What I will not accept, however, is this hypocritical rubbish that she's some pure as the driven snow martyr, for whom a good thirty years of semi-regular scandals is either a smear campaign, conspiracy theories (though some certainly are) or ignorable blots on an otherwise flawless record. ...
(I also recognise and appreciate that while I think it says a lot that many people here continue to ignore the testimony of the victim about Clinton in this particular case, I'm not slagging off those who've responded to my points perfectly reasonably and fairly, even if we totally disagree.)
I guess I am failing to see this magical majority who hold her as some pure martyr. Nearly everyone acknowledges she is not perfect, no politician is. But the amount of hypocritical scrutiny she is held to because of being a Clinton and being a woman is ridiculous. I honestly don't recall Bush Jr. being held to the same super high scrutiny for his father's deeds. I do however recall Obama being held to impossible standards for being black. You really need to reframe your position and arguments to be grounded in reality in this aspect.
That said, are you an attorney, a public defender or a judge, or involved in the legal practice in a significant way? Because if not, then most who are would tell you that the actions in this case are not unusual. They are not abnormal, and it's only with hindsight that you can question it. And your questioning of experts based on statements without evidence is ludicrous. These experts are called that for a reason. They often see routine and extreme cases on a regular basis and have a far better understanding of the events than the victim. They are able to have an often criticized by lay persons professional detachment that allows them to look at the events, facts and evidence and frame them appropriately for the judge and jury. Do mistakes happen, sure, but by and large arm chair second guessing by lay people later is meaningless. It amount to the very same type of witch hunts you decry.
Personally, I think part of why I'm not a big fan of Clinton is because of how she compares to Obama. He was a charismatic, younger black person leading a hype train campaign based on hope and change, and Clinton is just another stuffy old white person. It's especially glaring since Obama's elections are the only ones I've been old enough to vote in.
I'm thrilled to see a woman on her way to the white house, but in most other respects it feels like a step backward.
I don't hate her or think she's a snake, though, and I will be voting for her.
This I agree with. She is no Obama, not even close, but it's undeniable she is nevertheless laying down the foundation for future women. That said I think it was Obama's incredible skill and polish that got him elected and reelected relatively smoothly. If Clinton were on the same level Trump would be laughed out of the US. And if Obama were not as able as he is, he would have lost.
