The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by scbelle

I never have liked Hillary, so honestly, I skew my opinion of her motives unfavorably.

And you are entitled to your opinion...for me, her personal struggles just don't play much of a role in whether or not I think she is capable of being president. I like many of her ideas, and I like that she seems to discuss her plans for how she hopes to accomplish things (unlike Obama who, to me, sounds like a broken record that keeps repeating the words "change" and "hope").

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Wouldn't a resolved moral value be that marriage is "till death do we part?"

Touche!

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Wouldn't a resolved moral value be that marriage is "till death do we part?"

How about the "forsaking all others part" for Bill?

If you think "till death do we part" means accepting repeated adultery, maybe, but I somehow doubt that someone as progressive as Hillary had trouble conceptually with divorce.

Most of her other positions seem pretty fluid.

ETA: I'm thinking more about this. Even the Catholic Church, which I tend to think of as being really resolved on the issue of marriage and divorce, wouldn't require you to remain with a spouse who repeatedly committed adultery. Now, they wouldn't let you remarry if you separated, but you don't just have to keep putting up with crap.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

UGAalum94, have you decided who you're turning to now?

I just voted for Romney today. I really really like Huckabee, but I think that Romney wants most of the same things and has a much better chance at the White House.

I can emphatically say that it won't be Huckabee. I'm not a fan, and I don't trust him.

I think my preference is for Romney, but I really do intend to vote in the Democratic primary for Obama to try to keep Hillary off the ticket in the general.

It would probably be better for the Republican candidate is that Hillary be the Democratic candidate, but I can live with the results of a Obama Vs. McCain or Romney election, whatever they may be, more easily.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How about the "forsaking all others part" for Bill?

If you think "till death do we part" means accepting repeated adultery, maybe, but I somehow doubt that someone as progressive as Hillary had trouble conceptually with divorce.

Most of her other positions seem pretty fluid.

ETA: I'm thinking more about this. Even the Catholic Church, which I tend to think of as being really resolved on the issue of marriage and divorce, wouldn't require you to remain with a spouse who repeatedly committed adultery. Now, they wouldn't let you remarry if you separated, but you don't just have to keep putting up with crap.

The Catholic church also teaches a whole lot about forgiveness - maybe they view that as something important in their marriage. Lots of progressive women still believe marriage is a lifetime commitment, believe it or not. And who knows, maybe they had an open marriage agreement and we didn't know it?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I just hate the idea of that everyone says she should have divorced him - especially when it comes from the "family values" republicans. Adultery is a very difficult situation in a marriage and I think it is hard to say how one would react without being in that situation.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

The Catholic church also teaches a whole lot about forgiveness - maybe they view that as something important in their marriage. Lots of progressive women still believe marriage is a lifetime commitment, believe it or not. And who knows, maybe they had an open marriage agreement and we didn't know it?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I just hate the idea of that everyone says she should have divorced him - especially when it comes from the "family values" republicans. Adultery is a very difficult situation in a marriage and I think it is hard to say how one would react without being in that situation.

I disagree that truly progressive women believe that women should stay with a repeatedly philandering spouse. Progressive women don't believe in allowing people to treat women like crap, IMO. Similarly, it's not a reflection of family values to stay with someone who repeatedly violates your marital fidelity. It's a mockery of marriage values, which may be why it bothers "family values" types more than more progressive types.

Certainly, forgiveness is going to be a component of any marriage, and you're right that we have no idea of what their understanding is.

But she isn't stuck with him in some kind of irrevocable way, which was the original point here, I think. Someone pointed out that much of what one poster objected to was beyond Hillary's control. Being married to Bill is not beyond her control.

Certainly, it's up to her, but I think it's fair, knowing what we do know about his serial adultery, to make judgments about her character one way or another about her willingness to stick with him.

He's either an assess or a liability. I don't think anyone thinks that he's incidental to her potential presidency.

[jon1856]

After watching CNN tonight, I find myself liking Huckabee more than the rest of the Republicans.

[Drolefille]

Adultery is an acceptable reason for annulment in the Catholic Church.

I'm not going to judge Hillary for staying with Bill, she had her reasons and they work for her (and him(, she appears to be happy enough with him.

I'll judge her for other things, but not for that.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Adultery is an acceptable reason for annulment in the Catholic Church.

I'm not going to judge Hillary for staying with Bill, she had her reasons and they work for her (and him(, she appears to be happy enough with him.

I'll judge her for other things, but not for that.

I feel free to evaluate politicians on any indication that seems to point to fundamental character. I really don't spend a lot of time trying to pass judgment on people really in my life, so I understand on that level what you guys are saying.

This is the most random highjack I have ever personally participated in, I think:

I thought that annulments were really just based on the circumstances at the time of the sacrament. Are you sure that something that happens after the sacrament can actually be grounds?

(If there was cheating even as they prepared to get married, then sure. But if the marriage was valid when it occurred, can it be annulled for something that happens later? )

Even if you can't get an annulment so you could remarry later, you still don't have to stay. I don't think any church or power that marries people in the US requires that you stick it out with someone who refuses to be faithful.

[AGDee]

There are lots of things that can happen after marriage that allow for annulment in the Catholic church. Withholding sex, refusing to "be fruitful and multiply" (using birth control against your spouses wishes), adultery, abuse.. all kinds of things. I don't remember which grounds I used with my first marriage, but there was a whole list. Also, I don't know anybody who has applied for an annulment in the last two decades who didn't get it (personal, anecdotal, yes). Then again, we're in a pretty liberal Archdiocese.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I feel free to evaluate politicians on any indication that seems to point to fundamental character. I really don't spend a lot of time trying to pass judgment on people really in my life, so I understand on that level what you guys are saying.

This is the most random highjack I have ever personally participated in, I think:

I thought that annulments were really just based on the circumstances at the time of the sacrament. Are you sure that something that happens after the sacrament can actually be grounds?

(If there was cheating even as they prepared to get married, then sure. But if the marriage was valid when it occurred, can it be annulled for something that happens later? )

Even if you can't get an annulment so you could remarry later, you still don't have to stay. I don't think any church or power that marries people in the US requires that you stick it out with someone who refuses to be faithful.

I think the marriage can get annulled under the provision that the cheater was dishonest at the time of taking the vows. There are actually a few ways of dissolution as well I believe but it's been a while since I learned all that.

My choice not to evaluate/judge Hillary on that issue is a personal and professional one. She's the expert on herself and on what suits her relationship wise.

[PhiRhoSister]

Back to the original topic -- I am so frustrated that everyone is dropping out BEFORE the super tues!! Wasn't the whole point of states moving up their primary dates to Feb, so more states could have more imput in the process!?!

I feel like all the candidates just gave up before the contest ever started. I was excited to vote in the primaries, but not now. I am beginning to believe everything is so rigged.

[Tom Earp]

1. The push started to soon.

2. The fact of money.

Some were not worth a darn.

Some still are not.

Must love TV and the internet!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PhiRhoSister

Back to the original topic -- I am so frustrated that everyone is dropping out BEFORE the super Tues!! Wasn't the whole point of states moving up their primary dates to Feb, so more states could have more input in the process!?!

I feel like all the candidates just gave up before the contest ever started. I was excited to vote in the primaries, but not now. I am beginning to believe everything is so rigged.

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

1. The push started to soon.

2. The fact of money.

Some were not worth a darn.

Some still are not.

Must love TV and the Internet!

Both of you, in your own way, are correct.
As posted above somewhere, the best way of doing this would be rotating 5 Super Tuesdays separated by two weeks or so.

But that is just too simple and too political to ever happen.

[UGAalum94]

I'm still heartbroken about Fred, and as if to taunt me, I got a package from Friends of Fred today. What am I going to do now with a big sort of painted looking image poster with Thompson 2008 and, no joke, a rhinestone pin that spells out Thompson 2008? If he were still in the race, both would amuse and delight me to no end, but as it is, just kind of reminds me of what won't happen.

It also reminded me of the incredible expense that you've got even when you drop out because you've had to plan and pre-order everything. I suppose maybe that's encouraging people to drop out sooner rather than later. You can't even just maintain your spending, you kind of have to accelerated it for something like Super Tuesday.

Maybe all the drop-outs looked at the cost of ads in all the markets for Super Tuesday and just buckled.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm still heartbroken about Fred, and as if to taunt me, I got a package from Friends of Fred today. What am I going to do now with a big sort of painted looking image poster with Thompson 2008 and, no joke, a rhinestone pin that spells out Thompson 2008? If he were still in the race, both would amuse and delight me to no end, but as it is, just kind of reminds me of what won't happen.

It also reminded me of the incredible expense that you've got even when you drop out because you've had to plan and pre-order everything. I suppose maybe that's encouraging people to drop out sooner rather than later. You can't even just maintain your spending, you kind of have to accelerated it for something like Super Tuesday.

Maybe all the drop-outs looked at the cost of ads in all the markets for Super Tuesday and just buckled.

CBS Radio just reported that Mitt has a media buy for this up coming week in the 7 figures.