Agreed.
Yes, but they don’t help either! 
Maybe. But, will she risk hummiliation for a chance to be the first woman president of the US? We’ll see…
DtC, I’m trying to say what I want to say here in as inoffensive a manner as possible. Please take this in the manner I’m offering it - respectful disagreement and not an attack on you or anyone who shares your opinions. I’m not out to defend Paula Jones or her lawsuit, or anyone else. (Hell, you want me to kvetch about how awful Shrub is, I’ve got a laundry list.) But, the implication of your comment here to me is that it’s acceptable for someone to lie under oath, if the suit is later determined to be baseless - and that I disagree with, very strongly.
In a sexual harassment case, I believe that the standard procedure often includes testimony about the accused’s sexual behavior past and present with other women. As such, the testimony that Clinton offered was both a violation of his oath to tell the truth and, as I pointed out in my earlier post, a sign to me that he had no problem expecting other people to answer such questions, as long as he didn’t have to answer them.
Which attitude, in a President, is the same kind of thinking that Nixon ran acropper upon: “I’m the President, the rules don’t apply to me.”
And, no, I’m not saying that the actions of the two men were equally bad. Just that the reasoning behind such actions does seem to go against the idea of one rule of law.
What revisionism? How was Johnson to blame for the race riots? And how did the anti-Vietnam War movement really damage our society?