Where are you getting an 11% margin? It was less than 4%. Math really isn't your strong suit.

As for the Clinton stuff, it's really amazing that he doesn't get more condemnation for the way he's treated women throughout his life. Not just Lewinsky, but Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and who knows who else. How he never comes up in the "rape culture" discussion is amazing.

I have to agree with Obi on at least this point -- Mike Huckabitch and Todd Akins...fucking loser and fools.

But....hmmm....yes, even the Republican electorate laughed that ass Huckabitch out of the political arena, as well a Akins...

So if you are trying to demonize the Republican party with these two assclowns, you fail, and fail completely. In fact, you may in fact be making an argument FOR the Republican party, becuase they tend to throw the garbage out of office.

Clinton the Rapist, on the other hand, is still a well respected voice of the party, as is the woman-abusing Kennedy clan.

Where is Rand Paul even wrong? Can you imagine a greater imbalance of power than between the goddamn President of the United States and a 22 year old intern? How is that not predatory? How is that not taking advantage of her? It would be for any other boss to do that to an employee, but Bill Clinton gets a pass?

He's using Clinton's past behaviour, which was terrible, to distract from the massive problems the GOP has now. The fact that he'd rather play partisan games rather than genuinely stand up for women shows that he's not at all interested in women's rights, and is only saying this for political gain.

The GOP has massive problems right now? lol There is an election coming up in 10 months - we'll see who has terrible problems then.

Dissention in the ranks? The Democrats scream, pointing at the Republicans while even Democrat mouthpieces in small corners of the world are starting to call for the impeachment of Obama, who has just barely been able to put through any of his won agenda items, even when Democrats ruled Washington completely.

Idiocy, at best, this assertion.

The entire fucking *whole* of Washington has problems. To be a pig-headed partisan fool and try to claim one party has any superior position over the other is to simply call yourself out as a biased, unintelligible moron.

"Where are you getting an 11% margin? It was less than 4%. Math really isn't your strong suit."

In a commentary on the Huckabee comment...I'll try and find it again...

It doesn't matter if you find it. It's wrong.

Not the one I found initially, but it'll do...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gender-gap-2012-election-obama_n_2086004.html

"The Obama campaign's heavy focus on women's issues for the past year paid off in a big way on Tuesday night, resulting in an 18-point gender gap that largely contributed to the president's reelection.

According to CNN's exit polls, 55 percent of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney. Men preferred Romney by a margin of 52 to 45 percent, and women made up about 54 percent of the electorate. In total, the gender gap on Tuesday added up to 18 percent -- a significantly wider margin than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election."

55% vs. 44%...an 11% difference?

OK, well, then explain why, Invictus...and give a link for your statistics, as I was so kind to give one for mine?

Krellin, you appear to be assuming that I'm a democrat. I can assure you that I am not.

"As for the Clinton stuff, it's really amazing that he doesn't get more condemnation for the way he's treated women throughout his life."

...IT DID...IN *1998.*

We and--luckily for both he and Hillary--the Clintons have moved on.

Ah, it was the margin with women, not the general election. Not clear in the OP.

"We and--luckily for both he and Hillary--the Clintons have moved on."

Exactly. "Moved on." Why should he be regarded as some great statesman when there's ample evidence for how terribly he's treated women. Just look up stuff on his known sexual history. How is Romney run out of town on a rail for saying "binders full of women" but Bill Clinton has a credible rape accusation against him people ignore?

"Where is Rand Paul even wrong?"

In thinking that the best defense to the (very true) charge that some rather venemous members of his own party are pretty damn anti-woman is to say "Oh yeah? Well, the Democrats had a President who did some messed up things with an intern back in 1998!"

Again...THAT'S 1998!

He may as well have drug up Kennedy for all we care...that was then, this is now--

And in the here and now, like it or not and fair or not, it's the Republicans who are seen as the anti-woman party by quite a few...

And the best defense against that allegation is to change your OWN party's image and break free of the mold that's cast you in the villain, NOT point fingers over something that happened 15 years ago that few if any people really care about anymore besides the fact of it being a memorable scandal in Presidential history.

What's more--

One man having one affair, or even having lewd actions with many women, is NOT commensurate to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment OR Huckabee's comments about women's "libido"...

Those comments pertain to ALL women, whereas Clinton (pun only slightly intended) only screwed a few over and didn't make it part of his domestic policy and affect and insult MILLIONS of women in doing so.

...OK, I take that last one back--he DID insult millions of women.

But hurt them? No.

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of Bil Clinton still being treated as some champion of women's rights while the Republicans are incessantly and often unfairly whacked with the idea that they hate hate hate women.

Saying Bill Clinton didn't hurt women in ahistorical, obiwanobiwan. He's an unreconstructed rake at best, an outright rapist at worst.

"Why should he be regarded as some great statesman when there's ample evidence for how terribly he's treated women."

1. On an objective level, I'd say because statesmanship is not impacted by your own personal life as long as B doesn't cross over into A...for example, JFK, again, was a pretty big womanizer, but we tend to remember him as a Top 10 president both for what he stood for and what he did/was on the brink of doing before his death and LBJ finished them job (ie, the Civil Rights Act.) So what if he was a womanizer on the side? That was a huge character flaw, yes, but if it doesn't impact his STATESMANSHIP, then he should still be hailed as a great president. By contrast--and to pick on a Democrat, in the interest of fairness--Woodrow Wilson's racism got the better of him and led to some decisions while in office that were to the detriment of blacks...and the obvious ones here are those leaders who took bigotry/racism and turned that into genocide. Clinton had his flaws, but as long as they didn't lead to him creating a Fuck Interns Across America Day, he still deserves to be remembered for the merits of his statesmanship...with the womanizing left to biographers.

2. He treated a few women terribly...NOT that many, in the grand scheme of things--again, it's not like his dalliance and not keeping it in his pants with Lewinsky hurt millions of American women the way that (in the minds of some, at least) calling something "legitimate rape" and arguing for (or in Akin's case, against) legislation on those grounds did.

" Can you imagine a greater imbalance of power than between the goddamn President of the United States and a 22 year old intern? How is that not predatory? How is that not taking advantage of her?"

If the Starr Report is to be believed, Lewinsky initiated that affair. Besides Lewinsky was highly connected for a 22 year old and came from an influential family in order to land that internship.

"but Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and who knows who else"

How was the Gennifer Flowers affair predatory, exactly? Is any sexual encounter between a politician and a woman predatory? Gingrich also slept with a young intern in the early 90s. Is he a predator?

I love how Republicans never believe women's tales of predatory behavior except when the accusations are lobbed at Clinton.

"while the Republicans are incessantly and often unfairly whacked with the idea that they hate hate hate women"

Transvaginal ultra-sounds, forcing a dead woman to be on life support to incubate a non-viable fetus, and calling women names for getting check-ups at clinics will do that. As will denials that rape can cause pregnancy, and support for "men's rights" groups.

"He was pointing out the hypocrisy of Bil Clinton still being treated as some champion of women's rights while the Republicans are incessantly and often unfairly whacked with the idea that they hate hate hate women."

1. While I myself wouldn't call Slick Willy a champion of women's rights, I'd again say that if the policy he passed during his Presidency outweighs the women he had sexual relations with in an improper manner...then he may not have been a pro-woman President but COULD have had a pro-woman Presidency, to separate the man from the legislation (which is what most defenders of Clinton argue for.)

2. I have to disagree--it's NOT unfair to criticize the GOP when folks like Todd Akin and Mike Huckabee (a major party member) not only say those things but (and here's the kicker) want to LEGISLATE based on those unfortunate quotes...again, Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants, but that doesn't mean he was on board for a Rape Women Day...conversely, Akin, Huckabee, and a large number of high-ranking GOP party members not only talk the talk, but walk the walk when it comes to legislation that's perceived as anti-woman. You can argue whether it's fair or not to pay for birth control or Planned Parenthood, but those issues CLEARLY matter to female voters, as they keep voting for them and GOP candidates keep slamming them or planning to cut them, including Romney...and the GOP wonders why women hate them...

"but Bill Clinton has a credible rape accusation against him people ignore?"

If you're talking about Broaddrick, she admitted to lying. So how is that credible?

I guess you just accept every story written about Clinton as being true. You probably believe he did cocaine and killed Vince Foster. You're absurd.

You're unfamiliar with Juanita Broaddrick, I see. This is the one rape accusation liberals don't seem to believe is true. Lewinsky, while a piggish move by him, was far from the most egregious we have some information on. If even a fraction of the accusations are true it should be enough to ruin him. And some for sure are, like Gennifer Flowers. But it isn't enough. Why? Why is he immune to the consequences other politicians face?

Apparent anti-women actions is enough for Republicans to be cast out into eternal darkness. Why aren't Clinton's enough to outweigh his other qualifications as a statesman? That's what I'm getting at.

That was to obiwanobiwan. I haven't seen her recantation. She may well be lying. It's possible. Apparently she's the only women who ever lied about being raped according to the standard liberal line, but it's possible. Even probable. But she's just one of a string of women who have made claims about him. This doesn't just happen without there being a basis in truth. Lewinsky was unlikely the first woman he took advantage of.

I don't believe the Vince Foster assassination theory.

Typical false equivalence. Broaddrick was widely discredited and changed her story a bunch of times, as well as admitted to lying under oath. You only believe rape accusations if they mean you can slam on people like Clinton.

You can try and deflect from the nasty record of Republican men on the women's issues front all you want. You won't get away with it.

"But....hmmm....yes, even the Republican electorate laughed that ass Huckabitch out of the political arena"

Huckabee remains a major commenter on FOX News...

Which is pretty much GOP News, so yeah...not that much of a condemnation...

"Even probable. But she's just one of a string of women who have made claims about him"

Yeah because there was well orchestrated campaign from the minute Clinton took office to destroy him with these kinds of accusations. The Republicans spent tons of money and threw everything they could at him, seeing what would stick. That you believe all of it is not surprising. That you'd take the same approach if a Republican was subjected to even a modicum of the same kind of smear campaign is completely unlikely.

Republicans can't win without these kinds of dirty tricks. And meanwhile they make all sorts of excuses for the misdeeds of their own that are proven.

I like how Invictus calls Clinton a rapist only to walkback and claim that it's probably not true (while admitting that he doesn't trust women who allege rape). This is the kind of dirty trick we've become accustomed to ever since Joe McCarthy.

Which is more likely: that there was a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or that a guy who used his position to made an intern blow him also did other misogynistic things like that in the past?

I see you're still implying force was used in the Lewinsky affair. You're a disgraceful smear merchant. Clinton told her to stop in the first sexual encounter and Lewinsky insisted they continue. That's according to the freaking Starr Report.

And I like how all sex is misogynistic now, if done by a liberal.

And there is ample evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy to destroy Clinton.