Ok I have some questions on those that hate and bash Hillary and i.e. the Clintons overall.
First on the moral aspect of her husbands adultery.
# When Conservatives demonized Bill Clinton for his "scandalous" immorality, I couldn't help but wonder how Christians who should be familiar with the story of King David and Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon, (2 Samuel, 11:2-25) ) could possibly be so upset with Bill Clinton. Looking back at the original story, I was struck by how much worse David's behavior was, and ended up with some very disturbing questions, not just about him, but about the other actors in this story, i.e.: How could the scriptures give such honor and deference to such a despicable adulterer and murderer?
# . If Bathsheba resisted, then wasn't David a rapist as well as an adulterer?
# . If she cooperated, then wasn't she an accomplice to the murder of her husband as well as adulteress ?
# . When his defenders say that God made him (and Bathsheba) pay for his (their) sin, by taking the life of the child, what kind of justice is that? What kind of God takes the life of a totally innocent child as payment for the horrendous sins of the child's parents?
# . If David was truly repentant, why wasn't he required to stop taking his stolen woman into his bed and making babies with her?
But then an editorial in Australia sums it up best.
"Thank God we (Australia) got the criminals and they (America) got the Puritans."
Now onto the witch hunt of the neo-conservative right, in the crusade to find something to take down the Clintons. Here is some simple facts that have played out in the end.
Bill Clinton inherited a mess after the "most scurrilous administration in history", per Haynes Johnson in his Sleepwalking Through History on the eight Reagan years, and his Vice President's 4 year extension of those years.
He has assembled a list of 75 members of Reagan's administration who were charged with criminal behavior. Others list as many as 245 who were investigated and 145 who were charged with crimes by Justice and "Independent Counsels".
While on the other hand.
# Republicans in Congress spent $110,000,000 trying to prove illegal activites. Result -- One person was"convicted" of a "felony" commited while working in the Clinton administration. The evil fellow took $12,000 in trips to sporting events, etc. OIC Smaltzsmear concluded that they had been no "quid pro quo", i.e. no public benefit given in exchange for any gift given him. Yet, the man could not afford to fight the charges, so he pled guilty.
# Newt Gingrich and CBO Director June O'Neill said Clinton budgets were honest. No b.s. like Bush who has lied several times over his budgets and tax cuts.
First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century. Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans. We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."
What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history. The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000.
That recession never came instead;
The federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years.
Yet this one person can be so polarizing. Why is that is that, why do people not look past the rhetoric that comes on both sides. An just looked at the over all facts.
Finally onto the biggest scare subject that is laid upon Hillary. That being socialize medicine. How, will this doom us as a country with capitalist free markets. Socialize medicine in Great Britain, seems not to have doomed them. Seeing that the Pound is much stronger then the Dollar on world markets. Or the simple facts, Amoco (American Oil company) is owned by British Petroleum.
I mean if socialize medicine for the American people will doom are free markets as suggested. Then how come it hasn't doomed Great Britain.