Does Gennifer Flowers at Monday's debate hurt Hillary or Trump more?

[libertpaulian]

Doesn't help or hurt either.  If making racist comments about a judge or mocking disabled people didn't fatally hurt him, this won't.

[Gustaf]

It doesn't matter, it's disgusting.

And why is it disgusting?  Pray tell, why?
If someone called me an Alt Right member, a Klan Sympathizer, a racist, a xenophobe, and a homophobe, I would think the gloves would be off.  Gennifer Flowers is a reminder of how Bill Clinton lied about his affairs and how Hillary complied.  That's a character issue for her; it's not just personal at this point, and neither is Monica Lewinsky.

You know ..... When we read comments like this, it baffles the mind as to why some take offense when we refer to a minority of trump supporters as "deplorables."
Well ..... here is a perfect example of one of the bottom of the barrel deplorables.

Fuzzy .... go to church and tell you pastor what kind of an ass**** you are conducting yourself as.
Also, ask your congregation to pray for you.

I was joking earilier, but, right now, I'm as serious as a heart attack.  It would be nice if we had a different kind of campaign.  But Hillary is no less responsible for the tone of the campaign then Trump.

Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, et al, represent the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton, a hypocrisy that ought to be front and center in evaluating candidate character.  They bear witness to Hillary's hypocrisy on victims.

Gennifer Flowers represents someone who was in the position she was in due to the powerful position of Bill Clinton.  As was Monica.  As was Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broadderick, and the rest of women who were victimized by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The way they were victimized by Bill is obvious.  They way they were victimized Hillary ought to be obvious; she sought to discredit the allegations of female victims of sexual harassment.  On the campaign trail for herself, Hillary goes on and on about how female victims ought to be believed.  But to prepare that very trail for herself (and there's not doubt that she was thinking about being POTUS every day she was FLOTUS) she worked with others to discredit Bill's accusers, implementing a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit the victims and destroy their credibility.  This is the woman so many women take special pride in as the woman who they hope will be "Madame President".  

I have done many different things in my professional life, and one of them was facilitating Domestic Violence groups for male perpetrators of violence against their female partners.  It would take a long time to discuss the particulars of Batterer's Intervention Programs, but the main aims of these programs are to bring the members of those groups to accept responsibility for their past actions, accept the consequences of their actions as something they brought on themselves, and commit themselves to a lifestyle of non-violence and non-coercive behavior in their relationships with their female partner(s).  In doing this, there is much discussion of male privilege and the beliefs that many men hold that justify these beliefs, where they come from, as well as exploring equality-based, non-violent, non-threatening ways of conducting their lives as it pertains to their female partners.

It would be nice to say that the folks who come to these programs are prepared to take responsibility for their past actions and develop introspection.  In reality, many of these folks deny the offending incident(s) occurred, say the police lied, say the victim lied or manipulated, allege that the victim was fabricating facts in order to gain the upper hand in divorce and child custody issues, how "crazy" the victim is, all the times the victim has been on the "nut ward", all the victim's meds, etc.  These discussions would go on and on if group facilitators didn't cut them off, and they would receive endless support from other group members if group facilitators.  Getting these folks to merely accept responsibility for their past actions, let alone truly examine the attitudes and values that perpetuate coercive behavior, if not outright violence, is a daunting task.

This part of my life experience came after the year 2001.  It certainly changed my opinion of the Clintons and their conduct during the 1990s (and, indeed, during Bill's tenure as AR Governor).  Bill Clinton is an irreconcilable misogynist, in the vein of Bob Packwood (another abuser excused by the Feminist movement due to politics).  The degree to which these male perpetrators refuse to accept meaningful responsibility for their actions is really quite an eye-opener.  It is often a major accomplishment to get such folks to acknowledge their responsibility to walk away from a heated argument that could end in violence if they don't leave, or accept their female partner's right to do the same, and that's a pretty low bar.

As I have taken in a large bank of negativity about female victims from their victimizers, Hillary Clinton's active discrediting of Bill's victims is something I find pretty deplorable.  (Oooh, there's that word again!)  She trashed victims because they were an obstacle to HER ambitions, and if that isn't deplorable, I don't know what is.  Whatever Hillary can and can't do in her life credibly is, I suppose, up to the individual observer, but an advocate for victims of sexual harassment and domestic violence is something this woman can't do credibly until SHE takes responsibility for how SHE treated Bill's victims.  Since I have a family to support, I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens.

And, no, I'm not giving Donald Trump a free pass on his behavior.  Some of his comments about women are things that reveal him to having a misogynistic view of life.  His views of women are not mine, and not the one's I would want in my sons, or in the future husbands of my granddaughters.  I've grudgingly accepted that in order to get the issue positions of Trump (which I'm in significant agreement with) the persona comes with it (and I will not deny that this gives me pause every day).  I'll even go so far as to say that my vote for Trump is not entirely in the bag.  But I have empathy for victims.  Hillary's behavior says a lot about how she would treat any victim of Bill's who was an obstacle to her aims.  My view of Hillary as a person of putrid character isn't something that's been weaved from whole cloth.

Then how do you view Trump's direct attacks on the women that accused Bill Clinton? Don't you think Hillary Clinton siding with her own husband is more understandable than that?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump should offer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky a hefty salary to stand behind him on stage at every public appearance from here on out.  They should be paid to say nothing and just stand there.  If we're going to be over-the-top, let's be whole hog, eh?

What does Hillary have to do with either of them? If we're going to hold her accountable for all of her husband's actions, then I guess she also helped to balance the budget... just saying...

Hillary actively worked to orchestrate the campaign to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers back in the 1990s.  Today, of course, she insists that victims be believed.  And she gets a free pass on this.  She actively worked to help Bill avoid responsibility for his actions because SHE wanted to be President at some point in the future.  It's a statement about HER character. 

[SATW]

Fuzzy Bear is honestly one the worst posters here. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Gustaf]

Trump should offer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky a hefty salary to stand behind him on stage at every public appearance from here on out.  They should be paid to say nothing and just stand there.  If we're going to be over-the-top, let's be whole hog, eh?

What does Hillary have to do with either of them? If we're going to hold her accountable for all of her husband's actions, then I guess she also helped to balance the budget... just saying...

Hillary actively worked to orchestrate the campaign to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers back in the 1990s.  Today, of course, she insists that victims be believed.  And she gets a free pass on this.  She actively worked to help Bill avoid responsibility for his actions because SHE wanted to be President at some point in the future.  It's a statement about HER character. 

A quick googling indicates there is actually no evidence for this just like there isn't for any of the deluded conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Whereas, Trump, as you conveniently ignored, directly attacked these women: "He dismissed Paula Jones as a “loser” and suggested that Clinton would have gotten into less trouble over Monica Lewinsky if he had had an affair with a woman who was more “beautiful.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/24/donald-trump-once-described-bill-clintons-women-as-unattractive-losers/?utm_term=.a6c13c9e9656

[Fuzzy Bear]

It doesn't matter, it's disgusting.

And why is it disgusting?  Pray tell, why?
If someone called me an Alt Right member, a Klan Sympathizer, a racist, a xenophobe, and a homophobe, I would think the gloves would be off.  Gennifer Flowers is a reminder of how Bill Clinton lied about his affairs and how Hillary complied.  That's a character issue for her; it's not just personal at this point, and neither is Monica Lewinsky.

You know ..... When we read comments like this, it baffles the mind as to why some take offense when we refer to a minority of trump supporters as "deplorables."
Well ..... here is a perfect example of one of the bottom of the barrel deplorables.

Fuzzy .... go to church and tell you pastor what kind of an ass**** you are conducting yourself as.
Also, ask your congregation to pray for you.

I was joking earilier, but, right now, I'm as serious as a heart attack.  It would be nice if we had a different kind of campaign.  But Hillary is no less responsible for the tone of the campaign then Trump.

Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, et al, represent the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton, a hypocrisy that ought to be front and center in evaluating candidate character.  They bear witness to Hillary's hypocrisy on victims.

Gennifer Flowers represents someone who was in the position she was in due to the powerful position of Bill Clinton.  As was Monica.  As was Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broadderick, and the rest of women who were victimized by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The way they were victimized by Bill is obvious.  They way they were victimized Hillary ought to be obvious; she sought to discredit the allegations of female victims of sexual harassment.  On the campaign trail for herself, Hillary goes on and on about how female victims ought to be believed.  But to prepare that very trail for herself (and there's not doubt that she was thinking about being POTUS every day she was FLOTUS) she worked with others to discredit Bill's accusers, implementing a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit the victims and destroy their credibility.  This is the woman so many women take special pride in as the woman who they hope will be "Madame President".  

I have done many different things in my professional life, and one of them was facilitating Domestic Violence groups for male perpetrators of violence against their female partners.  It would take a long time to discuss the particulars of Batterer's Intervention Programs, but the main aims of these programs are to bring the members of those groups to accept responsibility for their past actions, accept the consequences of their actions as something they brought on themselves, and commit themselves to a lifestyle of non-violence and non-coercive behavior in their relationships with their female partner(s).  In doing this, there is much discussion of male privilege and the beliefs that many men hold that justify these beliefs, where they come from, as well as exploring equality-based, non-violent, non-threatening ways of conducting their lives as it pertains to their female partners.

It would be nice to say that the folks who come to these programs are prepared to take responsibility for their past actions and develop introspection.  In reality, many of these folks deny the offending incident(s) occurred, say the police lied, say the victim lied or manipulated, allege that the victim was fabricating facts in order to gain the upper hand in divorce and child custody issues, how "crazy" the victim is, all the times the victim has been on the "nut ward", all the victim's meds, etc.  These discussions would go on and on if group facilitators didn't cut them off, and they would receive endless support from other group members if group facilitators.  Getting these folks to merely accept responsibility for their past actions, let alone truly examine the attitudes and values that perpetuate coercive behavior, if not outright violence, is a daunting task.

This part of my life experience came after the year 2001.  It certainly changed my opinion of the Clintons and their conduct during the 1990s (and, indeed, during Bill's tenure as AR Governor).  Bill Clinton is an irreconcilable misogynist, in the vein of Bob Packwood (another abuser excused by the Feminist movement due to politics).  The degree to which these male perpetrators refuse to accept meaningful responsibility for their actions is really quite an eye-opener.  It is often a major accomplishment to get such folks to acknowledge their responsibility to walk away from a heated argument that could end in violence if they don't leave, or accept their female partner's right to do the same, and that's a pretty low bar.

As I have taken in a large bank of negativity about female victims from their victimizers, Hillary Clinton's active discrediting of Bill's victims is something I find pretty deplorable.  (Oooh, there's that word again!)  She trashed victims because they were an obstacle to HER ambitions, and if that isn't deplorable, I don't know what is.  Whatever Hillary can and can't do in her life credibly is, I suppose, up to the individual observer, but an advocate for victims of sexual harassment and domestic violence is something this woman can't do credibly until SHE takes responsibility for how SHE treated Bill's victims.  Since I have a family to support, I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens.

And, no, I'm not giving Donald Trump a free pass on his behavior.  Some of his comments about women are things that reveal him to having a misogynistic view of life.  His views of women are not mine, and not the one's I would want in my sons, or in the future husbands of my granddaughters.  I've grudgingly accepted that in order to get the issue positions of Trump (which I'm in significant agreement with) the persona comes with it (and I will not deny that this gives me pause every day).  I'll even go so far as to say that my vote for Trump is not entirely in the bag.  But I have empathy for victims.  Hillary's behavior says a lot about how she would treat any victim of Bill's who was an obstacle to her aims.  My view of Hillary as a person of putrid character isn't something that's been weaved from whole cloth.

Then how do you view Trump's direct attacks on the women that accused Bill Clinton? Don't you think Hillary Clinton siding with her own husband is more understandable than that?

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

[Ebsy]

Kellyanne Conway said she isn't going to get a ticket from the campaign, so I am guessing she won't be there.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump should offer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky a hefty salary to stand behind him on stage at every public appearance from here on out.  They should be paid to say nothing and just stand there.  If we're going to be over-the-top, let's be whole hog, eh?

What does Hillary have to do with either of them? If we're going to hold her accountable for all of her husband's actions, then I guess she also helped to balance the budget... just saying...

Hillary actively worked to orchestrate the campaign to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers back in the 1990s.  Today, of course, she insists that victims be believed.  And she gets a free pass on this.  She actively worked to help Bill avoid responsibility for his actions because SHE wanted to be President at some point in the future.  It's a statement about HER character.  

A quick googling indicates there is actually no evidence for this just like there isn't for any of the deluded conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Whereas, Trump, as you conveniently ignored, directly attacked these women: "He dismissed Paula Jones as a “loser” and suggested that Clinton would have gotten into less trouble over Monica Lewinsky if he had had an affair with a woman who was more “beautiful.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/24/donald-trump-once-described-bill-clintons-women-as-unattractive-losers/?utm_term=.a6c13c9e9656

You didn't look very hard:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2016/01/22/feminists-dont-know-what-to-do-with-hillarys-slut-shaming-of-bills-victims-heres-help/

There's more:

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/30/why-do-bill-and-hillary-clinton-still-get-a-pass-n2032156

It may be true that all this does is put the Clintons on the same level as Trump.  Certainly not something to be super proud of.  But while Trump may well be a garden variety misogynist, Hillary is a world class hypocrite when it comes to her.  Integrity means doing the right thing even when it's not in your best interest to do so.  Hillary flunks this test.  Period.

[Gustaf]

No I saw those things. So she might have made a few private remarks about these women (none of this constitutes conclusive evidence obviously). Your jump from that to "she orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy them" is just your own bias.

And, furthermore, your assumption that this was because she is power hungry is also just your own idea.

[Lachi]

Trump should offer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky a hefty salary to stand behind him on stage at every public appearance from here on out.  They should be paid to say nothing and just stand there.  If we're going to be over-the-top, let's be whole hog, eh?

What does Hillary have to do with either of them? If we're going to hold her accountable for all of her husband's actions, then I guess she also helped to balance the budget... just saying...

Hillary actively worked to orchestrate the campaign to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers back in the 1990s.  Today, of course, she insists that victims be believed.  And she gets a free pass on this.  She actively worked to help Bill avoid responsibility for his actions because SHE wanted to be President at some point in the future.  It's a statement about HER character.  

A quick googling indicates there is actually no evidence for this just like there isn't for any of the deluded conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Whereas, Trump, as you conveniently ignored, directly attacked these women: "He dismissed Paula Jones as a “loser” and suggested that Clinton would have gotten into less trouble over Monica Lewinsky if he had had an affair with a woman who was more “beautiful.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/24/donald-trump-once-described-bill-clintons-women-as-unattractive-losers/?utm_term=.a6c13c9e9656

You didn't look very hard:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2016/01/22/feminists-dont-know-what-to-do-with-hillarys-slut-shaming-of-bills-victims-heres-help/

There's more.

From what I can see, the author of that article is from the right-wing of Patheos

[Fuzzy Bear]

No I saw those things. So she might have made a few private remarks about these women (none of this constitutes conclusive evidence obviously). Your jump from that to "she orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy them" is just your own bias.

And, furthermore, your assumption that this was because she is power hungry is also just your own idea.

Folks get to draw their own conclusion about public figures.  I'll allow the average voter to decide Hillary's and Trump's motives for themselves.

[Gustaf]

No I saw those things. So she might have made a few private remarks about these women (none of this constitutes conclusive evidence obviously). Your jump from that to "she orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy them" is just your own bias.

And, furthermore, your assumption that this was because she is power hungry is also just your own idea.

Folks get to draw their own conclusion about public figures.  I'll allow the average voter to decide Hillary's and Trump's motives for themselves.

...and you didn't get the point.

[Wells]

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

But of course we all know that's ridiculous. Hillary Clinton isn't a normal human being. She's an overambitious conniving evil liar. After all, she used emails. It doesn't matter that she didn't run for president until she was 60, it's obvious every move she has made was to prepare for the presidency. Giving millions of children healthcare must have been a political stunt. It's not like a human being would care about other people. It doesn't matter that Trump lies more than her, she's untrustworthy because she is. Any bad thing she said in private about people accusing her husband of things that would be unbelievable to a wife who cares about their husband are SMEAR CAMPAIGNS.

And Trump may have said those things (publicly too) but SMEAR CAMPAIGNS!!1!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But she's not going to be there

She has confirmed to the NYT that she will indeed be there, just not as an official guest of the campaign.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

Yeah, that totally explains why she passed on running for Senate in a state that she never once resided in as soon as her husband left the White House.

[Wells]

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

Yeah, that totally explains why she passed on running for Senate in a state that she never once resided in as soon as her husband left the White House.

If she was running in the Senate in order to prepare for her presidency, then she would have run in a swing state. Instead, she ran in a solidly Democratic state of New York. The reason she ran there was to win the Senate seat, not to do better in a presidential election eight years later.

[Cory]

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

But of course we all know that's ridiculous. Hillary Clinton isn't a normal human being. She's an overambitious conniving evil liar. After all, she used emails. It doesn't matter that she didn't run for president until she was 60, it's obvious every move she has made was to prepare for the presidency. Giving millions of children healthcare must have been a political stunt. It's not like a human being would care about other people. It doesn't matter that Trump lies more than her, she's untrustworthy because she is. Any bad thing she said in private about people accusing her husband of things that would be unbelievable to a wife who cares about their husband are SMEAR CAMPAIGNS.

And Trump may have said those things (publicly too) but SMEAR CAMPAIGNS!!1!

[DrScholl]

The answer of who it would hurt more is clear now that Trump has decided not to invite Flowers to the debate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

But of course we all know that's ridiculous. Hillary Clinton isn't a normal human being. She's an overambitious conniving evil liar. After all, she used emails. It doesn't matter that she didn't run for president until she was 60, it's obvious every move she has made was to prepare for the presidency. Giving millions of children healthcare must have been a political stunt. It's not like a human being would care about other people. It doesn't matter that Trump lies more than her, she's untrustworthy because she is. Any bad thing she said in private about people accusing her husband of things that would be unbelievable to a wife who cares about their husband are SMEAR CAMPAIGNS.

And Trump may have said those things (publicly too) but SMEAR CAMPAIGNS!!1!

Voters look at political candidates and draw conclusions about their motivations.  I have no doubt that Hillary has wanted to have a political career of her own from the time of her days in Arkansas.  Bill's Presidency actually put that on hold, but she insisted on being a part of his Administration.  It's arguable as to whether or not she was a plus, but her role when the Gennifer Flowers thing exploded and her role when the Monica Lewinsky thing exploded was the thing that saved Bill's legacy and saved her own future prospects.

As for being devoted to her husband:  Of course she's devoted.  HER dreams require HIM.  That's the way it's played out. 

[angus]

Dragging out some dried up old whore from 30 years ago will sure show Hillary a thing or two.

well put.

On the one hand, reminding Americans that Clinton is a bully who hired private investigators and thugs to silence her Attorney General husband's victims into silence might be a good strategy.  On the other hand, it might remind Americans of what she had to put up with from her husband and thus it might make people sympathetic to her.  But who are we kidding?  The Trump supporters will see it one through one filter and the Clinton supporters will see it through another filter, so the ultimate effect is that dredging up a dried-out whore from 30 years ago will not make much difference.  It's the sort of sensationalist tactic that has neither distracted any of Trump's fans nor gained him any new admirers.

On balance, it's a wash, because it will further entrench each stubborn camp's perceived vindication.

[Shadows]

Clinton team have to be scared now. Can you imagine Clinton attacking Trump on sexism. Trump will point to Flowers & say how she is sitting & was terribly abused & go on with a list about Bill & so on. This exchange & Bill will take up 10 minutes & so on with Hillary being termed as the enabler. Next day you will Fox interviewing Flowers & doing a story on Bill.

This is the last debate which Hillary wants to have. The time where she should be exposing Trump is LOST in this. And similarly she will be spending 15 minutes defending that she is not corrupt or doesn't have bad judgement due to the emails of Clinton foundation thing.

This is what you get for choosing Hillary Clinton!

[Hilldog]

She won't be at the debate.  I thought about it more today and all Clinton would have to say is "Gennifer, that's my man!" while looking at her.  The grieving Benghazi mother is who Trump should have at the debate.  Then simply say that he'll answer questions after his opponent looks her in the eye and apologizes to her.  Anyhow, to get into the debate I'm sure you have to buy a ticket well in advance or be invited way before.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's not a role model in this area.  That's being kind.

Hillary, however, sided with her own husband (I believe) for one reason; to preserver HER OWN political career.  Most other political wives would have done the stand by your man thing until such time as they were able to divorce the man, or until the man got meaningful counseling.  They would not have actively sought to discredit those who they thought were actively victimized by their husband, at a minimum.  They would NOT be orchestrating a "nuts and sluts" campaign to discredit their husband's accusers.

Hillary, on the other hand, had POTUS on her mind throughout Bill's Presidency.  And she knew that her chances for this dream were, like it or not, tied to Bill.  She needed to stay married to Bill, and she needed to preserve as much of HIS good name she could in order to keep HER chances for the White House going.  That meant discrediting the Paula Joneses, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willeys and Juanita Broddericks of the world, and she took part in attempting to do that, not to mention Monica Lewinsky.

Trump's a cad, and, I must admit, his persona gives me pause every day, even as I agree with him on many issue positions.  But Trump isn't trying to pose as a victim's advocate for women on the losing end of sexual harassment, domestic battery, sexual assault, et al.  Hillary says that victims should be believed, but she acted to ensure that a certain set of victims NOT be believed.  Those who are rightfully concerned about what kind of President Trump would be for our daughters (as per Hillary's ad) ought to consider Hillary's record in the 1990s on victims whose accusations indirectly impacted HER.  Do Hillary's actions speak as loudly as Trump's words?  I suppose that's for the electorate to decide.

The Hillary Clinton you think exists is not the one who actually exists. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton wasn't thinking about the presidency when she defended her husband, maybe a wife actually loves her husband and doesn't want to see his name get dragged through the mud. Maybe she was personally angered by the attacks on her husband and shot back. Perhaps she actually (here's a thought that will blow you mind) she is devoted to her husband and wants what is best for their relationship. It could be that she had no thoughts of the presidency ten years before she first ran.

Yeah, that totally explains why she passed on running for Senate in a state that she never once resided in as soon as her husband left the White House.

If she was running in the Senate in order to prepare for her presidency, then she would have run in a swing state. Instead, she ran in a solidly Democratic state of New York. The reason she ran there was to win the Senate seat, not to do better in a presidential election eight years later.

Hillary ran for the Senate seat from New York, and not a swing state, for a number of reasons:

1.  She knew in advance that Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) was retiring in 2000.

2.  New York was the kind of place the Clintons would need to operate out of for the sake of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.  Proximity to big donors, high finance, and the UN.

3.  New York was liberal enough to where she would be the favorite in a general election in a Presidential year.

4.  New York's nominating process is very much party organization driven.  The Democratic State Committee cleared the path for her; she won a primary against a token fringe candidate 82-18.

5.  New York is a state where being a celebrity is a BIG plus; her celebrity aided her in every way.

6.  New York is a state which doesn't penalize "carpetbaggers".

What other state could she have run in?  California had two (2) Democratic Senators, none of them inclined to retire.  Florida was too conservative.  Arkansas didn't have a seat up, and her pre-empting local pols for the 2002 Senate seat would not have been received well.  Pennsylvania had a Republican incumbent (Santorum) that was in the GOP leadership and looking strong at the time.  Virginia was Republican at the time and had an incumbent Democratic Senator that was about to lose re-election.  Maryland MIGHT have been a good bet, but Sarbanes didn't retire in 2000 and Maryland just didn't have the advantages New York had.

[Lincoln Republican]

Clearly Donald.

Hillary would be seen as the victim.

But Gennifer won't be there anyway.