tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post1796133090407905907..comments2024-03-27T19:01:21.504-06:00Comments on Enik Rising: Edwards and the Clinton experienceSeth Maskethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-5562595312927044192018-11-28T05:46:22.385-07:002018-11-28T05:46:22.385-07:00Our services is widely spread across India. We are...Our services is widely spread across India. We are one of the most safe and reliable packers and movers Mumbai because we take pride in delivering the best of <a href="https://indianpackersmovers.in/" title="Packers and movers in Mumbai" rel="nofollow">house shifting services</a>, <a href="https://indianpackersmovers.in/" title="Packers and movers in Mumbai" rel="nofollow">office shifting services</a> at a most affordable charges.packers and movers in mumbaihttps://indianpackersmovers.in/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-1789159391097300142012-05-08T17:49:42.504-06:002012-05-08T17:49:42.504-06:00"Both had consensual affairs. That was their ..."Both had consensual affairs. That was their personal business."<br /><br />This is not true in Clinton's case. Clinton had his affair in a public office, and the conduct of it was prohibited in the White House ethics guidelines. This one wasn't personal business.<br /><br />"One actually broke the law only when the opposition party made his personal business into a legal issue"<br /><br />Similarly not quite right. This was quite relevant to a workplace sexual harassment case. As of course it was not personal business, but a matter of office conduct in a Federal office. Clinton made this into a legal issue by committing crimes related to it, ranging from the ethics violations to the perjury. None of this was the Republicans' fault or doing. It was entirely Clinton's choice to engage in public conduct in this fashion.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-86939513056533052212012-05-05T15:46:01.947-06:002012-05-05T15:46:01.947-06:00I don't know that I'd agree with your char...I don't know that I'd agree with your characterization of the Edwards indictments, Jeremy. No one disputes that some wealthy people gave Edwards money. (That's not a crime.) No one disputes that he used that money to try to cover up his affair and the resulting child. (Also not a crime.) The case against him is that the money was a campaign donation because covering up the affair and child was a goal of Edwards' presidential campaign.<br /><br />I don't have much passion for defending Edwards right now, but this whole case feels like a real stretch to me.Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-6536660870029574452012-05-04T21:26:05.147-06:002012-05-04T21:26:05.147-06:00Speaking as someone who doesn't really care ab...Speaking as someone who doesn't really care about either Clinton's or Edwards' indiscretions (I mean yeah, it might make them scumbags, but it doesn't affect whether I consider either of them capable of governing):<br /><br />The bigger issue here, to me, is what Edwards is actually being charged with: namely, collecting illegal campaign contributions, and using campaign contributions to cover up his affair. Would Clinton have done the same? Possibly. However, as it stands, he was never charged with that crime, despite all his famous affairs. Edwards has been, and by all accounts, deserves to be punished for it. (And that punishment could add up to 30 years in prison!)<br /><br />Both had consensual affairs. That was their personal business. One actually broke the law only when the opposition party made his personal business into a legal issue; the other was engaging in illegal activity from the get go.Jeremynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-2425331012049403142012-05-02T13:34:10.203-06:002012-05-02T13:34:10.203-06:00No, it wasn't specifically harassment. But the...No, it wasn't specifically harassment. But the situation was definitely relevant in regards to the Jones case.<br /><br />If Clinton had kept this private and out of the workplace, and not a matter of boss-employee relations, there would have been no problem at all.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-37361272008188164262012-05-02T10:07:48.617-06:002012-05-02T10:07:48.617-06:00Given Lewinsky's own descriptions of the relat...Given Lewinsky's own descriptions of the relationship, the only way to describe that situation as harassment is to believe that <i>any</i> sexual contact between a male boss and a female employee is harassment. And yes, some do make that claim. But do you really want to argue that?Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-87444758594534909862012-05-02T06:31:35.839-06:002012-05-02T06:31:35.839-06:00It also violated White House ethics rules, Clinton...It also violated White House ethics rules, Clinton committed a crime by lying about it (as it was relevant in the sexual harassment situation), and the "consensual" part is rather debatable. Feminists have rightly pointed out the power relationship problem with bosses who use their underlings for sexual gratification, and this is definitely amplified when the boss is the most powerful man in the free world.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-67741614658205807892012-04-30T15:39:52.163-06:002012-04-30T15:39:52.163-06:00Sexual harassment is a serious issue, but Republic...Sexual harassment is a serious issue, but Republicans chose not to impeach him on that one. And indeed, much of the floor debate at the time concerned the president's example of immorality with Lewinsky -- an affair that was, however loathsome, nonetheless consensual.Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-74096532685734874642012-04-30T14:49:34.015-06:002012-04-30T14:49:34.015-06:00"The Republicans made that easy by determinin..."The Republicans made that easy by determining that oral sex was an impeachable offense."<br /><br />It was more like Clinton engaged in sexual harassment of his employees as a habit. This was relevant to the Paula Jones case... and he lied about it under oath.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3412583847145043520.post-82389127787787440772012-04-27T18:03:36.810-06:002012-04-27T18:03:36.810-06:00I wouldn't overlook the fact that people also ...I wouldn't overlook the fact that people also felt hugely different about the wives who were being cheated on. Elizabeth Edwards was well on her way to being canonized as a saint, what with the dying of cancer with enormous grace thing, whereas Hillary elicited a lot more ambiguity. Also, it's worth remembering that while Bill got a BJ in the OO, Edwards (a) fathered a child with his mistress and, much worse, (b) denied the child was his until presented with irrefutable proof. If many Dems wanted to slap Bill Clinton for what he'd done, they felt more like punching Edwards in the mouth. Repeatedly. Bill looked like a weasel and turned out to be a weasel—Edwards looked like a nice guy, and turned out to be a real scumbag.Rob Rushingnoreply@blogger.com