Will the Move On organization want to change its name?

This short article discusses the rethinking of Bill Clinton's sexual affairs as a reason weighing against Hillary in recent favor-ability polls. Personally, I think her low rating has more to do with frustration about so called "establishment candidates." I also think there's a human tendency to abandon ship from people perceived as losers. In some ways, these polls are moot points as I would doubt Hillary would plan to run for another election at this stage in her life. That being said I still have respect for her. Below more of my thoughts about the rethinking of the Clinton era that's in the news today.

Given the newer scrutiny of Bill Clinton's sexuality, I wonder if the the organization Move On will regret choosing that name? I think when that organization was starting, the name related to the concept of moving on to more important issues than what the Clinton impeachment trial was about. Move On to issues such as the economy and global warming.

While some of the hashtag Me To is needed, I do think there is the danger of over correction.

One thing I can say for Hillary Clinton is that she stayed in her marriage. Something that was more common in the past. These days, people are pretty quick to dump their relationships and political alliances when things aren't ideal. As time goes on, I hope the Me To hash tag can be more about abuse of power, bad bosses and so forth, rather than just focusing on sexuality. Sexuality is one of the many things that is abused, but there's more to the problem than just that. I realize that women tend to be victimized more often than men, tho so sexuality is a factor. It's just not the only factor in what could be a good movement for holding people's personal lives accountable to their political ideals. Think, how do people treat their own employees? What are people's carbon footprint?

As for one's personal life being held to high scrutiny, I'm remembering the controversy, a few years back, about Al Gore's big house. Back then mostly conservatives brought up the problem of Al Gore being such a leading environmentalist while living in a big house with a larger footprint than the average American. Yes, I think even most people who drive cars can be seen as hypocrites, tho I understand that people feel driving is a necessity to function in this society. I can't become too bitter, myself. I can also justify a bigger house for someone, like Al Gore, who is a major public figure. He would need more things like space for home security staff and so forth. I would guess he also flies in jet planes occasionally.

Be wary, I think some of the heightened criticism of public officials could be coming from "divide and conquer" strategy from Republicans. Both parties have lots of internal bickering these days and some of that atmosphere could be fueled by the other party.

I still have respect for the Clintons, but I do think its time for new energies in politics. Focusing on building a sustainable world, such as use of things like solar power. Less about older aspirations of wealth, consumerism and power. Some new thinking is needed in a lot of places.