# Against Trump specifically, Sanders is the better Dem candidate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 4, 2016, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881 "2016-03-04T00:33:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/41 "2016-03-04T19:04:10Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Bernie is a much better choice if the intention is to get the President and Congress to work together. Bernie has the skillset to create a workable compromise. Good government is based on the ability to compromise. I know they’re currently in disarray. But I think it’s premature to predict the Republican party will have ceased to exist by next year. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/42 "2016-03-04T19:08:59Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > It’s also worth remembering that, during The Decider’s reign, the left complained endlessly (and rightly) about his authoritarian, “my way or the highway” approach to working with the opposition. Compromise seemed like a pretty good idea then. Compromise is generally a good thing. But it has to be something both sides are willing to do. Unilateral compromising is basically surrendering. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/43 "2016-03-04T19:10:59Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Yes, I realize that it’s probably too late to save the Democratic Party from itself, and that a massive shift in public opinion would be needed for Sanders to catch up to and pass Clinton’s delegate count after last Tuesday’s debacle. Still, I know that we have the nation’s opinion leaders here on the SDMB, so I am going to make a last-ditch appeal to reason. > > [Here](http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency) is an excellent article laying out the reasons why, although the conventional wisdom would say that Clinton is much more electable than Sanders, the calculations become very different given that the GOP is likely to nominate a very unconventional candidate. Sanders’ strengths are precisely those needed to oppose Trump, and his weaknesses are ones that Trump is ill-prepared to exploit. > > TL;DR: > Trump is a bully. When attacked by a bully, you have to respond with righteous indignation or be seen as weak. Nobody does righteous indignation like Bernie Sanders. > > Trump thrives on personal attacks. Against Clinton, all he will have to do is spew a bunch of crap about emails and Benghazi and Whitewater. Since the perception of being unethical is a real problem for Clinton, she will have to respond, but in the time it takes her to factually rebut one attack, Trump will have flung five more at her. Bernie, on the other hand, has no ethical skeletons in his closet. All Trump will be able to do is yell “socialist socialist socialist!”. This gives Bernie an opening to say “Well, what I mean by that is…” and lead Trump where he fears most to go, into an actual discussion of real issues. > > Conversely, Trump’s own history is a target-rich environment for ethical attacks, and Sanders is much better positioned than Clinton to mount those attacks without fear of successful counterattack. A Trump-Clinton race would likely devolve into a six-month pissing contest. Clinton herself might very well win, but the sheer ugliness of the race would drive down voter turnout, hurting the Democrats’ hopes down the ticket. > > Now consider the legitimate arguments against Sanders; he has little foreign policy experience and some of his policy proposals seem dubiously realistic. Against a mainstream Republican, those are problems. Compared to the Donald, he comes out way ahead on both counts. … Yes I consider this conversation a hypothetical one at this point but sure I’ll bite … I dispute the contention that the only way to deal with a bully is “righteous indignation” or even that such works all that well. In this context behaving, well Presidential, calmly and factually, not with indignation, is more effective. Clinton has much experience at being attacked and in a very personal ways. Sanders? Has been in a political environment that views personal attacks and personal backstories as off limits and has zero experience at being Swiftboated. Yes, Trump’s personal attack style appeals to a sizable enough of a minority voting in the GOP primary process that he may win the nomination in this split field process with weak opposition. But within the GOP it turns off more than it appeals to and among Democrats it turns off much more so, obviously. For the college educated White swingables? I think it drives them away too. Will there be a few who will stay home when they don’t get their way and Clinton is the candidate? Yes, a few. And if somehow at this point Sanders there may be a few of the demographics that have completely rejected him who feel sufficiently disenfranchised to opt out as well. But likely very few in either case. Most do not hate either of them, just strongly prefer one over the other, and even those who hate one or the other are usually cognizant of the serious harms a Trump presidency could bring. Turnout may be big this (hypothetical) Clinton-Trump election with strong showings from those who are motivated by voting for and those who are motivated by voting against each of these two. Yes a few angry White Blue collar workers, whose jobs are not back or are now replaced with lower paying service industry work, may flip from D to R. And a fair number of moderates who often vote R will flip to D. Not sure if the flipping angry White blue collars would alternatively prefer the angry self-avowed socialist who also is anti-establishment to the blowhard billionaire and strongly suspect that the socialist moniker would turn off some sizable percent of the GOP moderates. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/44 "2016-03-04T19:12:31Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > What I find interesting is how low both of the Dems’ polls will dip with continued and repeated attacks. Here is where I think Clinton has an advantage. Who is unfamiliar with Clinton? She’s been in the public eye for decades. No attack will be new, and she’s repeatedly faced each one of the attacks over and over. The general election will not be the first time the public hears about Benghazi or Whitewater or Lewinsky. Likely, the people who aren’t voting for her now were never going to vote for her anyway. So her polls will dip, but not that much. > > On the other hand, many are unfamiliar with Sanders. He’ll need to cross over to get some moderates and independents, and many of them will be hearing about his plans for the first time. To them, repeated calls of socialist or high taxes will be more damaging because that sets the narrative. His polls will dip more than Clinton’s under withering scrutiny, I think. I agree with this. Clinton has been in the limelight for years. If some story comes out about another skeleton in Clinton’s closet, some will believe the story, but many will just automatically think it’s another baseless attack on her, and that’s regardless of how much basis the attack has. There are undecided voters who may or may not vote for Clinton, but few of them would be dissuaded by another “scandal” emerging, since she’s had so many, and a good number of them have been blown crazily out of proportion. However, Sanders is less well known. Some story could come out about how he’s good friends with and influenced by a crazy extremist professor who said dangerous crazy things, or that Sanders gave a speech one time where he said regressive and offensive things, or that he had really shady business dealings with a known criminal, and most people wouldn’t know at first glance how legit or fake the story is. For all I know he might be the most honest man who ever lived, who has absolutely no skeletons in his closet, but anything that is remotely skeleton shaped could be used against him, and I don’t know how well he’d be able to combat those stories. Whatever story would circulate, and Sanders would just keep talking about economic inequality, and he might sound above it all, or might sound like he’s hiding from the truth. He doesn’t have much experience being attacked on the national stage like Clinton has. In the primaries with Clinton, it’s been fairly civil between the two of them, since their positions are fairly similar in many ways, and either one would support the other when going forward, so it’s not like the primary season has prepared him for the viciousness of the general. It’s not impossible for Sanders to beat Trump, just it seems like Clinton would do better. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/45 "2016-03-04T19:44:18Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Bernie is better. Trump is not a bully that I know of, he takes on people his own size, and except for his out of the blue attacks on Obama I don’t recall him throwing the first punch. > [@Chronos](#): > > Among Trump’s targets are refugees, the poor, religious minorities, immigrants, and his own supporters. … Not forgetting the disabled. [http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn](http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn) > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Hillary sat through a 5 hour grilling by a House committee, fending off hours of nonsense attacks. She is tough and unflappable. … Yes. Bernie Sanders has never, so far as I can find out, been the target of Trump-style nasty attacks. How well will he cope with Trump calling him a doddering old man\*, with Trump calling his wife fat, with Trump talking endlessly about Sanders’ illegitimate son? Trump will not confine himself to remarks about Sanders’ political positions. He will get very, very personal. Will Sanders be able to shrug that off? We have no way of knowing (whereas we know that Hillary can stand up under that sort of thing.) \*There are fewer than five years between their ages (74 and 69), but that won’t stop Trump from trying to characterize Sanders as old and frail. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/46 "2016-03-04T20:13:20Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So, **doorhinge** really wants the Democrats to nominate Sanders. > > We thank him for his concern! Given his posting history, most of us will do the opposite of what he recommends. “We”? Who’s this “we” you’re referring to? How many people do claim to represent? There’s Bridget, Burke, and **Bridget Burke**. That’s one. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/47 "2016-03-04T20:13:31Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > So you think that “Sanders fucks dead children while shooting up?” is an equally plausible accusation as “Clinton is a liar and an opportunist?” No, I think _“Sanders fucks dead children while shooting up?”_ is the equivalent of _“Clinton is a lesbian Satanist who killed Vince Foster.”_ Sure it’s over the top. But if you throw out enough smoke, people start believing there must be a fire out there somewhere. If you accuse somebody of being a serial killer who eats his victims and cheats on his taxes, a lot of people are going to think _“Well, calling him a killer and a cannibal is just crazy talk.”_ So guess what? You now have some people thinking it’s plausible he cheats on his taxes. There’s no more evidence of that accusation than the others but if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. Look at “Clinton is a liar and an opportunist”. Why do you feel it’s plausible? What specific evidence do you have that Clinton is a liar or an opportunist? Or do you just think it’s true because you’ve heard it so many times that it’s sunk in? Sanders hasn’t been put through that wringer yet. But if he gets nominated, I guarantee you he will be. And it will harm his reputation just like it has all the previous candidates who went through it. In fact, given the idealism his supporters feel for him, Sanders is probably more vulnerable than most candidates to this kind of attack. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/48 "2016-03-04T20:16:18Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Even if Bernie loses, this country needs a Trump-Sanders debate so so so badly. This. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/49 "2016-03-04T20:18:16Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > … about Sanders’ illegitimate son? … [FWIW](http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/09/bernie-sanders-early-days-in-vermont-his-life-loves-and-circuitous-route-to-politics/), his early days and committment to his role as father, would likely play well, even though he prefers to keep that his private business. > [@](#): > > Martha Abbott, a founder of the Liberty Union party and longtime political ally, recalls that Sanders was devoted to Levi. He had partial custody of his son, and as a single father he struggled to make ends meet — he wrote freelance articles for publications and was for a time unemployed. > > “He was very committed to being a parent,” Abbott said. “And he scraped together the money to take care of him.” I do not believe that he is the better candidate or that he would be the better president but his bona fides as a mensch are pretty indisputable. Calling attention to Sander’s adult origins and ethics as a partner and as parent is if anything an inspirational storyline that Donald would be foolish to create a compare and contrast to. They’d not Swiftboat him there. Elsewhere no question, but not there. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/50 "2016-03-04T20:32:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > “We”? Who’s this “we” you’re referring to? How many people do claim to represent? There’s Bridget, Burke, and **Bridget Burke**. That’s one. BB’s analysis seemed pretty reasonable to me (for one more). > [@DSeid](#): > > [FWIW](http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/09/bernie-sanders-early-days-in-vermont-his-life-loves-and-circuitous-route-to-politics/), his early days and committment to his role as father, would likely play well, even though he prefers to keep that his private business.I do not believe that he is the better candidate or that he would be the better president but his bona fides as a mensch are pretty indisputable. > Calling attention to Sander’s adult origins and ethics as a partner and as parent is if anything an inspirational storyline that Donald would be foolish to create a compare and contrast to. > They’d not Swiftboat him there. Elsewhere no question, but not there. Agreed that Sanders’ record there is going to be to his credit with thoughtful people–but that won’t stop Trump from trumpeting contempt along the lines of ‘he _pretends to be so moral and upright, but does a moral and upright person have illegitimate kids?!?!?!?_’ Unfair it will be, without a doubt. But when did that ever bother Trump? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/51 "2016-03-04T20:41:02Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > There are a lot of reasons I DO NOT like Hilary. I think she’s lacking integrity. I think we need someone with integrity. Meh. In that regard, I measure her against Bill: He was a good POTUS, and I don’t believe she has any less integrity than he. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/52 "2016-03-04T20:49:46Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > _pretends to be so moral and upright, but does a moral and upright person have illegitimate kids?!?!?!?_’ Eh… I doubt that would faze him too much. Weak-sauce, (imho.) ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/53 "2016-03-04T20:50:46Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > Eh… I doubt that would faze him too much. > > Weak-sauce, (imho.) I agree it wouldn’t be much of an attack, but the point is how it affects potential swing voters, not Sanders. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/54 "2016-03-04T20:53:03Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > “We”? Who’s this “we” you’re referring to? How many people do claim to represent? There’s Bridget, Burke, and **Bridget Burke**. That’s one. I’m speaking as someone who usually supports Democratic candidates. And who wants the next president to be a Democrat. And who has read many \*\*doorhinge \*\*posts inimical to these goals. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/55 "2016-03-04T20:55:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Martin Hyde** : > > 1. Visiting the Soviet Union and Cuba, during a time when the Soviet Union was massacring children and Cuba was torturing and murdering political dissidents is gravely immoral and will be pointed out as such in any hypothetical political campaign. Visits like the one Sanders made were a small step in getting the Soviet Union to _stop_ doing those things. Are you seriously arguing that stopping someone from murdering children is immoral? > [@](#): > > Quoth **MyFootZZZ** : > > I’ll give you one thing that really made me think differently about her is her conversation with defending that accused rapist. Straight from her mouth. I know some aren’t bothered by that, explaining it off a ‘lawyer talk’… but not me. I’m sorry. I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but I note that you use the term “accused rapist”. As in, it hasn’t been proven yet. And when someone is accused of a crime but not yet proven, yes, absolutely you defend them, because that’s how you find out if they actually did it or not. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/56 "2016-03-04T21:05:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Meh. In that regard, I measure her against Bill: He was a good POTUS, and I don’t believe she has any less integrity than he. I gladly would admit to Bill lacking it as well. I’m following this election as much as time permits, but as I mention up above, I’m not that smart a guy. I can’t say FOR SURE that Bernie would make a better president, and get more accomplished than Hilary. Like I said, I would vote for Hilary. I also don’t think Bernie will get everything he wants. I do agree with his plight though. I stand for what he stands for and I think we need a shake-up. Bill’s years were great for my parents. To say Hilary would make a better president is a matter of opinion. I don’t think it’s right to assume either way. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/57 "2016-03-04T21:05:35Z")
Old joke. How do you know when a politician is lying? His (her) lips are moving. Bottom line: in the presidential election, Hillary has the wave of history on her side. There will be a first woman president, and it will be Hillary. A “batshit” crazy opponent pretty much guarantees it, because while there will always be a lunatic fringe who believe that quite literally anyone is better than Hillary, they will never be among the majority. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/58 "2016-03-04T21:13:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but I note that you use the term “accused rapist”. As in, it hasn’t been proven yet. And when someone is accused of a crime but not yet proven, yes, absolutely you defend them, because that’s how you find out if they actually did it or not. I'm sure people will try to convince me that this isn't a case in which she's being "unethical". Unless I'm REALY missing something, I'm confident about how I feel about this. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/59 "2016-03-04T21:15:20Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > I’ll give you one thing that really made me think differently about her is her conversation with defending that accused rapist. Straight from her mouth. I know some aren’t bothered by that, explaining it off a ‘lawyer talk’… but not me. I’m sorry. Weird, I consider that a highly ethical, moral behavior. Everyone is entitled to a legal defense, and Hillary provided one for someone she detested because she believed he was likely guilty of raping a child. To be frank I find that pretty admirable. > [@](#): > > There are threads here which list Hilary’s ethical problems… they can’t all be just conservatives conspiring against her. I know they make much out of nothing all of the time, I just DON’T believe people who say she doesn’t have these ‘ethical issues’. Or at least potentially. Well, I start from a “prove something” perspective. I guess I don’t actually know of any ethical complaints against Hillary that haven’t been suggested as highly likely to be false (i.e. most of them Republicans bring up) or are extremely minor (like doing the same thing Colin Powell did–using a private email address as SecState, I agree it’s a minor ethical lapse as she was doing it to avoid FOIA requests of her emails but to me it’s not a major ethical lapse akin to say, Nixonian behavior, Iran-Contra behavior, or Bill Clinton perjuring himself.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881/60 "2016-03-04T21:24:11Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > I'm sure people will try to convince me that this isn't a case in which she's being "unethical". Unless I'm REALY missing something, I'm confident about how I feel about this. [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/) has analyzed it. Basically Hillary was working at a legal aid clinic, an indigent man was accused of raping a 12 year old girl. Hillary was assigned the case by a judge, she later indicated she didn’t want to work the case or feel comfortable doing so, but she either didn’t ask the judge to be removed because she didn’t think he’d remove her, or she asked and wasn’t removed. Either way, if only the innocent deserve attorneys then very few people would have legal representation in criminal trials. I strongly agree with her words on this, “If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf,” she added." The victim has years later been part of some attacks on Hillary, saying Hillary worked to discredit her. But as terrible as that must have been for the victim–that is the unfortunate job and ethical responsibility of a defense attorney in a criminal trial, to attempt to pick apart the prosecution’s case and its witnesses. I frankly would like a lucid argument as to why that is an unethical action. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/against-trump-specifically-sanders-is-the-better-dem-candidate/747881.md?page=4)