Replies

Since you put the phrase in quotation marks, it appears you do not agree that character counts?

No, my point is that character is important, regardless of how and by whom thier faults are exposed.

As someone else pointed out, the motive for a slimy person out to maliciously dig up dirt is relevant.

Do you really think no one exposing Clinton's many infidelities had malicious intent?

No, my point is that character is important, regardless of how and by whom thier faults are exposed.

Despite your assertions to the contrary, every single person here agrees that character is important, no matter the party affiliation.

Do you really think no one exposing Clinton's many infidelities had malicious intent?

First, you use the deceptive tack of implying that clinton's only character flaws are of a sexual nature. And no, I don't think the intent was malicious and purely personal and partisan. Disagree all you like, but I don't think it was malice at all, but a warranted exposure of a very bad man. Plus, I'll not equate investigators working for the DOJ, the independent counsel, the Jones' lawyers, and so on, with Flynt. And the American Spectator had every right to launch their investigative journalism. Thank God they did. It would have been best if more reporters had done some research and exposure.

Character does indeed count. In 2002 Arkansas voters elected a Dem senator, because the repub favorite had an affair with his young staffer. That little mentioned point in the media, escapes most. That vote speaks volumes for a Candidates moral requirements in Arkansas these days, considering they foisted Clinton on us. Proving to me that masturbating in a sink, is not the acceptable behavior, you liberals would like us to see it as.