I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I mean, she's talented and would have achieved something. But it'd have been a far cry from what she achieved as a result of connecting with Bill. Bill may have also benefited from her discipline and cunning (God only knows how many "bimbo explosions" she prevented over the years). But he could stand alone and win major public office. He's uniquely gifted in all areas needed to succeed. She's a wonk who doesn't telecast much better than any other wonk might. She needs a huge money advantage, a uniquely bad GOP field, and the power of the DNC pushing (rigging things) for her to get the Presidency. She's been beaten by a first term senator (uniquely talented, like her husband, but still...), almost beaten by a ranting geriatric senator, and still - still right now - would be beaten like a gong if Joe Biden decided to enter the race.

She's just "meh" in every regard. It's like we're electing an Actuarial in Chief.

This post needs to be deconstructed by the Feminism 101 class at Wellesley....

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This post needs to be deconstructed by the Feminism 101 class at Wellesley....

It's really anti-bore. I'll admit, there, I'm an enormous bigot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Well, Juanita Broaddrick was the allegation of rape, which Sidd seems to think gives Hillary the right to say and do whatever in defending her husband.

Nope. Just wondering what you would do if your husband were accused of rape and you thought the accuser was full of shit.

You can't answer that in the way you'd like to -- you'd like to say that you would just listen and not say anything in response, because you want to pretend that's what Hillary should have done. But you can't say that, so instead you talk about stuff that is far, far apart from a rape accusation.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone ever claimed Bill Clinton forced someone into a sexual act with him.

You mean, other than Juanita Broaddrick.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You mean, other than Juanita Broaddrick.

Touche. I offer a correction: No one whose allegations do not date back to a year during which KC and the Sunshine Band were charting, Catfish Hunter and Ron Guidry were the Yankees' aces, and Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official has accused Bill Clinton of rape.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Nope. Just wondering what you would do if your husband were accused of rape and you thought the accuser was full of shit.

You can't answer that in the way you'd like to -- you'd like to say that you would just listen and not say anything in response, because you want to pretend that's what Hillary should have done. But you can't say that, so instead you talk about stuff that is far, far apart from a rape accusation.

If my husband were accused of rape, and he was innocent, I would let it work through the court system. Rape is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if one has not had sexual intercourse with the accuser (which is where marital fidelity is relevant, at least to me). It is a different case than if there was admitted intercourse and the issue is whether it was consensual. In that situation, I would probably separate from him with a plan to discuss potentially reuniting after his trial to spare our children from the situation as much as possible.

But I have been consistent in my advocacy for reasonable protections for accused men, because as horrible as rape is, it is also a horrible thing for an innocent person to be branded a rapist. No advocating for guidelines that refer to accusers as 'victims' and that push colleges to allow appeal for an accuser but not the accused. That the accused have the right to counsel and to confront the accuser. Simple stuff, really.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

If my husband were accused of rape, and he was innocent, I would let it work through the court system.

You must have loved Mike Dukakis.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You must have loved Mike Dukakis.

I do appreciate consistency in the application of one's worldview.

So, just curious, were you surprised by the revelation that Hillary did, in fact, receive emails that were classified at the time they were sent, and were marked classified? Because she's kind of been lying for over a year about that one.

And did you see her freakish response to being asked a question by a reporter regarding Warren as VP? A reporter from CBS is the one who tweeted her response. Can you find any way to describe it other than bizarre?


http://mashable.com/2016/06/10/hilla.../#.0vER4a7eiqL

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You must have loved Mike Dukakis.

I believe you mean Michael "Michael" Dukakis.

A younger Not Bob, still puzzled about why GHWB* had not been indicted for Iran Contra (go ahead, youngsters - Google it, and please let me know) threw his Rolling Rock bottle at the television during the Podunk U College Democrats debate watching party when that robot popped up the slowly hanging curveball of a question tossed to him by Bernard Shaw.

As Big Ed (still known as Medium Ed) noted gleefully to me the next day at the Rathskeller, that was the exact moment Dukakis lost the election. I agreed.

*I kind of like him and his WASP-is ways now, and he turned out to be a great foreign policy president, but that dude was in it up to his Skull & Bones neck. He got lucky that Bill Casey died.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Well, Juanita Broaddrick was the allegation of rape, which Sidd seems to think gives Hillary the right to say and do whatever in defending her husband. I brought up the additional incidents to demonstrate that with respect to less serious allegations, Hillary pulled out all the stops in discrediting those accusers, even the ones who were later proved to have made truthful allegations that were admitted by Bill under oath.

To me, if my husband had already been a proved liar and serial philanderer, and settled a sexual harassment charge for a large sum of money, I don't think I would be as certain as Sidd seems to be that all of the allegations made, including that of sexual assault or rape, are categorically false. Bill should have the right and procedural protections to defend himself, but the accuser deserves her day in court as well. Discrediting honest women as sluts and floozies and stalkers certainly can cause one to question the veracity of all of the other denials.

Yeah, I don't think that either of the Clintons are what normal people would describe as "good." The fact that all of this stuff surfaced as a result of a billionaire spending a couple of million dollars (a/k/a "the Arkansas Project") doesn't change anything, I suppose, other than to note that a few of his accusers seemed perfectly happy with him until Mr. Scaife's cash started swirling around.

The tactics used by the Clintonistas used are unfortunately the standard playbook for discrediting of the female accusers of a powerful man. Anita Hill was "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" per Clarence Thomas' team. Elliot Spitzer tried to do the same initially. General Petreaus managed to do that to Paula Broadwell and did such a good job that he's back giving advice to Obama (and no one on the right talks much about his very real email issues). I even seem to recall Anthony Weiner trying that approach initially.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I do appreciate consistency in the application of one's worldview.

So, just curious, were you surprised by the revelation that Hillary did, in fact, receive emails that were classified at the time they were sent, and were marked classified? Because she's kind of been lying for over a year about that one.

And did you see her freakish response to being asked a question by a reporter regarding Warren as VP? A reporter from CBS is the one who tweeted her response. Can you find any way to describe it other than bizarre?


http://mashable.com/2016/06/10/hilla.../#.0vER4a7eiqL

Let the woman have a little fun sometimes. That's a 2 on the scale of 1 to donald trump in terms of reactions.

My take on the email thing is very different than just about everyone else. I think the idea that the sec'y of state, our chief diplomat, should be subject to a bunch of requirements on government document retention is bizarre. Diplomacy is about secrecy. You have to be able to talk to our enemies in confidence to be an effective diplomat. Yes, take stuff off line, get it out of official lines of communication, do what you will to do that.

I'd say the same for the President. I don't want IT guys n gals pawing over every communication by anyone with a key, high level diplomatic or military function. Kerry seems to deal with this by camping out in Vienna and having face-to-face conversations all over the place. I'm betting few scraps of paper leave those rooms, and no emails at all.

So I am aghast this is an issue. I hope she was having classified conversations outside of channels. If she wasn't, I'd be disappointed. Screw the critics.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I believe you mean Michael "Michael" Dukakis.

A younger Not Bob, still puzzled about why GHWB* had not been indicted for Iran Contra (go ahead, youngsters - Google it, and please let me know) threw his Rolling Rock bottle at the television during the Podunk U College Democrats debate watching party when that robot popped up the slowly hanging curveball of a question tossed to him by Bernard Shaw.

As Big Ed (still known as Medium Ed) noted gleefully to me the next day at the Rathskeller, that was the exact moment Dukakis lost the election. I agreed.

*I kind of like him and his WASP-is ways now, and he turned out to be a great foreign policy president, but that dude was in it up to his Skull & Bones neck. He got lucky that Bill Casey died.

Mike is as authentic and kind-hearted a person as will ever run for President. I don't know why anyone let him do that.

He still picks up trash when he sees it on the Boston subway. And I've been out of politics for over 20 years now, but he still hurries across the street when he sees me to say hello, even though many of the other people I knew when back in the day just don't even recognize me anymore. Ravages of time. And he still would respond in a careful, level headed way if you threw a dozen grenades at him.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Mike is as authentic and kind-hearted a person as will ever run for President. I don't know why anyone let him do that.

He still picks up trash when he sees it on the Boston subway. And I've been out of politics for over 20 years now, but he still hurries across the street when he sees me to say hello, even though many of the other people I knew when back in the day just don't even recognize me anymore. Ravages of time. And he still would respond in a careful, level headed way if you threw a dozen grenades at him.

Oh, I don't doubt it. And I remember reading that he was teaching a course somewhere outside of the Athens of America, and people were shocked that he kept office hours and chatted with undergraduates. And that he actually taught the course and graded the student papers.

Still.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let the woman have a little fun sometimes. That's a 2 on the scale of 1 to donald trump in terms of reactions.

My take on the email thing is very different than just about everyone else. I think the idea that the sec'y of state, our chief diplomat, should be subject to a bunch of requirements on government document retention is bizarre. Diplomacy is about secrecy. You have to be able to talk to our enemies in confidence to be an effective diplomat. Yes, take stuff off line, get it out of official lines of communication, do what you will to do that.

I'd say the same for the President. I don't want IT guys n gals pawing over every communication by anyone with a key, high level diplomatic or military function. Kerry seems to deal with this by camping out in Vienna and having face-to-face conversations all over the place. I'm betting few scraps of paper leave those rooms, and no emails at all.

So I am aghast this is an issue. I hope she was having classified conversations outside of channels. If she wasn't, I'd be disappointed. Screw the critics.

2 things- when you say your take is different than everyone else, you realize that might include Federal law and the FBI? And as to her wanting to keep it all on the DL, didn't some foreign hacker hack it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's a wonk who doesn't telecast much better than any other wonk might. She needs a huge money advantage, a uniquely bad GOP field, and the power of the DNC pushing (rigging things) for her to get the Presidency. ...

She's just "meh" in every regard. It's like we're electing an Actuarial in Chief.

Women are like, totally boring, man. She's like a grandma or something.

[She] would be beaten like a gong if Joe Biden decided to enter the race.

Hm. Kinda doubt it.