Just out of curiosity. Have you read The Hunting Of The President by Joe Conason?

I'm an avid Obama supporter, but I appreciated Moyers interview with Wright. That could possibly be because I agree with him, too, though. Reopening Bill's history of philandering would be counterproductive at this point to Obama's message, but that's just my two cents. Lest we forget, a large percentage of Americans still believe in the adage "Stand By Your Man", and I fear reopening those wounds would bolster her support in the exact demographic Obama is looking to make inroads toward.

Moyers is good people. He's not the problem.

Oh Maria

I don't care why Hillary Clinton didn't leave a serial sexual abuser.

I do reject the idea that the 22nd Amendment or common sense permit a pseudo-third term for this guy, and I do reject the idea that a copresidency by him is a good idea, for reasons including his serial sexual abuse, and perjury disbarment. I don't want disbarred lawyers for copresidents. I could practice law for 1,000 years and not be disbarred, because I wouldn't lie under oath.

I guess it's just too hard to like Hillary and admit that Bill is/has grown pretty toxic. I've never heard anyone say that. It's too subtle, and insufficiently shrill. Plus, it admits shades of grey, and Hillary's fans don't do that.

I agree Articleman - I don't care either why Hillary didn't leave Bill. No one can fully understand what goes on between two people in a marriage, and it's their business.

But I do care what goes on in the White House and I don't want Bill back there, not because of what he did with an intern but because of what he did to Democratic policies.

BYW - thanks to Bademus and Donnerpass. I finally have an avatar!

This is just ridiculous. Who gives a fat crap about any of this??? Aren't issues more important than this reality TV crap? Or are you Obama People more into how things look than how things ARE?

First, a guy cheating on his wife is NOT a "sexual abuser." He's a )*&%^%#(, but not a "sexual abuser."

Second, Why aren't you all after John McCain for cheating on his first wife - you know, the wife who was disfigured by a car accident, and selflessly didn't let the military notify him while he was in Vietnam? He cheated on her with his current wife, nonetheless. That's a hell of a lot worse than a guy lying about a skank to protect his wife and kid.

Monica was the Rethug tool to wasting your tax money on impeaching Bill. If you want to waste your energy whining about HRC sticking by her husband for the sake of her kid, then go ahead. A man cheating on his wife is NOT the worst thing in the world that can happen to a person. This is why Hillary is going to kick your butts for the rest of the campaign, and also at Convention.

Moyers doesn't do pieces on women that were looking for groupie sex.

Or a rhetorical question for journalists to write about or think about when they are setting the narrative.

Because it's garbage and Moyers is one of the last respectable journalists.

I've read it. I was, at one time, a complete believer in the conspiracy deal. And there is no question that it was moved on by the Right. But I read the Wiley book because I don't like being told what I can and can not read.

I think the point here is fairness. IF the Wright material is irrelevant, than the Lewinsky stuff should be also.

Bill's "girlie" questions are as timely as the Keating Five, and Vicki Iseman. Let's get it all out there. Inquiring minds want to know.

I agree that getting blown by the intern, if she raises no issue of consent, is not "sexual abuse," though it courts a disastrous sexual harassment lawsuit that never materialized.

But Kathleen Willey was abused, and others appeared to me to be as well, and this was my view when I was voting Clinton in the '90s. It was not my favorite flaw in a leader I supported. Sorry I didn't drink your Bill cannot be criticized Kool Aid. Hillary should have suspended him from campaigning after SC.

Would have shot up her solidarity numbers with women. But she doesn't think that way . . . too bad for her and her inept campaign.

I read Wiley's book and it's clear that her encounter with Clinton happened.

Did Willey mention in her book that Starr had to re-immunize her because she lied in her sworn depositions? Did she mention how hot she was to have sex with the Big Dog?

Excuse me, but isn't this the kind of negative smear tactic that Obama says is s wrong?

articleman...You can call Willey whatever you choose but I'll just stick with the facts.

According to Tripp’s detailed, sworn testimony, Willey pursued a romance with Clinton right from the start of her White House employment. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access along the Chesapeake Bay.

And that's your "victim".

obama's coke dealer? don't you mean the stuff that bubba had right under his nose yet failed to inhale? either way you cut it, the clintons are that much more dirty.....

petty is petty...sleeping with the enemy is far worse than attending on his sermons, but who is keeping tally here.

i just wish i could speak for obama. the media, rev wright, hrc and gop are slaughtering the poor guy and i just wish i could say for him what he cannot possibly say for himself....

All I can say is this: The "Reverend Wright" is a narcissistic ass-hole. He is getting his 15 minutes of fame at the expense of Obama, who admired him and was loyal to him. He could have just kept to himself and promised these interviews at a later date, but the lure of the TV camera was too much.

He is no different than other evangelical ministers who love to see themselves on tv. Too bad Obama bought into his hype. Compared to the crap the other candidates have bought into: lying, stealing, graft, embezzlement, and on and on, I consider it a big NOTHING that Obams got sucked into his universe.

And yes, although 2 wrongs don't make a right, I agree that it would be an interesting "evaluation" to look at why Hillary had the judgement to stay with someone who serially abused women and denied it. It is no more intrusive than speculating about why Obama stayed with a pastor who gave some sermons that were controversial.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

If you're saying that the Wright nontroversy has been blown out of proportion and exploited, then I can agree with that. I think that Fox probably deserves most of the credit, but I also think it's fair to say that Clinton hasn't been afraid to lean on it.

I don't understand the Moyers angle. If there's anyone that I want interviewing Wright, it's Moyers. Moyers didn't create any of this and his approach is perfect for airing it out. If in your last sentence you meant Moyers was laughing about it, then I'd have to say that you're dead wrong.

On another note, the last thing that I'd want to see here is resorting to a tit-for-tat approach to reveling in this sort of nonsense. It's exactly the reason that the last debate was awful and it's the reason that there's little to be gained from this protracted campaign. Nothing new or relevant is being discussed. The candidates should be talking about Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, energy and the economies national and global. They're not and they won't, at least not until we can move on to the general election.

The attitude in the posts of Obama supporters reflects DIRECTLY on the candidate because he's the one who "inspires" the aggressive tone. Very few people still believe he's the "nice guy". He does what most people in expensively tailored suits do: delegate.

I know these posts only get a day but please continue to recommend this post. Josh should keep it at the top the list permanently; a perfect example of the depths TPM has sunk to.

Anyone considering this should be ASHAMED of themselves!
I am ashamed on your behalf.
What have you become?!
It is not Clinton's ( either or both!) fault that Wright is behaving badly!
Nor is it Moyer's!
I find this post and all who encourage it repugnant!

Wow, I am surprised that so many readers fail utterly to get the point of this post, which professordarkheart put well up-thread:

"a) Hillary has "associated herself" with Bill as more than just her husband; he's her closest political confederate and as such far more relevant to a Clinton presidency than Wright is to Obama's.

b) In many of his liaisons Bill was engaging in what, by any workplace policy I've ever seen, would clearly be sexual harassment. Consent isn't so much the issue; it's that he was abusing his (very) supervisory role to gain sexual access.

b) His encounter with Kathleen Willey, as she describes it, constitutes the criminal offense of aggravated sexual assault.

c) Oh yeah, and perjury.

d) When HRC offers to make someone her co-president, which she does by relying on her own supposedly co-presidential role in making arguments about her experience, it's more than relevant what ethical and/or legal lapses he might have had.

Relationships are complicated. As a feminist, I would always defend Hillary's (or any woman's) right to make her own judgments about her family affairs.

The problem isn't their private troubles. It's that Bill Clinton has abused the public trust by exploiting the power of his position and broken the law by perjuring himself. Personally, I'm inclined to forgive perjury committed during a witchhunt that was a far greater evil for the country than his petty lies; since he's never been convicted of sexual abuse, the public record on that stuff isn't definitive for me either.

But surely it's not out-of-bounds to suggest that HRC's willingness to tolerate these lapses, not in her husband but in her presidential partner, is a legitimate topic for conversation."

Recommended in hopes that TPM readers will begin to reengage their brains and read for content and context and realize this post exposes the weak tea the entire 'Wright nontroversy' is, and how all sense of perspective and proportion have gone out the window within the reality based community as of late.

This is an attempt to get back on topic and so am pasting this final comment from Lestadelc from earlier in the thread.

"Recommended in hopes that TPM readers will begin to reengage their brains and read for content and context and realize this post exposes the weak tea the entire 'Wright nontroversy' is, and how all sense of perspective and proportion have gone out the window within the reality based community as of late." Posted by Lestatdelc

Girl from the bronx talking now:

I've read Maria's post several times and I don't think she, at any time, put down Moyers. She's just asking the question about past associations. If one candidate get's grilled alla McCarthy about his past associations, then the other candidate should be examined in the same way.

I don't question Hillary's choices about staying in her marriage. I'm sure she had her reasons.

But I AM interested in the responses of the women who claim they were abused by Bill Clinton.

And if she can ask why Obama didn't walk away from Wright's church, I think it's fair to ask why she hasn't defended these women in any way.

It's an issue of character.

For all the complaining from Clinton supporters throughout this post, if you read this thread completely, it's the Clinton people, who for the most part are disrespectful, rude and out of control. Something in this post hit an open nerve with them.

For people coming to this thread again, I'd like to offer these comments made earlier by professordarkheart:

I think a lot of the commentary is missing the point of this post. It's not that a wife should never forgive her husband for adultery or that (some of) Bill's extramarital adventures were consensual.

It's this:

a) Hillary has "associated herself" with Bill as more than just her husband; he's her closest political confederate and as such far more relevant to a Clinton presidency than Wright is to Obama's.

b) In many of his liaisons Bill was engaging in what, by any workplace policy I've ever seen, would clearly be sexual harassment. Consent isn't so much the issue; it's that he was abusing his (very) supervisory role to gain sexual access.

b) His encounter with Kathleen Willey, as she describes it, constitutes the criminal offense of aggravated sexual assault.

c) Oh yeah, and perjury.

d) When HRC offers to make someone her co-president, which she does by relying on her own supposedly co-presidential role in making arguments about her experience, it's more than relevant what ethical and/or legal lapses he might have had.

Relationships are complicated. As a feminist, I would always defend Hillary's (or any woman's) right to make her own judgments about her family affairs.

The problem isn't their private troubles. It's that Bill Clinton has abused the public trust by exploiting the power of his position and broken the law by perjuring himself. Personally, I'm inclined to forgive perjury committed during a witchhunt that was a far greater evil for the country than his petty lies; since he's never been convicted of sexual abuse, the public record on that stuff isn't definitive for me either.

But surely it's not out-of-bounds to suggest that HRC's willingness to tolerate these lapses, not in her husband but in her presidential partner, is a legitimate topic for conversation.

Sex addiction is an illness; a dis-ease. There are 12-step programs for it, and families learn to overcome it and stay together. The Clintons have, one way or another, overcome this. Hillary's strength to keep her family and marriage together under these circumstances is commendable. She could have thrown him to the wolves and still maintained her own successful political career. She risked her own career to keep her family together. This is role model to be emulated.

The judgment Obama made to stay at a church with a man like Rev. Wright (who I now question whether he really is trying to help or hinder Obama) for 20 years is what concerns me. His relationships with Rezko, Ayers and Wright are judgment calls that make me concerned about Obama's thinking. He is a man who has been considering a run for the Presidency for years, yet he allowed himself to be connected with people who would certainly not help him achieve this goal.

I have to agree wit you. Do you think she can be elected if she gets the nomination?

The recommendation count for this post is terrifying - it appears that Change is, for a fair number of Obama supporters here, just what many Clinton supporters have alleged: a cheap political slogan.

Where along the line did we lose sight of Obama's admirable strategy of not lowering the discourse to his opponents' level?

"Who are [these women] going to vote for? I don't think it will be Hillary." In fact, Gennifer Flowers endorsed Hillary - http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/gennifer_flowers_embraces_the.html.

But then again, juding by this post, not thinking seems to be your strong point....

Hillarym99, I am a teacher, I have an autistic kid, and I have blogged a lot about NCLB, health care and autism. Just not on here. :) So I might if I have time. Don't get me started on here....lol

I don't think that there aren't Hillary supporters that aren't jerks. I've just never come across any who treated people or talked about people who support Obama the way the Obama People talk about us. And any time someone does on the internets, they don't get away with it. But gawd forbid we say boo about BO....it's the apocalypse.

Obama should have cut Wright off at the nuts from the get-go, so that something like this couldn't come back and slam him. But now he's pissed Wright off, and that is coming back to bite him. Well, it could be idiocy, too. I don't know if Wright is as smart as the media wants you to think he is. If he was THAT smart, he'd shut up and not screw the potential Presidency.... Thank goodness Obama didn't piss off the president of Iran or something.

But no. Between people like Wright, people who post inane crap like the OP who is more concerned with Bill's Johnson and skanks instead of $4.00 gas, and the media's creation of the future president, the Dems are sunk this election.

Hillary isn't ruining the party. Idiots are.

Okay, I'm going to do a Hillary and flip-flop on the position I took yesterday on Jeremiah Wright. Previously, I was absolutely effusive. At one level, I still think Wright "rocks" and am still intellectually engaged by the material in the Moyers interview.

However, I am now much more concerned about Jeremiah's jeremiads and am worried that perhaps he is bitter (that word) and that his sustained public presence could be destructive to Obama's campaign, which is my main concern. On the other hand, perhaps this will serve to support the view of Barack as separate from Wright.

I'll address just another tangent on this thread. Ignore Chelsea Clinton. She doesn't even register with me, except as an unfortunate only child who is too close to her parents and doesn't yet know what she wants to do with her life. I know she's a little hedgehog,* but it does us no good to go after her or anyone else's child.

Sorry for my weasel words and flip-flops, but I've been distracted by all the sniper fire.

*as in hedge funds

Billy,

You are the only really smart guy in your herd. You know that Maria is a provocateur. She won this post with the headline, as you know. And you tried like hell to stop it from getting legs. I was the troll who kept it going, obviously. But the political intent worked. It was never a question of winning an argument, but finding out what was there by simply injecting the issue and breaking the bubble of denial in Obama supporters.

Many are not who they seem at this low level of discussion. Perhaps they are folks looking for material for some greater good or ill. Perhaps their platform is larger than this one.

But thanks for getting it.

Best wishes.