<p>I dunno. Seems to me that the Dover case was handled quite effectively by the local community. The local teachers, all of them, refused to read the creationist spiel inserted into the curriculum by the school board. And the local voters expressed their views quite effectectively by voting the entire school board out of office.</p>
<p>These cases aren’t local grass-roots initiatives. They are well-coordinated legal strategies by national public-interest law firms and lobby groups. Locals, like the Dover School Board, are just patsies.</p>
Oh, no … you completely missed my point. I was not attacking Clinton, I was pointing out your hypocrisy with your holier than thou denunciation of Driver for her support for Santorum despite the fact that he is guilty of being full of himself when you voted for Clinton who was guilty of far more than that. Or, are you now saying that a pattern of cheating on your spouse and likely sexual molestation/rape is not as bad as being pompous? (BTW, Clinton and most other politicians are also guilty of being pompous; if we stop voting for pompous politicians we can drop the whole term limit discussion.)</p>
<p>How did Clinton get into this forum? Who put him here? And why would the tens of millions of people who voted for Clinton be hypocrites for thinking Santorum a bald-faced lying, unintelligent fool simply because they thought Clinton’s opponents were even worse than he was?</p>
<p>Don’t get it. There was a point? I thought the ONLY point was to attack Clinton, and those who voted for him.</p>
<p>(Disclaimer: for the record, I did not vote for Bill Clinton, and wish he’d spent a heck of a lot more time having sex.)</p>
<p>CityGM: #38.
Those Pres that had a “vigorous” life seem to be more relaxed and confident amongst people. They certainly had more press conferences and meet the common people meetings. Their spouses also seem to extremely confident and had their own mind. </p>
<p>HWB and GWB seem to be more uptight with GWB much more so. Remember GW “release” was a substance problem that alienated Barbara and nearly his wife (can’t think of her name) . Now that the substanced is undercontrol, GW releases emotionally (last two week’s press lectures) and are not flattering. GW needs to acquire that “certain” look from physical. emotional, and mental release. </p>
<p>I think its kinda fun to contrast Bill and George. However, are we comparing Bill to George or George to Bill? How about George to George? </p>
<p>From what I understand, may be wrong, that there wasn’t enough of WJC to go around. Is that bad when people “want” you and you have the capability and capacity?</p>
<p>I notice that fundingfather just tossed that hand grenade into the mix in a very Rovian way. I have followed the Clinton story pretty closely and never seen any allegations of either of those felony crimes.</p>
<p>How predictable, posting a link to a Press Release announcing the two alleged “victims” seeking publicity for their visit to the Clinton library. Who put out the press release? Oh, I see:</p>
<p>About World Ahead Publishing:
Headquartered in Los Angeles, World Ahead is the West Coast’s premier publisher of conservative and
libertarian books, including the recently released “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” by
Katharine DeBrecht and the forthcoming “Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s
Freedom” by Joe Klein.</p>
<p>Probably a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rove Industries.</p>
<p>Oh, and nice of you to mention that Brodderick’s charges were made 21 years after the fact in a TV interview in which she said that her “hatred for him is overwhelming”. I notice that you also conveniently forget to mention that she filed an affidavit (see text here: <a href=“http://www.samsloan.com/janedoe5.htm[/url]”>http://www.samsloan.com/janedoe5.htm</a>) in the Paula Jones/Republican sexual harrassment suit that she had never had sex with Clinton. She recanted that affidavit for the Starr investigation, but, according to the Post, Starr found her testimony “inconclusive”.</p>
<p>You have never heard of Katherine Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, yet you claim to have followed the situation? Amaziing! Perhaps it’s time to adjust the blinders.</p>
<p>I suppose you think that most women admire their rapists. Im not sure I understand your point.</p>
<p>First you say
Then, after being shown that you must have slept through the 90s you backtrack and fill by implying that if a rape victim hates her rapist, even 20+ years later, it pokes a hole in her allegations. </p>
<p>Very curious reasoning. A reasonable person might even think of it is ideological thinking, all things considered. </p>
<p>Imagine 4 different acquaintances of GWB alleging that they had sold cocaine to GWB the cc switch board would light up.</p>
<p>And as I understand these things, some think of cocaine use as a victimless crime the same cant be said for rape.</p>
<p>Broaddrick was working on Clinton’s campaign as a volunteer at the time of the alleged incident. So, clearly her hatred developed after that point. Rape might do that to someone.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I don’t suppose that their “hatred” is fueled by a book deal with World Ahead Publishing (publisher of “Help! Mom!, There are Liberals Under my Bed”):</p>
<p>Their Lives
The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine
by Candice E. Jackson
6x9 hardcover - May 31, 2005 - 0-9746701-3-8 - $25.95 $17.99</p>
<p>This shocking expose tells the stories Bill Clinton left out of My Life. Whether it was assembling an attack team to harass a grief-stricken widow, threatening a reporter for her research into a health care scandal, or hiring private investigators to bully an ex-lover, Clinton showed no reluctance to go after women who inconvenienced his political career. This book establishes a clear link between Clinton’s liberal beliefs and his misogynistic behavior, while making the case that his eager accomplice, Hillary Rodham Clinton, should not be returned to the White House.</p>
<hr>
<p>I have no doubt that Bill Clinton always was and always will be quite the ladies man. But, give me something a little more credible than a Swift Boat Veterans political smear.</p>
<p>I would be skeptical of any rape allegation made for the first time 20 years after the fact. Especially one made ina partisan political arena where dirty trickster money flows like water during the spring floods. I am especially skeptical when the accuser is represented in his or her book tours by a partisan political publisher, public relations, or legal firms. But, that’s just me. Others, I’m sure, are happy to take anything said by Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi as the gospel truth.</p>
<p>Not really. I think most of us are familar with W’s past substance-abuse problems and draft dodging. But, those not particularly relevant. I would say that most of W’s detractors here are more focused on his performance, or lack thereof, in office.</p>
<p>I, for example, thought he had been a lousy president when I voted for him for re-election. But, alas, sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for one of the names on the ballot.</p>