Clintons Dogged by Sex Frequency Questions
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, May 23, 2006 |
NYT reporter Patrick Healy notes that the presumptive presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton will inevitably Drudge up questions about their marital relations.
When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage — and how the most dissected relationship in American life might affect Mrs. Clinton’s possible bid for the presidency in 2008.
[...]
The dynamics of a couple’s marriage are hard to gauge from the outside, even for a couple as well known as the Clintons. But interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities show that since leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives — partly because of the demands of their distinct career paths and partly as a result of political calculations.
[...]
Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple’s schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. At their busiest, they saw each other on a single day, Valentine’s Day, in February 2005 — a month when each was traveling a great deal. Last August, they saw each other at some point on 24 out of 31 days. Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons’ private schedule.
Matthew Yglesias observes,
Frankly, I’d like to know why Healy can’t just drop the silly insinuations and faux investigative methods. Both Clintons have official spokespersons, just ask them how often Bill and Hillary have sex. When they don’t say, you can run a nice juicy headline like “Clintons Stonewalling on Sex Frequency Issue,” or, to repeat a classic Monica-era format, “Clintons Dogged By Sex Frequency Questions,” as if these things just come out of nowhere. If you’re not going to ask straight-up, or even write clearly what you’re talking about, then what’s the point of all this?
A good question.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Caption Contest Winners
- The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis
- The Democrats and the Shock Doctrine
- Obama and Europe
- Supreme Court to Decide on Obama Citizenship
- International Implications of the Drop in Oil Prices (Updated)
- Obama’s Bipartisan Cabinet
- More Votes Found - Franken Hurt
- Caption Contest
- OTB Latenight - Paul Simon
- CARRY ON AMERICA linked with Jack Shafer Dissects the NYT Clinton Marriage Article
- CARRY ON AMERICA linked with The Clintons: The Politically Expedient Couple
- » OTB News
Could this be a preemptive move on the part of the Clintons and their friends at the NYT to go ahead and get this issue in the public arena for discussion. When her campaign gears up later, she can simply declare that questions about our marriage were addressed long ago and that is the end of that.
Might work for the marriage issue, but there will be plenty left to Drudge up on these two characters.
As little as I like either Clinton there are just somethings that should be out of bounds. This one is one of them. The public has no right to know.
Anyhow who in their right mind would want to have sex with either one of them ... other that "that woman" of course. :)
With Bush's job performance it is easy to see why many would like to change the topic to the Clinton's...
this is something yiou need to read
So Vemo, have we turned the corner in Iraq? How many corners is that? About 50?
Anjin idiot. We turn the corner, first set out by William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, to depose Saddam when George Walker Bush deposed Saddam. The rest has been a bit of a struggle, but unlike the democrats, we shall not leave the people of Iraq to their fate, like your ilk did to the people of South Viet Nam. There is no low you will not sink to, to prevent republican success. Shameful.
Let us go free Tibet. They are a peaceful people under a totalitarian regime. Why should we not select Tibet? We all like the Dalai Lama, right? Let us go and give him his country back. Free his people. We really will be greeted as liberators in this case.
The leap between the questions being asked of the Clintons now, and "boxers or briefs?" seems a rather small one at best. And if think; just a few short years ago the Clintons welcomed that intrusion.
"What ye sow, that also shall ye reap".
I can't say I really care about the Clinton sex life--either one of them. Knowing how often they "do it" and in what positions won't change my mind either way about voting for her. And it's not going to change my view of the Bill presidency either.
Zelsdorf-
Are you really that dense? Saddam was left in-place long before Clinton came around. Regardless of who takes over the WH from this Bush, I'll bet you a 6 of your favorite beer we will abandon the Iraqis because a) we've done it before (see Bush, senior), and b) we conclusively no longer have the capability to secure the country - we're just sitting there getting shot at.
Also, it was Nixon who began the process of pulling our troops out of Vietnam, and I do believe he was a Republican. Or are you saying he was merely a tool of the left?
Also, it was Nixon who began the process of pulling our troops out of Vietnam, and I do believe he was a Republican. Or are you saying he was merely a tool of the left?
Wage and price controls. Onerous environmental protection laws. Affirmative action. Normalization of relations with a brutal Communist regime: Nixon wasn't a tool of the Left. He was part of the Left. Almost everyone was, back then.
Getting back on topic, it's hard to imagine anything less relevant to anything that's relevant than the Clinton's sex life. There are plenty of good reasons to despise them both.
Kent,
I'm befuddled by your definition of Nixon as a lefty, but you're right - that's a whole separate topic.
Frankly, I fear this particular tangent in political reporting... politicians in general are not very attractive people (either physically or in person, IMHO). The last thing I need is a streak of articles discussing the sexual predilections of political couples, Clintons, Bushes, or otherwise. Yech.
What a stupid topic.
Comments are Closed
