[John W]

By research, do you mean you read the short transcript at the link?I did and it didn't really seem as though she wanted to discuss the topic on the air but did so reluctantly.

Anyway, in some convoluted way, in this one thread there has been more "defense" of Clinton than probably in the previous total history of FR.

He was and is a total pos and anything that holds him-and by association his potentially dangerous wife-up to utter ridicule is a good thing.

And his sexual misconduct(s) were and are a part of him and our history.

Its good to continue to remind the American people of the mistake they made-twice.

[pollyannaish]

No. Watched the show. Well, most of it until I got bored with it. To be honest, I get really tired of that kind of shtick. And is fine and adds to the mix, like the spice Cumin. Adds interest in small doses, but too much tastes like dirt and is about as appealing.

Here's the thing, John. At the time, we went out of our way to say that our problem with Clinton was not the sex issue, but the fact that he had set himself up to be above sexual harassment law, that lying under oath is a major issue and if we let it go, it degrades the integrity of the law.

But the whole sexual intrusion thing actually hurt us. The average American is exceptionally uncomfortable about their neighbors peering in their bedroom windows. Do they (and I) think Clinton is a pervert? Yes. Do many find him creepy and disgusting and low? Yes. But the sex part of this is what did us in and we don't need to do it all over again.

In the end, the greater legacy of the Clinton presidency is that he was a pervert so intent on his own escapades, that he allowed the world to come unhinged. We are still reaping the consequences of that. We need to just leave it be, because to harp on it will only send people rushing to his defense with "but it was just about sex."

Leave it be, and history will right itself.