Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 8bits who wrote (35616)	2/25/1999 11:46:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>If Clinton attacked her then I would say her reluctance to talk about it publicly for so long would be more a matter of guilt and embarrassment, which unfortunately many rape victims experience.< No doubt. Fortunately for Clinton, it was merely another Arkansas bumpkin he molested. He knew there was no way that woman would make anything stick on him, and she knew it too. Clinton had perhaps raped even as a college student, and knew how to do it without discovery. Technology at that time was not such that DNA material could be used against him. At best it would be a “he said/she said” story, and he knew he could bite his lip, wag his finger in disbelief and lie his way out of anything. So there she was, an adulterer, a two-bit nursing home director, a rape victim of the Attorney General of Arkansas. She knew that with one word to the police about the assault, she would become even more a victim. The local rag would jump all over the thing, it would even become a national story. Her adulterous relationship would be made public, she correspondingly would lose her husband, likely her lover also, her business would be ruined, and then she would have to entertain the costs of legal battle against the Attorney General of her state. This woman could not win wherever she looked. So she did the best she knew how. She hid. You wonder that so many of the women were ‘that weak'. We must judge this matter in its historical context. I wager most women at that time were that weak, and that most today yet are, particularly after having observed the left calling these women lying sluts. With the general lack of principle extant in this country what woman does not have something in her past she would prefer to hide but knows should she challenge a rapist, a rapist whom she likely knows, it would be revealed? Their sort of “strength” fundamentally depends upon society's moral resolve, as opposed to mere individual principle. At the time of Broaddrick's assault there existed a very strong sentiment that a woman who is raped “asked for it”. Indeed Broaddrick actually asked Clinton up to her room. Why did she do it? Perhaps she trusted Clinton as Attorney General. Perhaps she was attracted to him, but did not count on being raped. Perhaps she thought getting to know him would be good for her business and this clouded her judgement (a distinct possibility). Whatever her reasons, after the rape she could not win, and she knew it. She knew Clinton knew it, and likely this is why she was so weak.