would we really be worse off in modern times, if it were socially acceptable for women to merely be honest and fornicate us into relationships as that moral of bearing True Witness.
I have no problem either way with the timing.
The fact this is not close to a crucial election leads one to suspect she is without such guile. I suggest that if she had had that kind of mean streak it would have surfaced a long time ago and had the possibility of being far more damaging, to herself and the Clintons.
She was in her youth still and became a national figure in a sex scandal, has been the subject of ridicule, gossip and speculation, powerful political figures have attempted to disparage her character; read some of these posts from the eyes of her, her friends and family.
That would leave scars on anyone. I know from first-hand experience communicating, often writing is a therapeutic thing; her infamy was world wide. I admire that kind of courage. i
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
I don't think she has an agenda concerning the election. I think enough years have past, that she has gotten past the shame enough to cope, and that telling her story is part of her healing process.
If I don't respond to you, maybe I'm tired of nonsense. I don't need the last word like some of you do.
The potential blackmail aspect brought up my Maggie is a good point and legitimate concern, but I don't think that means that special prosecutors should persecute every politician having illicit sex.
they are a power couple. not a romantic one ... at least from my very remote vantage
they may well have an agreement that each can engage sexually with others, so long as their sexual escapades do not bring dishonor upon them (yea, bill screwed the pooch on that one, assuming his twenty something on the side was not going to tell her friends about what she was doing with the most powerful person in the world)
and in that context, i do not see anything which would indicate hillary exhibits low self esteem
For all those saying that what a President does in private should be between him and his wife and shouldn't have an impact on his job...
Were you suggesting a similar view point towards what a CEO does in private? There were many that had no issue with people using the private actions of a CEO that they simply had a moral disagreement with (his support for gay marriage) as a means to pressure him out of a job.....what makes a a CEO accountable to his co-equal parts of the business and/or the stock holders, but magically a President is not accountable to his co-equal parts of the government and/or the ciitzen ranks who elect them? Why is the private life and actions of CEO's the publics business but the private life and actions of PUBLIC OFFICIALs seemingly not for some reason?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.