Are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a flawed-but-great man, and a weasel like Bill Clinton? By your reasoning, we should reject Thomas Jefferson as a leader. He was a deeply flawed man. And George Washington, too. And Ronald Reagan, and well, pretty much everyone, because all men are flawed. The one perfect man isn't running for office this year, so all we're left with is flawed humans.
The difference is that great men recognize their flaws and try to learn from them. Clinton is (as he shows every single day he shamefully shills for his unqualified harpy of a wife) that he was a mediocre president and remains a less-than-stellar person. Clinton does *not* admit to his mistakes (shamefully arguing over the definition of sex or the word "is").
I see a difference between Bill Clinton and Thomas Jefferson. Are you saying that you don't?
True, 1 could say Clinton had no redeeming qualities - but liberals DID say that and do think he does, and has “accomplishments”.
Just saying it’s not a very good argument. We’re all aware of “flaws”.
George had almost no flaws, incidentally.
Actually, we’re not talking “flaws”, we’re talking major cardinal sins.
We all have “flaws”, but haven’t necessarily broken any of the 10 Commandments.