So pissed at Kristen Gillibrand for saying Bill should have resigned

[GaryCnf]

134. You know we have a problem

when an easy 60% of the replies to this OP focus on whether, in their humble opinion, Bill Clinton was a good president as if it is relevant.

You know we have a problem when a large percentage of the replies focus on whether, in their humble opinion, we could have won without Bill Clinton, as if it was relevant.

You know we have a problem when replies point out that FDR and JFK were unfaithful to their spouses as if the most powerful man in the world having an affair with an intern in his office is nothing more than an affair.

If Bill Clinton should be defended, there are only two grounds. Either: (a) one must agree that there is no right or wrong and that only the result matters (which is a fair enough position if honestly taken, but dangerous if we wish to treat non-criminal sexual aggression as disqualifying); or, (b) one must agree that disparate power between men and women (including between powerful men and powerless women) in the workplace is not inherently coercive and that, absent overt coercion, all sexual encounters in the workplace are consensual (which is a no less dangerous, but is also a sickening, position.)

If we are unwilling to do either, if Bill Clinton should not be defended, then not only was Senator Gillibrand correct, we have another person who needs to come forward and say resignation would have been the right thing to do.