Does Character Count?

[rucky]

I hope this thread goes in the right direction: I'm posting it primarily in light of Ah-nold and the "But Clinton..." defense I've been hearing from TV yappers. Basically, the spinmeisters have shown their hypocricy in their attempt to show OUR hypocracy about the outrage many have expressed in the latest Arnold scandal.

I know the two compared figures and the incidents differ greatly re: consent. I know Dems have and will continue to have the moral high ground - even if they don't always use it. But I also remember a popular defense of Clinton back in the day was that "Character Doesn't Matter in politics."

I invite DUers to re-evaluate and discuss how much character does or does not matter regarding public figures. Does it weigh into your judgements upon * & co? How about the 10 candidates on our side?

I hope we can keep this positive, because I think - head to head with Bush - ANY Democrat would far and away whallop Bushco on the issue of Character.

I was surprised to hear Leiberman bring it up this morning, and after I got over my initial overall bad Leiberman vibe, I started thinking - in light of all the nasty stuff going on - maybe the character debate isn't such a bad thing to bring out into the open.

For the record: Leaning toward Kucinich & Dean. Like them ALL - ABB!

[roguevalley]

1. Character is everything in leadership.

right now, Limbaugh's people are spinning. he was a moralizer of the worst kind, like nearly every single rethug out there. They deal in
absolutes, therefore there can be no hazy middle ground allowed for human failing. Its either/or for them. Ship them all to europe if they do drugs! Lock them up!

Then when they get gaffed, they have no place to go but hypocracy. Limbaugh was toking all the time he was moralizing and now he's got no place to go. He's hoist on his lies and moralizing.

Character is the thing that true leadership has that makes you keep moving forward, through no matter what comes. The do as i say, not as I do party will never get it. Repugs can back arnold -nazi sympathizer, serial woman molester, drug addict, violent hollywood gonzo, etc.- and hold their nose because they are at the core, cowards, hypocrites and liars.

They always over reach. Their lack of character will sink them everytime.

[soupkitchen]

2. Forget spin and spinmeisters. Start calling it lies and liemeisters

Spinmeister is one of those morally deadening terms; neutral no moral culpability. But a liemeister is a liar, no ifs, ands, or equivications.

[mumon]

3. <Machievelli>Only for Business Reasons</Machievelli>

And I mean that.

It's OK to be for Clinton despite the Lewinsky scandal- because to be for Clinton advanced our agenda better than the alternative.

Likewise, it's fair game to go after Ah-nold and Limbaugh because - it advances our agenda.

Is that hypocritical? No, perhaps cynical, but the aim is really to advance the agenda. And if some sheeple are disuaded by Limbaugh and Ah-nazi, good. It helps our agenda.

It's good that Bush hasn't fallen down drunk on the job very much, if at all.

But I'd rather have W.C. Fields in office if it made everyone's life better.

Or, to put it another way, character includes the whole package- the policies as well as the personal life.

On that score, Al Sharpton and Ted Kennedy have more character in their feces that * and Cheney.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Yeah but for policy wonks, like myself this is gross and boring

. It is also a distraction from real issues. I enjoyed it two days ago when we were scewering the repukes on the Iraq war, someothing that effects lives.

[FloridaPat]

4. The illusion of character is everything. For 50 years it's

how well you look on TV and present yourself that is more important than your record. As long as you look good and no one notices you have been a creep, you're OK. The American public is EXTREMELY gullible.

[rucky]

6. Does that influence your judgements and decisions?

I have to admit that it weighs in for me. If I discounted every Dem candidate that's been picked apart here, I'd support nobody. But what matters is what sticks.

Oddly enough, that's a good arguement both for and against Kucinich (for example): He has the "unelectable" tag strapped to him for his TV persona, but everybody seems to praise his character in the same breath.

[mlawson]

5. If bush wins next year, it's proof that it does NOT matter! n/t

[woofless]

7. Of course Character counts,

but most people confuse character with morality. Morality is so subjective and colored by ones religious upbringing (or lack thereof). Character is a demonstrable quality. You know when you are meeting someone of character, or hearing them speak, or watching them work. Bill had plenty of character and the current cartel has none.

[tjdee]

9. Bill Clinton HAS character.

He cheated on his wife, sure.

But I'd argue that a)Bill Clinton has character, and b)character is a GREAT thing to bring up.

Either a person is the real deal, or they're not.

Also, a great deal of this whole campaign is trust. Politicians can say any old thing they want to, record or no (they can change their mind, can't they?). But at the end of the day, it's whether you *trust* that person to do his best with your money, with your kid (if you've got one in the military), and maybe even your life.

It really comes down to whether you like and trust a person.

[Character Assassin]

10. It's nothing I haven't addressed in the past.

Insert sly double-entendre here.

[Dr Fate]

11. Clinton was involved in CONSENSUAL relationships...

...and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. It has never been done, although the media said it enough times to where some folks think his "scandals" were proven.

Rather than re-evaluate the ambiguous, subjective concepts of "character", "moral fiber" and all those other oft repeated Clinton-era media terms- I have a better idea.

Let's hold all Republicans to the "Clinton Standard"- that is, the same standard that the the media, republicans and even so-called "moderate" republicans like McCain , insisted that we hold Clinton to.

Fair enough?????

[dolstein]

13. You mean Hillary consented to them? What about Chelsea?

Sorry, but there are still some of us out here who think that cheating on your wife is a bad thing, and doing it repeatedly is even worse. The fact that the Clinton didn't have to force himself on these other women hardly excuses his conduct. The thought that Bill Clinton was willing to risk his entire presidency in order to screw around with a pudgy White House intern is something that I still have trouble grasping.

[dolstein]

12. Well, it can't hurt

Lord knows the Republicans will go after the Democratic nominee with everything they've got. If the Democrats nominate someone who is widely perceived to have strong character, that's one less thing for us to worry about.

But of course character isn't everything. Charisma, vision and sheer likability matter a heck of a lot. Clinton had character flaws up the wazoo, but he still managed to get elected twice.

[dfong63]

14. get them on record

get Ken Starr, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, Orrin Hatch, Henry Hyde, all the hypocritical rightwing blowhards, on record reacting to Arnold's confession... let's see how consistent they are in their moral judgments...