>Funny, I don't recall even inferring it would be wrong for Hillary to forgive him.

Oh, sorry. I thought that was implied by what seemed to be your approval of your wife's attitude.

>What I did say, and for some reason you chose to edit, was it doesn't change my views on him.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't quote what I don't respond to. For some reason, there are a lot of people who think that every message must be quoted in its entirety, even to add a single line. I edited out your statement about whether your views were changed simply because I didn't have anything to say about it.

>All the reparation and absolution in the world can't undo what has been done.

That brings up an important point: What harm exactly _has_ been done? We know that Clinton is a liar and cheats on his wife. The first is a given for any politician; the second is a private matter between Clinton and his family. Why is this worth $40 million, and why would it be worth a dime more to pursue? What would we get out of it for our money? Isn't the answer really that conservatives want to pursue it because they want to get rid of Clinton and liberals pooh-pooh it because they don't? I'm happy to consider that _my_ main motive. :)

>I'm not sure how my wife's potential intollerance of an act I haven't committed is relevant.

Well, I thought it was natural that a wife stand beside her husband. You cited your wife's attitude as an apparent rebuttal to that view; i.e. that it was not at all natural or even sensible for a wife to stand beside her husband under those circumstances. You made a comment that made me think perhaps you and your wife were Christians. I reminded you that Christians are required to forgive. You quoted that remark (for what reason I don't know), but didn't respond to it. If your comment of your wife's intolerance of adultery wasn't intended to apply to Bill and Hillary, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

>We obviously come from different ends of the political spectrum. To try to assign right and wrong to our vastly discordant views is pointless. We have come this far without any verbal violence or personal attacks and I would just as soon keep it that way.

I don't think we've even come _close_ to personal attacks, so I'm sorry you think we're in danger of that.

>I know it's a cliche but let's agree to completely disagree and call a truce. See ya in the public opinion polls.

I have no objection to you ending your side of this discussion, but I retain for myself the option to post as I wish. :)