Standing by your man: Maria (good); Hillary (bad)?

Monica started because of Paula's sexual harrassment claim.

Again I ask if you have a problem with Clinton's sexual harassment.

For sure. (Is it a known quantity?) I was appalled when I learned of Paula Jones. Never figured out what was up to my own satisfaction. (Did it happen, what happened, why the delay in reporting, etc.) But I was very upset when the story broke, with Clinton, and with the repercussions.

If he sexually harassed anyone, he should pay, yes. I put that, again, in a separate category from Monica.

The only difference between groping and caressing is the amount of money.

sozobe,

Sure it's "separate" it's a whole different woman. Clinton reportedly did that a lot.

So when the allegations of Clinton's sexual harassment came out you immediately did not support his tenure in office right? Arnold's allegations haven't been proven either, and Clinton settled his.

I agree that anyone should "pay" for their sexual harassment. My question is if you wished political death upon Clinton for his.

Another interesting question is who you would prefer to have as a president between the following choices:

Bush or Clinton

I'd liek to see if Clinton's sexual harassment influences you opinion as much as Arnold's.

It is not about sex! Its about sexual assault!
OK, I'm really angry! I wish everyone would stop referring to Arnold's behavior as about sex. Its not about sex just as rape is not about sex! Its about sexual assault, power control and intimidation! Its a big thing, and not in the least frivolous, political or otherwise.

And to those who think the claims now revealed are just political because no criminal action was taken at the time the assaults occurred, if you had read the entire articles, you would know that the women were afraid to initiate any legal action. There is still a lot more to be revealed about Arnold that the Media hasn't exposed yet. The guy is really a pig!

And to all the men who still don't get it, shame on you! In case you still think that such assaults are just playful fun, I invite you to walk in the shoes of women who have had to endure such "playful;" assaults and see how much fun you think it is. Would you want any women in your lives to be one of Arnold's assault targets? Would you think it is so frivolous then?

I'm disgusted by the silly juvenile women who think it would be fun to be assaulted by the likes of Arnold. They apparently have the brains of traditional celebrity groupies and camp-followers who vie for sex with celebrities every chance they get. Apparently, they are not good enough for Arnold because he seems to target women who don't want his attentions. Is it because he wants to teach them a lesson?

The women that Arnold assaulted were not groupies. What he did to them was a criminal act---and it isn't funny!

I also recommend that you read my post on the other Arnold thread about the impact of learning what an animal her husband is has had on Maria Shriver. She looks terrible on television, like she is barely holding on in public. I wonder if her marriage will survive. That's why I was so angry that Arnold forced her to agree to his run for governor, knowing full well that his criminal behavior would become public. But he didn't care about her or his children. His egotistic needs out-weighed concern for his family.

Whew! Now that I've let off a little steam, maybe I will have more tolerance for other opinions. Maybe not. :wink:

BumbleBeeBoogie

Can you please define what you are calling sexual harassment, Craven? I don't see having an affair -- though I don't like it -- as sexual harassment, even if it happened more than once. I DO see grabbing a stranger's boobs and taking them out of her shirt against her will, in public, as harassment.

If a sexual harassment charge against Clinton stuck, I don't know about it.

I don't wish Clinton (and more specifically, anyone associated with Clinton) political death for his affairs. I do think he was mind-bogglingly stupid for indulging, and don't think it should have been utterly ignored. But I think there is a qualitative difference between consensual sex and non-consensual harassment that translates to policies as well.

BumbleBeeBoogie
Sorry but Arnolds proplems is just a disagreement over price with some females, that didn"t get what they wanted.

there are so many reasons to not want Arnold in office that this "sexual" issue is at the bottom on my list.

soz,

The charges against Arnold haven't "stuck" so I do not see why you require that of the charges against Clinton.

I am not talking about Clinton's affair, I am talking about his alleged sexual harassment. Clinton's sexual harassment went much further in court. Clinton settled his case.

Does that count as having "stuck"? He paid off the woman.

It's a little frustrating that you keep referring to Clinton's affair. I am not talking about his affair. I am talking about his sexual harassment. Exposing himself to women and unwanted sexual advances and the like.

Specifically I reference the case of sexual harassment that Clinton paid almost a million to settle.

So, Clinton paid almost a million to get out of court for his sexual harassment.

So, for Clinton's sexual harassment (not his affair) did you wish for his removal from office?

Will you require that the charges against Arnold "stick"as well?

dyslexia, I do agree with that, and I also agree with the concept of focusing on his policies rather than this exclusively. I came into this discussion, though, agreeing with McTag's distinction between Bill Clinton's willing parter(s) and Arnold's pattern of molestation. (Which seems to be getting further and further into the realm of fact rather than supposition, though I will try to reserve judgement.) That is what I have been continuing to focus on.

I agree.

Care to address the unwilling ones?

I was referring to the affair because of this:



I thought you meant he had Monica-esque affairs a lot. This is why I asked you to clarify, when I then wasn't sure which you meant.

The Arnold stuff is just starting to hit the fan. I don't know what will happen with it. Again, I think it's unfortunate that it took political muckraking to make a big deal of it, when so many of the pieces have been there for a while. I think a big deal should have been made of it as it was happening/ as it came to light, not just when he started to try for political office.

I dunno what happened with Paula Jones. Innocent people have paid settlements. Saying he was guilty was not part of the settlement.

Yeah, I'd like to see something "stick" with Arnold.

Craven, WHAT unwilling ones? That's what I keep asking. Paula Jones settled. Who else?

Ever notice that before a mans death if several women point the finger at a man everyone says what a bastard, but if the fingers are pointed after his death, then he was a great lover.

sozobe,

The "I did not know" claim falls flat. Your own article addresses Clinton's sexual harassment (not his affair).

You have not answered my question. When Clinton's sexual harassment went public did you wish for his removal from office?

And in a choice between Clinton and Bush would you choose Bush because of Clinton's sexual harassment?

Sozobe, I will "prove" Clinton's wrongdoing as soon as you "prove" Arnold's.

As it stands you do not have proof for either and are vilifying Arnold while defending Clinton. Can you just answer the questions? I do not have "proof" of Clinton's harassment just as you do not have "proof" of Arnold's.

Oh pshaw on the "falls flat." I do not purposely misread things to further my argument. I thought that's what you said, then asked. Clarified now. Thanks.

I answered that. When the Paula Jones case came to light, I was horrified. I was not and am not convinced that sexual harassment took place. If it did -- especially a PATTERN, which I find more worrisome, as it removes the Roshomon element, that someone well-meaning got things horribly wrong -- I think he should pay.

Because it is such a high price, I think it should be proven. Nothing was proven.

This is a big part of why I regret that Arnold's harassment, if true, is coming out now. There isn't time to prove anything before the election. It all should have come out long ago.

Didn't see your latest post before I replied. Hopefully that answers it.

When Clinton's sexual harassment went public did you wish for his removal from office? Answer: None

And in a choice between Clinton and Bush would you choose Bush because of Clinton's sexual harassment? Answer: None

Well, my questions were repeatedly ignored so no, that doesn't answer it. Since I believe it's intentionally so I should leave it be.