I see. Lying was wrong but understandable. Yes, Bob, when people lie I would agree that most of the time they have their own reason for doing so. Clinton's repeated lying is understandable to you? Very generous of you....
Yes, Mike, wrong but understandable. This is not generous, this is an observation of how people react when they are caught in a relationship threatening situation. I understand a high proportion of them will say whatever they can to preserve the relationship, despite having done their best to undermine it by indulging themselves in the behavior that went before.
You may be confusing "understand" with "support" or "condone" or "indulge in myself." None of these are the case on my part, though I can't say as much for many of the Republicans who voted to impeach the man.
As far as the allegations, as soon as the women came forth, the democratic political machine went into action, the same machine that was in the stages of smearing Lewinski and painting her as a lying little kid out for her 15 minutes......until the blue dress showed up. When you have a "he said....she said" situation with the "he" being the president of the United States, the "she" has a problem, as did Ms. Jones and the others. of course you may say "No conviction - no foul" and that's fine but it's a hard sell. Even Clinton supporters acknowledge his womanizing tactics over the years. So, to sum it up, you can understand his lying and close your eyes to all allegations....and probably while saying "no bias here"....another hard sell!
That's quite a jumble, Mike.
Yes, Clinton was elected with a history of affairs behind him. The public knew that and elected him anyway. Exactly how this amounts to "tactics," a word used in military and political circles, leaves me puzzled. I fail to see how it offered him any advantage; I think it was a weakness.
As far as I remember, the women didn't "come forth;" they were presented and funded by various Republican organizations and supported by various Republican legal groups of lawyers.
Whatever the truth was about these allegations, this particular fact made it very difficult to evaluate the various charges being made. I don't know if you appreciate the difficulty of this, but I believe that it accounted for the continued popularity of the President through much of the flood of accusation he endured. The public seemed to feel that it was trumped up in large part; it was mostly the Republican base that seemed to believe otherwise at the time.
There certainly was a Democratic response to both the actual affair and to the Republican attempt to take advantage of it. Initially, it was to gather around the President and to fight back, but when the smoking dress came out, a lot of Democrats back off. Some of President Clinton's former allies distanced themselves, including, for example, George Stephanopolous. The first Lady was far from thrilled, and endured considerable criticism for standing by the criticism for standing by him politically.
So I can say, fairly clearly, that I don't accept your account of either the situation or of my views of the situation. Nor do I accept allegations to be the same as facts, especially when one can make allegations until one is exhausted about politicians with little worry about being
sued for slander.
As for saying no bias here, I'm making an attempt to be fair. I have also stated that I'm a political Liberal and that's where my sympathies lie. It may be confusing when I criticize other Liberals or say occasionally nice things about conservatives, but that is part of the Liberal bias, I assure you. As a Liberal, you're supposed to consider as much of everything as you can with an open mind. I find that's not always possible, but I do try.