>>>>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).
>

I did address the point. And the only name reference has been "apologist" of which I retract and apologize for.


>>>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.
>

And people want behaviour of the order of Clinton's? According to your logic, OJ should be in jail. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What the people need is a sense of trust in the judicial system and our leaders. The OJ jury damaged the first (only temporarily), and Clinton is exacerbating the second. This non-sense of "everyone of them does it" is a lame excuse for atrocious behaviour.

>>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?
>

Clinton knew the truth.

>>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.

Did you ever hear anyone truthfully report what Packwood did after the first each of the women told him to stop? No, because he stopped, and if they had objectively considered this, they would have had much less ammo to force him out. Harrassment is going beyond "NO".

> 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? :)

Not true. These groups promote feminism/equal rights when it is convenient for them, which is wrong. I just don't respect an organization that selectively trashes Conservatives and lets the Liberals slide on the same indiscretions. This tells me they are just an activist group pushing a liberal agenda and will defend those who support them even though NOW claims to be defenders of ALL women's rights. They have been totally absent where Democrats are concerned, but in the face of any Conservative they can.

Personally, I would not have a wife who was spineless, brainless and depending on me for everything. Truthfully, I would prefer to be a house-husband providing care for my daughter, instead of spending 10 hours a day away from them.