary, vengeful, and fanatical partisan right-wing hacks from very early on in the 1992 campaign. These attacks have essentially not ended up to this very day. Stories like Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, the misuse of the Arkansas State Troopers, Clinton running drugs out of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary murdering Vince Foster and a slew of others--every one of these was absolutely and completely made up. Time has shown that there was no truth in any of these.

Dan Kervick thinks the Clintons bear some responsibility for being the target of such a tremendous trashing. He seems to think that if some other Democrat had been elected in 1992 then the country would have been spared such scandal and if some other Democrat is elected in 2008 then again we might yet be spared. If he is not a concern troll, then Dan Kervick lives in a dream world.

I strongly suggest, Dan, that you read The Hunting of the President by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason--the definitive book on the "Clinton Scandals". Then come back and let's talk.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 19, 2007 2:00 PM

Has Bill been a good boy? Probably not.
Would news of an affair hurt Hillary? My sense is yes, as much because people got sick of hearing about Bill's sex life as anything.

Is Novak just doing a straight reporting of some rumors he has heard? Ha.

Posted by carrie | November 19, 2007 2:31 PM

I've read posts by Dan Kervik on other blogs. I disagree with him (somewhat) about Senator Clinton, but I value his opinion. He's no troll.

Posted by synykyl | November 19, 2007 2:36 PM

Carrie, Too Many Steves -

Think - 10 blowjobs in 8 years (actually in 1 year out of 8). With 1 not-your-wife mate. Wow, thats promiscuous, eh?

You two know so much, maybe you should call each other up and exchange notes. Maybe you're onto Whitewater II. Hollywood's waiting.

Posted by Desider | November 19, 2007 4:21 PM

On Sullivan: there is also the huge fawning schoolboy crush (I'm not being homophobic, that is the only word to describe it) on Bush after 9/11 and well into 2004. IF someone had the time to go back and mine the archives... dude, if my memory serves me correctly, it's just about the most embarassing, pathetic load of crap I've bever seen. Plus he's a Bell Curve fan. Supported it and published bug chunks of it. He still pushes the racial IQ thing. He also printed something negative he knew was inccorrect about the Clinton health care plan for ideological reasons. He was rationalizing that just the other day. He's the dumbest "smart person" I've ever seen.

Posted by cw | November 19, 2007 5:56 PM

Desider,

You really think Bill Clinton has been faithful to his wife except for that little slip-up with Monica Lewinsky? Really?

Posted by too many steves | November 19, 2007 6:04 PM

Well, a rumor about something embarrassing from an unnamed source is worth exactly nothing.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 19, 2007 10:59 PM

Well, there's a simple solution to the "Bill Clinton is permanently 17" problem: Hillary can stop being "permanently forty" and screw somebody else herself (shouldn't be too hard to find someone, she's not that ugly.)

That would instantly boost her ratings through the roof with every woman and many men in this country.

As for Bill, of COURSE he's still fooling around. Anybody who thinks otherwise is out of his mind. I doubt anybody in the US believes otherwise.

I personally don't believe in marriage anyway, so it's no surprise to me that Bill and Hillary stay together for their own purposes despite his professional philandering. When you can make that kind of money and get that kind of power for remaining married, why not? They'd have to be stupid to get divorced - and whatever they are, they're not stupid.

But Dan Kervick is right - the whole Clinton schtick is seriously old at this point, just like the Bush version. The Clintons ARE a "freak show" just like the Bush family is and the Kennedy family is. This country can't find a President except in three families - Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton?

Please...I'd rather see Brangelina in the White House...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 20, 2007 12:26 AM

Too Many Steves,

First, it's not my spouse, so I don't care.

Second, I have no idea - I'm sure people think I've been much more promiscuous than I have. Perceptions and people's guesses are often way off track.

Third, rumor, speculation and innuendo do not make proof.

Fourth, I'd buy Bush a whole bevy full of high class hookers if that would make him govern worth a damn. What exactly are YOUR priorities?

Posted by Desider | November 20, 2007 1:10 AM

Desider,

Read my first comment. Bill Clinton's infidelity isn't a problem for me -- I'll be voting for Obama, but that's not why. What I said was, people already know Bill Clinton cheats on his wife, so some "scandal" that revealed that same fact won't have any impact on Hilary's chances.

Posted by too many steves | November 20, 2007 11:15 AM

Too many Steves,

Aha, yes, if he doesn't cheat it's a bonus, if he does, who cares. Good, America has moved on.

Posted by Desider | November 20, 2007 1:26 PM