<p>Pass rate in California is usually 40 - 50%. Only figures I saw of DC were 60 - 65% a few years back - probably not really relevant to 30 years ago. But I also knew many very smart people who failed - and some absolute morons who (apparently) passed at one point or another. Go figure.</p>
<p>As to the need to find a way to snipe at HRC: Just more slimy Republican smearola. Says way more about the mud slinger than the slingee.</p>
<p>In February 2007, 78.9 percent of those taking the dc bar for the first time passed. Don’t know what it was when hillary took it.
<a href=“http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/membership/current_members/examResults.cfm[/url]”>DC Bar;
<p>
It would have been nice of you had made a similar comment when the slimy democrats were denouncing President Bush’s grades and SAT scores.</p>
<p>I’m sure that flunking the bar exam the first time was a blow to the woman in question, but she seems to have gotten over it.</p>
<p>The Not-Quite-the Smartest Man in the World never had to chance to pass or fail the bar exam, because he didn’t get into law school in the first place. The Univ. of Texas Law School rejected his application. But he seems to have gotten over it too. He went on to become our first and only MBA president.</p>
<p>lets see, fail a test, and suddenly you are weak, going through a rough period in your life, in your early 20s and you are weak</p>
<p>nice</p>
<p>its okay, she failed a test and that sees to make some gleefull, she loved and has stayed by and with her husband, how horrid</p>
<p>Some other early exam results we all should know to make responsible decisions today (not) –
Ted Kennedy’s first driving test
Dick Cheney’s accuracy score on target practice
Dan Quayle’s ranking in his school’s Spelling Bee
Howard Dean’s Apgar Score (newborn reflexive responses)</p>
<p>Razorsharp - I must have missed that post.</p>
<p>All inquiry into the Clintons’ past is relegated to “old news” for some reason.</p>
<p>In 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, my younger son was eight years old. He will be voting for the first time in the 2008 election. I don’t think he was paying attention to Ken Starr back then. In fact, I made sure he wasn’t. :)</p>
<p>I applaud Chris Matthews for being the only Democrat in the media that I know of who is not afraid to consider the topics of the Clintons’ marriage and the possibility of Bill in the White House once again. Nor did he shy away from the criticisms of Hillary in Bernstein’s book (which is where I heard about Hillary flunking the bar exam.) I don’t think he is going to let up–good for him.</p>
<p>Using the above-mentioned logic, I guess all history should be considered “old news.” It seems to me that it’s an insult to the intelligence of high school and college-aged kids to continue to recite the mantra to them that any probing into Hillary’s history is “Repubican mud-slinging.” Happily, I believe most kids see through this tactic.</p>
<p>HH, I would imagine that conyat’s comment about it being “old news” was a reflection on the fact that the ‘news’ of a failed test, taken probably 30 years ago, had been mentioned in a book four years ago. I’d be interested in hearing why you think this particular issue is topical/relevant/important to Hillary’s candidacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, kluge, more recently, when you chewed me up and spat me out on about three different threads (ME, not my IDEAS, but ME), including your “little league” thread about the evil “good people.”</p>
<p>The good news? We FINALLY agree on something…that the behavior of “slimy” mud slingers reflects solely on the slinger, not the “slingee.”</p>
<p><em>YOU</em> calling <em>ANYONE</em> on this same behavior is the epitome of hypocrisy. :(</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Frankly, I was just shocked. Since she worked for the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, I just assumed she had passed the D.C. bar. It’s interesting also because I think it may have caused her to have a failure of nerve regarding her own career, and contributed to her “following her heart” to Arkansas. </p>
<p>I happen to think that people have every right to examine everything about a person who may be elected to the office of president of the United States; in fact, I believe this is their responsibility as voters. The days of public figures being allowed privacy in their personal lives are apparently over, and have been for quite sometime. Wasn’t Mitt Romney asked recently, on 60 Minutes, I believe, if he had had sex with his wife before their marriage? Therefore, I have no problem with people examining Rudy’s or any Republican’s private, personal life (which would be futile anyway), which is why I don’t like to be told I can’t examine Hillary’s.</p>
<p>I have a reserve on the Bernstein book at my local library. :)</p>
<p>I just don’t really see how it matters. The bar exam doesn’t test intelligence. If someone is working another job, stressed out over personal matters, raising a family, or just doesn’t devote enough time to studying, he may not pass even though with a change in conditions and more studying he’d be fine. There are a lot of lawyers in my family, so I’ve seen family members pass and fail the bar the first time. More than anything (such as intelligence or schooling), the difference between those I’ve seen who pass on the first try and those who don’t comes down to whether the person had the time and circumstances that allowed a period of concentrated study before taking the exam. Look, I don’t consider myself a Democrat, so I’m not trying to just defend a political party here. I really think that this information, as I know it now, is pretty irrelevent and does not reflect on her level of intelligence.</p>
<p>Who cares about the bar exam. I am more worried about this:</p>
<p>Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a
fellow black panther named Alex Rackley needed to die.
Rackley was suspected of disloyalty. Rackley was first tied
to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends tortured him for
hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him.
When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member,
Warren Kimbo took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head.
Rackley’s body was later found floating in a river about 25 miles
north of New Haven, Conn.</p>
<p>Perhaps at this point you’re curious as to what happened to these
Black Panthers. In 1977, that’s only eight years later, only one
of the killers was still in jail.
The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard.
He later became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College.</p>
<p>Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water
for Mr. Rackley’s torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected
to a California School Board.</p>
<p>How in the world do you think these killers got off so easy?</p>
<p>Maybe it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came
to the defense of the Panthers.
These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University
with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers during
their trial.</p>
<p>One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or
Mr. Lan Lee, as the case may be, isn’t a college dean. He isn’t a
member of a California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice
Department’s Civil Rights Division.</p>
<p>O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? Is this other notable
Panther defender now a school board member? Is this other Panther
apologist now an assistant college dean?</p>
<p>No, Neither! The other Panther defender was, like Lee, a radical
law student at Yale University at the time.</p>
<p>She is now known as The “smartest woman in the world.” She is none
other than the Democratic candidate for the US Senate from the state of
New York----our lovely First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham
Clinton.</p>
<p>Snopes debunked this one a long time ago. It’s just more deceitful, race-baiting character assassination from the right.</p>
<p>There’s no connection between Hillary Clinton and the demonstrations at Yale other than the fact that she was a Yale student at the time. No one’s even come forward to say she even participated in, much less led the demonstrations (which didn’t shut down the campus, by the way).</p>
<p>She wasn’t even involved in the defense of the Black Panthers. As a law student, she helped monitor the trial for civil rights violations, because there was concern that in New Haven the Panthers couldn’t get the fair trial that is the right of every American citizen. But she had nothing to do with their defense. </p>
<p>Two were acquitted because the jury thought the state failed to prove it’s case. Another (Kimbo) is free because he cut a deal with prosecutors.</p>
<p>That people are still spreading this kind of lie is sickening.</p>
<p>Here’s what I want to know about the candidates running for President, Republican OR Democrat:</p>
<p>How do you think we’re doing in Iraq?</p>
<p>WHAT are we doing in Iraq?</p>
<p>What will have to happen before American troops can leave Iraq?</p>
<p>How much will that cost our country?</p>
<p>Where will we get the $$ to pay for that?</p>
<p>Do you think all Americans should be entitled to health insurance? </p>
<p>If yes, what should be the vehicle through whcih everyone gets insurance?</p>
<p>How much will this cost us or save us?</p>
<p>Where will the extra money come from?</p>
<p>What is your perspective on abortion? </p>
<p>And other meaty things. I really don’t give a **** who passed the bar on his/her first time out and who didn’t. Or who slept with someone outside of marriage. </p>
<p>Stop the smears, already yet, Hereshoping. Let’s just focus on the issues.</p>
<p>Oh wait – it’s a presidential election; we’re not capable of focusing on the issues.</p>
<p>Sorry, VeryHappy. I didn’t realize that posting a *fact<a href=“which%20I%20happened%20to%20be%20genuinely%20surprised%20about”>/i</a> was a smear. My dictionary defines smear as a “vilification.” I thought we’ve been told in this thread that not passing the bar exam on the first try is in fact very, very common; so I’m having trouble understanding how that fact would qualify as an attempt to ruin her reputation. Nevertheless, I’ll try to stick to your list of permissible topics next time. Thanks.</p>
<p>Using the “smartest woman in the world” meme was a smear in itself, as I’m sure the OP knew when she did it. Hillary has certainly never billed herself this way. </p>
<p>It’s used only by Freepers and others of that misogynist ilk to stir up hatred, because they think that the worst, most insulting thing you can say about a woman is to imply that she’s smart or successful.</p>
<p>if HH wants to examine EVERYTHING about a candidate, them republicans got lots of dirty linen she can take her microscope to</p>
<p>Guess you missed my post #30, cgm. So not passing the bar the first time is now dirty linen? Dirty linen/nothing unusual? Which is it? Hmmm.</p>
<p>To make amends I’ll leave you with a quote from one of our prolific intellectual liberal posters, which addressed the issues:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sweet dreams. Nighty-night.</p>
<p>It’s a shame that won’t fit on a bumper sticker.</p>
<p>LOL conyat!!</p>