<p>Going back to something D’Yer Maker said on the first page of this thread:</p>
<p>When I graduated from law school and worked in DC – 1981, a few years after Hilary Rodham – DC had a reputation (along with California and New York) of having an extremely hard bar exam. It absolutely did not, at that time, have the feature where if a candidate’s multiple-choice multistate score was high enough that alone would pass the exam, regardless of how the candidate scored on the essay questions about local law. Pennsylvania was structured that way back then – I passed the PA bar exam studying nights and weekends on my own for two weeks, with one afternoon off from work. If anyone looked at my essays, I could probably be blackmailed. DC changed its policy a few years later (and Pennsylvania went back the other way to some extent). These things are dynamic over time.</p>
<p>The DC pass rate was never as low as California’s. No state’s was – California followed a policy unique among large states in not requiring bar candidates to have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school, so it had many less academically successful candidates sitting for the exam. </p>
<p>I doubt it’s surprising at all that a Yale Law School graduate would fail a tough bar exam. Unlike “lesser” law schools, Yale devotes 0% of its time to putting its students in a position to pass the bar. It’s quite possible – even likely – that Hilary never took courses in half the bar subjects there, and learning enough fussy detail about weird DC and Arkansas local law in unfamiliar subjects in the two months she had, without paying for expensive prep courses, would have been a real challenge. Not that many people haven’t accomplished that – they have – but going 1-1 was not at all unusual.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t think there is any need to be a member of the DC bar to work for a Congressional committee as a lawyer.</p>
<p>Thanks for correcting me and updating (or backdating) my observations. I don’t question any of this because these rules do change and I could only speak to how it worked during my era. What’s nice about this is that it makes me feel younger!</p>
<p>I’ve sat for three bar exams and passed two. I signed up for Virginia a few weeks before sitting for another bar exam that I hadn’t studied for. The thing is that I passed that one, while the editor-in-chief of the law review didn’t. And with no need to get a second bar under my belt and very peculiar Virginia laws to learn, I never gave myself a real shot at the Virginia bar exam. So I can understand how things happen.</p>
<p>Consider the Olympic gold medal contender in speed skating who catches an edge during a qualifying round and is eliminated. It’s not like all of a sudden that athlete is like any other larda$sed couch potato. Sometimes the best people have a bad day.</p>
<p>As for this being kept somewhat under wraps, I don’t have to extrapolate from my early career to imagine a time when female lawyers were under much more scrutiny and had a lot to prove in order to advance to the heights of the profession. I can imagine that it was that much harder at the time and while not passing a bar exam isn’t the mark of a bad lawyer, I can fully appreciate how a female lawyer wouldn’t want to leave anything hanging out there that could – and probably would – be used to feed into the prevailing preconceived notion that most women were generally unable to meet the demands of the profession.</p>
<p>By the way, JHS…congratulations. You did manage to come up with something new in this thread. So, again, I stand corrected. So much humble pie to eat and it’s still just breakfast time! Ugh.</p>
<p>I believe it is often far too much to expect or even hope that the earnest cc crowd will lighten up and go with some fun jabbing or a little shuck & jive.</p>
<p>‘The smartest woman in the world’ was just such a catchy jive.</p>
<p>I imagine few Republicans on this board really expect a first class intellect out of those they vote for–just based on experience…and in the spirit of WFB’s quip would sooner vote for the first thousand names listed in the Boston phone directory that the faculty of Harvard.</p>
<p>This place has become so intense and inasmuch as it has, so achingly dull.</p>
<p>I love a wetted bit of wit from either side and I do not for a moment think that anyone on this board questions the intelligence of HRH HRC. A woman who has her ankles firmly planted into the intellectual soil of New Haven and Little Rock.</p>
<p>Too often, though, Dems set themselves up for exactly this sort of riposte since they tend to believe that “smartness” is all and everything (they’re intellectuals…comes natural to ‘em) and they vote accordingly: Dukakis, Gore, Kerry…I understand Hillary’s main squeeze was a Rhodes Scholar. Chills.</p>
<p>Republicans tend to get the blue-collar stump jumpin’ stuff for the opposite reason. Ad nauseum and obviously. </p>
<p>It has become easier to endure the high-arc proclamations of European egg-heads than to endure some of the earnest spittle splattered about in this joint. Here’s a thought, get a drink of water before speaking (I’d say take a pill but I have no idea what you are already on).</p>
This is so true, VH. However, there are also other cues. For example, if something is repeated ad nauseum, then one can assume deliberateness on the part of the author. By the same token, if one declares that s/he feels hurt or insulted, and no “ooops, my bad” apology is offered, then one can infer intent to insult or degrade. Where some statements have unintended effects, others are simply ill-intended from the get go. These, of course, are the most problematic for a forum such as this.</p>
<p>HH,
I NEVER participate on these “political” threads, but the bar exam is something I know quite a bit about. In my opinion and experience, it is not at all unusual for a person who has attended a NATIONAL law school such as Yale, to fail a bar exam. For example, in NY, “local” law schools such as Brooklyn College and NY Law School specifically prepare students for subjects on the NY bar exam. NYU law school, a national school, does NOT prepare students for the New York bar, and thus it is actually more difficult for those students at a highly ranked law school to pass a state bar exam than it is for students at a much lower ranked law school. I am making excuses for no one, just trying to provide an explanation of how the bar exam works.</p>
<p>Berurah: Regarding the link you cited, in Post #84:</p>
<p>I have a problem with several comments in the article. I won’t use the word “smears,” since that’s apparently inflamatory, but there are some connections the author attempts to make that are flimsy at best but that attempt to paint Hillary with motives that I don’t think the author proves truly exist. For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In regard to the second quote: I don’t believe Hillary has refused to release their income tax returns; she simply hasn’t released them yet. And in regard to the first quote: The author, by using the provocative word “conceal,” is suggesting that she is trying to hide something. Yet, as he himself says in a subordinate clause, she herself has offered no reason for the postponement. Maybe she’s been busy.</p>
<p>That said, I am interested in more information about the company cited (infoUSA), its illegal and immoral activities (preying on the insecure elderly), and the Clintons.</p>
<p>I agree…I’d definitely read the article with the eye/mind of a critic. I read everything that way! The good thing for me is that I am not loyal to either party or to any of their leaders/candidates/members. I look solely to the issues as noted in reliable sources or from the candidates/people themselves.</p>
<p>Berurah, I have always ended up voting GOP, regardless of how I went into the decisioning process. But lately I’ve been thinking, what it is that needs to happen - (and can it even be done???) to attract someone highly desirable and competent to apply for this job, AND, to make it so that it is actually possible for a highly attractive, desirable candidate to win (assuming they are unable or unwilling to attract the millions of dollars it takes to buy the job). </p>
<p>The current crop of GOP hopefuls are not even slightly exciting, and after what I saw last night, with the exception of Obama and maybe Edwards, the entire lot of dems, hopeless as well. </p>
<p>We need someone entirely different for the next president. Problem is, no one worth having can - or will - apply for the job, it seems…</p>
<p>VeryHappy - it’s OK. You can use the accurate word. Truth hasn’t been outlawed just yet. Here’s a brief bio on the author of that article from Wikipedia:
Add it the fact that McCain and Romney also requested filing extensions (reportedly due to the same technical requirement which affected Clinton) and the effort Morris has apparently invested in straining the gnats of a $600M direct mail database company long enough to find something to exaggerate into an appearance of impropriety and I think “smear” is in fact the technically accurate term for that article.</p>
<p>Not that having retired politicians pimping for big corporations isn’t any less repugnant than the way they do it while still in office, but Clinton/infoUSA; Dole/Viagra; you say potayto, I say potahto. </p>
<p>The contortions Morris went through to create the appearance of a scandal, however, are fairly impressive. I give him an 8.8 for execution, but the degree of difficulty isn’t high enough to get him the gold medal this time. He will, however, definitely advance to the next round in good shape!</p>
The resulting apathy is disheartening. I feel exactly the same way as you do, though I’m not quite as enamored of Edwards, though he talks a good game.</p>
<p>Don’t care for any of the GOP candidates either…<em>sigh</em></p>
<p>I am also underwhelmed by the GOP candidates. I voted Democratic until 2000. I could not vote for Gore. When 2004 came around, the fact that the Dems would even choose Kerry as their candidate was even more alarming. There was a time when I believed that the country needed a push in the “progressive” direction. Imo, that time is past. The Democrats’ solutions to the problems in this country I care most deeply about have not worked. I think at this time in our history most of the answers lie in the Republican camp, if only they would have the courage to push them through. Clinton had eight years to show his stuff and failed. The thought of having him in the White House once again literally turns my stomach. I would rather eat nails than vote for Hillary. I was not attempting to “dupe” anyone on this score! I agree Obama came off quite well last night. I like the fact that he really seems to want to unite the country and not divide it. Unfortunately, he is just not experienced and seasoned enough to handle the job; I suspect a flaw in his character if he truly believes he is ready for it, which is not comforting either.</p>
<p>I think Giuliani is the only Republican with a chance to beat Hillary (and probably will). If he’s the candidate, he’ll get my vote. (He’s probably ready to settle down for good with wife number 3 now anyway. :))</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Rudy wasn’t even able to adequately the fire department of one city to respond to disasters, even with an explicit recommendation from the US Fire Commission telling him what needed to be done and years to accomplish it. And when people died for want of interoperable radios, and radios that could work in skyscrapers, he lied to cover it up. </p>
<p>To me, it’s bad enough that we have troops dying who could have survived had they had mine resistent vehicles, better body armor, or if someone had bothered to make it a priority to secure the munitions dumps where the insurgents are getting the ammo for roadside bombs. Putting someone in as C-in-C that we already know has a dismal record for preparedness…</p>
<p>Really? Something equivalent to or worse than failing to provide adequate, basic equipment to first responders–when the need is clear and explicit–then lying about it while having their corpses scooped into the landfill.</p>
<p>Just picking someone at random from each party…what Romney done that’s equal to or worse than this? Or Richardson?</p>
<p>Maybe. He has a chance with on the fence people. But Bush didn’t win in 2000, not by the popular vote anyway. He took the popular vote in 2004 by most accounts because of Karl Rove’s campaign to bring millions of evangelical Christians (for lack of a better term…I really don’t have one) out to the polls, who don’t usually vote. (I’m serious, not trying to mock anyone…I have experience with a wide range of religious preference and some of these very religious people say they don’t vote because they are leaving it up to God to pick the president, unless they get a sign they need to do His work). But Giuliani, these people will never vote for him. Unless he can hide some of his record, but the social record, there’s just no way. Of course if they can figure out how to get people to vote whether they really like it or not, there’s pretty much no Democratic candidate this subgroup would vote for, so I guess it could happen.</p>
The good thing for me is that I am not loyal to either party or to any of their leaders/candidates/members. I look solely to the issues as noted in reliable sources or from the candidates/people themselves.</p>
I feel exactly the same way as you do, though I’m not quite as enamored of Edwards, though he talks a good game.</p>