MovieChat Forums > Primary Colors (1998) Discussion > Libby's Moral Dilemma

Libby's Moral Dilemma

posted 11 years ago by annlevtex
5 replies | jump to latest

Libby's moral objections to revealing Picker's former cocaine addiction was puzzling to me.

I mean, she KNEW that Stanton had slept with a teenage babysitter. And while she was clearly disgusted by that. what truly pushed her over the edge was the Stantons' decision to go public (or threaten to) with the information about Picker's cocaine habit.

Apparently using this kind of negative publicity to help his campaign was contrary to a deeply held belief system that she believed Stanton shared with her. But it was really a holdover from decades earlier, during the 70s, when the Republicans used Eagleton's history of depression and ETS to hurt McGovern.

From the standpoint of today, to use the coke addiction against Picker seems like a no-brainer. The guy was essentially a hollow candidate: rusty from years out of public office, refusing to debate or really confront Stanton on the issues, spouting platitudes and spearheading a blood donation campaign. He wasn't offering the public anything solid, so Stanton had no way to campaign against him on the important and substantive issues. Picker was like a slippery hog.

I understand that going negative is not the most uplifting or savory way to win an election, but in this case I thought it was completely justified and not immoral. Yet she was so distraught over it that she killed herself? Not because he banged a teenager, but because he used some dirt on the other guy (and it was REAL dirt, not manufactured) to keep him from winning the primary for all the wrong reasons and then basically ruining any chance of the Democrats taking the White House.

I thought she was holding him to way too high a standard and being idealistic to a fault. She idealized the guy. If she killed herself because of the affair with the babysitter and his attempt to cover it up, that would be one thing. That's what made Henry sick to his stomach. But that WASN'T the reason. It was because he engaged in a bit of fairly tame and IMO justified negative campaigning?

I did find her to be a sympathetic character, but to off herself over THAT seemed a bit much.

[–] gobears87 11 years ago

Annlevtex, you raise some interesting questions. In a way, Libby is treating things consistently. Her viewpoint seems to be that a candidate's personal foibles - which don't interfere with the ability to do the job professionally and without conflicts of interest - shouldn't be held against said candidate, and shouldn't be used in campaigning. Therefore:

Stanton: insatiable womanizer. In Libby's view, while this may be unsavory, it doesn't disqualify him to run for and hold office.
Picker: former coke addict. Sub-optimal, but shouldn't disqualify him now. Therefore, shouldn't be used against him in the campaign now.

The case of the baby sitter is a bit murky. I believe it was stated that she is 17 years old. This makes her old enough to be above the age limit for statutory rape. (So Stanton is not a criminal, and not a pedophile.) On the other hand, she is young enough that Stanton looks like a real slimeball. Should Stanton be disqualified from public office for bedding a 17-year-old? I would say Yes, because it shows a colossal lack of judgment, and an unacceptably weak ability to control himself. But others may disagree.

If Picker was a coke addict, but has been clean for, say 15 years, does his former addict status disqualify him from public office? I'm not sure about the recidivism rate for cocaine addicts. It would certainly be a strike against him in my book.

Picker cheated on his wife (with a man). Does that disqualify him? In the 1990's, it probably would. Today, it probably would not. (At least in a Democratic primary.)

I personally regard cheaters with utter contempt, so I'd be disinclined to vote for either Stanton or Picker.

Libby's decision to kill herself seems extreme to many of the posters on this board, and I agree. On the other hand, her history of long-term mental illness makes this plot development seem a bit more plausible.

[–] inthepalemoonlight 10 years ago

Libby's suicide is plausible enough for me to give it a pass. What isn't plausible IMO is the result. That would have triggered all sorts of nasty rumors and suspicions amongst the press and the public. I don't think Stanton would have survived all of that.

[–] Little_Korean 8 years ago

Libby's suicide is plausible enough for me to give it a pass. What isn't plausible IMO is the result. That would have triggered all sorts of nasty rumors and suspicions amongst the press and the public. I don't think Stanton would have survived all of that.

Well, Vince Foster's suicide didn't slow down the Clintons.

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

[–] smoko 10 years ago

@gobears87 Picker cheated on his wife (with a man). Does that disqualify him? In the 1990's, it probably would. Today, it probably would not. (At least in a Democratic primary.)The "with a man" part would disqualify him today, in either primary.

[–] pouncemo 8 years ago

This was a good thread - everyone brought out interesting points.

Libby's suicide bothered me too. I understand that she had mental illness. But she seemed quite sane during her stint on the campaign. It just didn't ring true. She had to know by that point how ambitious the Stanton's were.

Great insights on extra-marital affairs, with men, women, and children, illicit drug use, and "going negative".

One poster said s/he hates cheaters and wouldn't vote for one. I tend to think there wouldn't be anyone to vote for EVER in that case. These guys (and gal) are way alpha, so there are going to be affairs.