>>>Typical Clinton apologist.
>>
>>Now, now, Mark. Let's try not to get personal here. You have your views and I have mine, but there's no need to start calling names, OK? I'm no more a "typical Clinton apologist" than you're a "typical Clinton attacker," right? :)
>>
>
>I just have no tolerance for someone who will deliberately ruin the lives of innocent people for political purposes -- e.g., the career employees in the travel office who have since been totally exhonerated of all wrong-doing just so Clinton could get his cronies in there.

Fine, but you didn't address my point. Let's keep this civil, and keep away from calling each other names. I'll tell you up front that I don't waste my time arguing with people who don't respect me (or whom I don't respect).

>>Actually, we do (sometimes). Prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, presidents and legislators are all elected by the people. They make decisions whether to prosecute people based (partly) on the public interest.
>
>That is not the majority or poll numbers.

What the people want is part of what makes up "the public interest" in a democracy.

>Bush did not break the law, only a promise.

That's quite true, of course. But see my reply to John about what all of us probably think is worse.

>There is no proof of Starr leaking info. Based on past Clinton tactics (and recent ones), I would not be surprised to learn that the leaks actually came from the Whitehouse.

How could the White House leak Lewinsky's testimony?

>Clarence Thomas

He won.

>Sen Packwood, John Tower vs Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Daniel In-no-way. The NOW gang tried to or did run 2 of the 3 Repubs out of town, they have nothing but support for the Dems. Ted Kennedy is the biggest mystery (next to Clinton). Anita Hill and her ilk could not even come close to providing the corroborating evidence mounting against Clinton.

Packwood was slime. Kennedy has actually done things to help his country. (And the name---whether Democrat or Republican--helped him a lot. Having your brother get assasinated helps, too.) Frank did just what you say Clinton should do--he admitted his discretions fully (Packwood didn't). I don't know about Inouye, except that he was a war hero, and that probably helped him.

BTW, you really hate feminism, don't you? :)

>>No Republican president within memory has been attractive enough to women to make that a problem.
>
>Now who is getting personal?

Sorry, I don't follow. I do think a large part of this has to do with certain people who aren't getting enough being jealous of Clinton's attractiveness to women.

>And you think Clinton is attractive? Or is just the position of power that makes them swoon?

It's really irrelevant what I, a straight male, thinks about Clinton. :) However, a former girlfriend of mine, who was a Washington reporter, says that he indeed has a magnetic aura that isn't just related to his position (which Bush, etc. also held).