Was Bill Clinton's extra-marital affair a personal, family matter?

Question

Because the way I remember it, republicans tried to impeach him over it...

Funnily enough, these same people are now suggesting that Sarah Palin's unwed, pregnant, 17-year old daughter should be somehow "off limits" in the political dialogue.

Is Barack Obama's ceding of this issue an example of Democrats allowing Republicans to define the parameters of the debate? In doing so, do they automatically concede a strategic ideological advantage?

Answer 1

Clinton's situation is a little different.  As a Democrat, i'd like to agree but in Clinton's case he lied under oath.  If he'd said yeah I did it there would have been nothing they could really do to him.  (What Hillary would have done to him is another story, tho).

Answer 2

Did the republicans go after Chelsea's abortion? Nope. The only reason why it was public was #1 there were allegations of rape, and #2 he lied under oath in front of a grand jury and #3 Gov Palin's daughter is NOT running for office, shes not putting herself out to the public.

Answer 3

Sarah Palin's daughter is NOT running for political office. Harrassment of the family is not cool.

Answer 4

Palin's "family matters" are a distraction. Bill Clinton's extra-marital affairs were a distraction that got in way of governing the country. That's the reason Hillary was past-over. The Clinton's were carrying too much baggage, and so does Palin.  

Answer 5

He had numerous extra marital affairs.  Are you talking about the Monica Lewinsky affair?  Unfortunately for him, he lied about it under oath.  That's perjury.

Perjury:  criminal offense of making false statements under oath

Answer 6

Well, since he was receiving a hummer from under the presidential desk, then that made it a PUBLIC affair.

Answer 7

If I remember correctly it was a POLITICAL ISSUE.

Answer 8

Which one?

Answer 9

It was, until sexual harrasment accusations were involved. But besides that, it shouldn't have been anyones business.

Answer 10

check your facts. he wasnt impeached for cheating on hillary. he was impeached for perjury.

Are you suggesting the a president being sued for sexual harrasment shouldnt have been covered by the news?Or the fact that he lied under oath which he was convicted of shouldnt be reported?

  

Answer 11

It's the do as I say and not as I do, Rethuglicans.

Answer 12

Ken Starr, two years of our lives, and over eighty million taxpayer dollars says, NO, it wasn't.

Answer 13

LOL! ["ugly fellatrix"] LOL!

Actually, Obama is defining terms by asserting what he determines is worth (or out of bounds for) attacking:

Family members

Patriotism of opponents

If he sticks to these, even if the opposer's don't, he wins on the character issue, the trustworthy question, and on the "change" ideal. Who would seem more Presidential?

After all, wouldn't his racist enemies most like to see and hear him 'Get Black Up In Here!"? To uncharacteristically attack as they've attacked and gotten away with it?

No. Obama must out Conservative the Conservatives, stay on the high road, and bring home this election.

Obama 2008

P.S. : To answer your question, "No" Bill Clinton was on the People's property with the People's employee, and often  on the People's time during the affair dalliances. Not a personal, family matter. --But not worth impeachment!