Why are you criticizing Hillary's testicular fortitude. You're a pansy aren't you.

The corporate power brokers have pulled out all the stops to derail the Obama runaway train as it approaches the finish line.

It seems like there's a whole lot of fear brewing about Change.

I've said before it should only matter what a candidates policies are; it shouldn't matter whether a candidate is a pedophile, a murderer, a rapist. We're getting closer to testing my theory.

Voice of dissent here. It's not a lawyer's job to fight for truth and uphold morals. It's to fight for his or her client as vigorously as possible, using any means possible.

For example, if a defense lawyer knows his client is guilty, he is still supposed to defend his client just as vigorously as if he were completely innocence. If you have a problem with this, your problem isn't with Clinton, it's with lawyers with general. This is what they're *supposed* to do.

Point two: it's not the media's job to generate new *character* attacks on candidates. They only get involved in these issues when an opponent or third-party group makes this an issue, something Obama doesn't want to lower himself to do.

Point three: This is one reason why I support Obama.

Point four: This is exactly the type of unfair but brutally effective attack that Republicans will have NO qualms running in the general election. It is why Clinton's claims that she is vetted or is the stronger candidate is ridiculous.

To summarize, I think you guys are way off-base criticizing Clinton here. The only fair point to make is that she has a big load of baggage and isn't as electable as she seems.

this is exactly the type of story that Obama

The guy who handled most of the case is dead, the paperwork was all destroyed in a flood, and the case was 33 years ago. I just can't imagine why the MSM won't jump on this story. Must be a coverup.

About questioning the victim. I thought the identities of victims of sex crimes, especially minors, were kept anonymous? Wouldn't the victim have to present herself if she wants to be questioned?

"Wouldn't the victim have to present herself if she wants to be questioned?"

Newsday tracked her down. I presume they could use a shadow and vocie scrambler.

"But if the Hillary who represented this man was running today, I'd be a lot more inclined to support her. That Hillary was doing brave,
unpopular work without concern for the personal fallout because it is what her professional ethical obligations and the Constitution
required of her. "

First off, she crossed the line from advocacy to cheating and lying with the false allegations and smears.

And actually, Hillary was doing this apparently to get some funding for the law office.

So as usual, she's willing to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. It's her MO.

Is this part of Obama's efforts to raise the level of the political debate?

I'm not a "Hillarista." I voted for Barack Obama in my state's primary. I am using two of my 10 precious vacation days to travel to North Carolina tonight to volunteer for him through Tuesday. I have given more money to his campaign than I've given to any other campaign (in fact, all other campaigns combined) in my life. Despite being a dyed--in-the-wool Democrat, I am not sure I'll have the stomach to vote for Hillary in November if she manages to steal this nomination from him.

With that out of the way, Clinton wrote in her affidavit: "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." Until someone shows me any evidence that she knew at the time that this wasn't true (and, by the way, the fact that the victim said something different doesn't suffice) or that she had no basis for making these assertions, I will continue to believe that she was acting within the letter and spirit of her ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense to a man who had been charged with a very serious crime.

I'm just not willing to add this case to my already over-long list of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm glad that Barack Obama's campaign hasn't seen fit to pounce on this either -- in my view, that's one more reason to support him.

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing."

Informed by who? This is hearsay, and character assassination. In the interest of justice (remember that?) I think Hillary needs to account for her actions here. (accountability, another thing you might have forgotten).

This isn't about talking points for the Obama campaign. This is about Hillary re-victimizing a child rape victim. It's disgusting, and the media's covering it up is ever more repulsive.

I want one thing: Accountability. I want her to explain her actions and defend her apparent misconduct. I want some fact checking by reporters. Is that too much to ask in a purported democracy? Someone is running for the highest office in the land, don't we have the right to ask tough questions?

observer2 - What misconduct?

this was a trial - character assassination is the name of the fucking game.

You always need to assassinate someone's character in a trial.

Get over this one, please. I am almost never against something like this and I think the video that has been discredited is actually a true video, I have almost maxxed out my donations to Obama

BUT GIVE THIS UP. She was doing the right thing for the position she was in at the time. I'm sorry. It isn't pretty all the time and some lawyers are real shits and obviously, she was one of those and I don't like those tactics but they are not a violation of ethics, dude, or ms. dude.

"You always need to assassinate someone's character in a trial."

If Hillary wants to defend this, let her defend it.

"The 12 year old wanted to be raped, she had fantasies that I Hillary could read with my mindreading abilities".

If it is so defensible, let her defend it!! But why on earth are you against asking the question and checking the facts?????

Couldn't answer my question I see. Bye asshole.

"Why on earth are you against asking the question and checking the facts?????"

Fine, you want to attack her for the way she went after Bill's mistresses, then attack her for that. Personally, I think that's more likely to generate sympathy for Hillary then criticism, but whatever. There's no reason to bring this 12 year old into it. Hillary Clinton took on an unpopular client and zealously defended him. That is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do, and everyone in our criminal defense system deserves to be defended by such a lawyer. It's a part of the process, and the criminal defense lawyers who take that role are doing something noble. This attack is pretty similar to the smear against Deval Patrick during the 2006 Mass election. It wasn't appropriate then and it isn't appropriate now.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I do believe in the work of criminal defense attorneys and this is an illegitimate attack on the profession. If the best defense of her client was to raise questions about the victim and witness, it would have been unethical for Hillary to refuse to do that.

You claim there's no biggie in claiming a rape victim wanted it. Is this the legal profession circa 1920? I thought the old "rape victim is a whore" gambit is out of fashion, no? Especailly among Hillary's second wave feminist set.

Also the connection to her swiftboating of Bill's sexual assault victims is interesting. Her smearing of Monica was very similar to her smearing of the 12 year old. A coincidence?

What law school did you go to?

How many cases have you tried?

What do you know about the rules of evidence?

What objection would you have raised at trial when Clinton started into this line of questioning?

Was the case overturned on appeal because of what she did?

Fine - let her talk about it -

[rolls eyes]

Scofflaw, you made several very good points and I think the thrust of what you are saying is right.

Here's where I differ. You admit this:

If she lied, meaning if she offered evidence that she knew to be untrue, that would be professional misconduct.

That's my point. If she deliberately lied, it would be misconduct. We have very thin reporting on this, and there are allegations that she did lie. Wouldn't it be in her interest to clear her name? If she's telling the truth, what's the harm in asking?

In principle, I think openness, fact-checking, investigation, is not an attack. If she is honest and honorable, she has nothing to fear. It's hard for me to see any argument against further research being legit. We don't accept that when the government tries to cover up something and says "nothing to see here, move along". But we pursue it. Often there is nothing. But accountability and openness is important. At least, I think so. And I haven't heard a good argument against this.

Pillory her on the "obliterate Iran" foolishness, or her gas-tax pandering, or for her race-baiting campaign. Not for a case she defended in 1975.

But checking facts is not pillorying her. If she backs up her actions here and the details show that your view, that she was merely aggressively advocating for her client within the bounds of the law holds up, then all this chatter on the blogs about her railroading a 12 year old rape victim will vanish.

Finally, politics aside, I am offended by what appears to have been a great injustice against this poor woman. As you admit, in 1975, rape victims were often re-victimized by the justice system. Hillary, as a self-proclaimed advocate for women and children, should have been better than to merely play along with a biased, abusive system, even if it may have been common.

Maybe justice can never be gained, but I do believe that if Hillary railroaded this rape victim, she should be confronted with it. The woman's life was ruined, meanwhile Hillary used her as a stepping stone to climb up to great wealth and power. The whole situation makes me sick.