Did Hillary Clinton throw lamps, but George Bush never insulted the Constitution?

I'll explain here, because I couldn't fit enough words into the "question" field to be specific.





People believe, because some White House staffer once said it, that Hillary Clinton threw things and screamed and carried on like a banshee while in the White House.





If you believe that, fine, that's your right.





But when it was reported by a White House staffer that George Bush referred to the United States Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper," those same people refused to believe it, even though the statement was made on exactly the same authority as the statement about Clinton.





Do you think that the predilection to believe things like that about Clinton come from stereotypes that people hold about her gender, or is it just that those same people are bitter that her husband was never removed from office?

Did Hillary Clinton throw lamps, but George Bush never insulted the Constitution?
I think those are people who are willing to believe whichever story fits their ideology. Mostly these people get their "news" from sources that only tell them what they want to hear.
Reply:You are absolutely right. And quite fetching, if I may say so.
Reply:Imagine yourself in the room during either of these situations.





As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, we are talking about someone with little capacity for maintaining a level head. Passion is one thing; erratic behavior and a quick, reactive temper is quite another. This is one of the many "qualities", in my opinion, that render her no good for the office of the Presidency.





I'm not defending Bush's comment. This was something overheard and likely taken out of context. Take that any way you wish. I don't think the two compare.





I don't want my President freaking out, screaming and/or chucking objects at people on a regular basis. Do you? This is probably the most stressful position a person can hold. Can she handle it? Is she experienced enough for it? No way. Nothing changes that fact.
Reply:People believe what they want to hear not necessarily what is the truth. In both cases there exist legitimate arguments that both instances occurred just as there exist viable arguments that both instances never happened.


Many are bitter about the Clintons for a plethora of reasons.


I personally would like to see Edwards or Obama as President because I feel it is essential to break the Bush, Clinton , Bush legacy that has existed for 20 years. I believe that Hillary would do a great job but the simple fact that she brings into play so much animosity would keep our nation divisive and we need to come together and ignore the blue red paradigm.
Reply:My standard of proof is, at the very least, to have a NAMED person willing to go on the record as to what was seen, heard or said.





How can I even begin to evaluate if a story is true if I don't even know who is claiming it is?





So that's how I start off. As far as I know, no one has stepped forward and identified themselves as the person hearing the Bush quote. So I have nothing credible to evaluate. I have no idea whether there is a named source for the "lampshade" story or not - I never gave it much attention.





I don't care much what standard is used to judge these reports, as long as the SAME standard is used for all of them!
Reply:Yes, I think they believe it because she's a woman, but also some people are just hypocritical like how they freaked out that a successful celebrity endorsed Obama, but made no mention of Chuck Norris endorsing Huckabee.
Reply:"reported" is the operative word..where Bush's comments are urban legend advanced by bloggers like..


http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/12/...








a staffer actually depicted Hillary as doing that..and was notated in Newsweek and Politico..a news site that both CNN and Fox keep at arms length


http://www.www.snopes.com/politics/clint...
Reply:These rightwingers are prepared to believe anything at all about the Clintons no matter how incredible yet are not at all bothered by Bush's trashing of the Constitution, his ongoing crimes and sccandals and cover-ups.
Reply:I think the short answer, kiddo, is don't believe everything you hear and read - especially in today's biased media.





Your so-called facts are completely based on hearsay - WH staffers in both cases.
Reply:Bush has demonstrated his hatred for the Constitution by removing parts of the Bill of Rights.
Reply:I believe there were a lot more sources exposing Hillary's bad conduct than Bush's statement. The odds are that she has some behavioral problems.
Reply:You pointed out the answer.....it is based on biased for one party or the other and there is definetly a group of people out there who hated the Clinton so much that whatever they could do to destroy their image was readily devoured. But those that hated the Clintons would never speak ill of their own kind such as Bush.
Reply:First of all it was ONE White House staffer that made that claim and it was NEVER substaniated.





Secondly, Hillary's rant was witnessed by many people and all said the same thing.





And Thirdly, it has nothing to do with her gender it has to do with HER.





Thanks for playing...
Reply:I think that people who believe gossip of any kind are exposing their intellectual level for all to see.





I also think that if I had employees with as little discretion as these, I'd fire their butts in a hurry.





I don't base my voting on such trash and hope others won't either.





Of course, their public actions speak the loudest. Whether he said so or not, Bush has been stomping all over the Constitution like it was a cheap door mat. Relative to Hillary's temper, she seems to hold it well in debate - so far she hasn't beaned a competitor with a lamp. If my husband did what hers did, I'd probably have heaved a lamp and a few dishes his way too...
Reply:A lamp is a lamp.





Constitution is not a lamp. Watch it.
Reply:The point is that Chillary has a really bad temper and is not a pleasant person to be around.