Should a spouse's history of past 'indiscretions' be fair game in a political contest?

Vetting for political office is brutal - everything is fair game - better it be known in the preliminary stages than become an embarrassment in office.

Actually, Hillary is suffering for her own actions. She was complicit in Bill's coverups. She apparently (and probably rightfully) feared that his bad behavior would reflect on her own reputation and interfere with her political ambitions. Thus, she attacked Bill's accusers and for that she is revealed as a poor choice for high office.

There is an old saying:

"Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people. "

I'm still hopeful that Clinton will not get the Democratic nomination, if she does I will not be voting Democrat. That said, if a Republican candidate is foolish enough to focus on personal attacks... he will lose.

I think they lend to the decision making of the spouse in being complicit in his criminal actions. Not to mention her own lies and badgering of victims

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS Doesn't matter if it is used or not,if the crap already known isn't enough.

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Why not? Dems tried to slander Laura Bush when GW was running for office, based on her killing a pedestrian when she was drunk driving as a teenager!

If Hillary is going to say the Republicans are waging a war against women, it is fine to call Democrats out for their hypocrisy.

In this case if her platform is women's rights and she states that rape victims should be heard and believed, then she has to answer as to why her husbands "victims" were not heard or believed and why she demonized them. Her lame answer that the evidence proved otherwise is disingenuous in that he settled in court for $850,000 in one case, if I'm innocent, I am not paying anyone that amount! This is why her trustworthy numbers are so low.

I think it depends on how she handles the indiscretions, in Hiliray's case she in denial. If she could she'd probably lie and say it never happened. (God I hate liars).

It will be used, but it won't matter. Notably, when republican politicians get caught having an affair or using a prostitute, the line of defense is that part of their religion is forgiveness. That's how people like Sanford in SC can have an affair while Gov, dump his wife, and then still get elected to congress. Or Vitter in LA getting reelected despite admitting to using an escort service in DC after campaigning on family values. In those cases it is cited as being human, and humans make mistakes and deserve second chances. And that's with the politicians themselves, not the spouses.

And yet those same understanding, forgiving republicans will insist that because Bill, not Hillary cheated, that somehow that is disqualifying for Hillary. All the stuff about compassion and people make mistakes and deserve second chances will suddenly disappear from the conversation.

But in the end none of it will matter. No republican will ever vote for the democratic candidate or vice versa anyway. Those types of considerations go out the window when push comes to shove. The same way certain christian pastors who declared that mormonism was a cult and a candidates religion was very important to their decision still opted for the "cult follower" Romney over the christian Obama because suddenly being a liberal christian was a bigger sin than being a conservative cult member.