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

[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!

[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.