Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I agree with good old common law age of consent provisions. She was over 21. And she wasn't the first young woman who desperately wanted to have sex with an older, powerful man, nor will she be the last. In that sense I am indeed out of step with current pc thinking on these matters.

If you are, then I am, too. Perhaps we've infantilized 21-year olds? Somehow they've become teenagers?

When I first started college teaching, the rule was "Do not get involved with a student while they are in your class." Since I was 24/25, a number of my students were my own age or older. I never went out with them while they were my students, but after grades were in, well, that was a different story! However, many marriages have come about from student-teacher relationships in college or graduate school. And it's not just male teacher/female student, either.

A close friend ended up marrying her superior (the head of her division but not whom she reported to directly). They were very happily married for 19 years until he died this summer.

Originally Posted by ASB65

They certainly don't do themselves any favors by lying about and trying to cover it up. After the truth is revealed, it only makes them look less trustworthy. I think it's the lying about it that makes them lose even more credibility. I remember during Clinton's initial campaign, the whole Jennifer Flowers thing came up. He admitted it, got past it and went on to win the election. Had he have try to lie about it, he may not have won.

Philandering, womanizing politicians (and presidents) are nothing new. It's pretty well known JFK himself was not faithful, and had affairs with Marilyn Monroe and other film stars. Yet it didn't significantly hurt his credibility or popularity. Why is that? Because during a 1T, such personal matters are assumed to be personal, and not appropriate to drag out into the public sphere and be picked apart and debated in public, the way they were in the 3T with Clinton. JFK never had to defend himself or lie about his womanizing ways, because back then people actually believed such things were really none of their business and in bad taste to drag out in public, and what's more, they realized such things had no real bearing on a man's ability to lead a country. In the 3T, similar transgressions by Clinton was cause for impeachment. We forgot that good taste dictates that certain things are better not discussed in the media and over the dinner table.

It's the same reason why the news became so sensationalistic during the 3T (and even the late 2T), more infotainment than information. Everything became fair game. We lost our manners and our respect for others.

I am not condoning Cain's behavior, but he'd fare better admitting it and apologizing, then lying about it.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

Philandering, womanizing politicians (and presidents) are nothing new. It's pretty well known JFK himself was not faithful, and had affairs with Marilyn Monroe and other film stars. Yet it didn't significantly hurt his credibility or popularity. Why is that? Because during a 1T, such personal matters are assumed to be personal, and not appropriate to drag out into the public sphere and be picked apart and debated in public, the way they were in the 3T with Clinton. JFK never had to defend himself or lie about his womanizing ways, because back then people actually believed such things were really none of their business and in bad taste to drag out in public, and what's more, they realized such things had no real bearing on a man's ability to lead a country. In the 3T, similar transgressions by Clinton was cause for impeachment. We forgot that good taste dictates that certain things are better not discussed in the media and over the dinner table.

It's the same reason why the news became so sensationalistic during the 3T (and even the late 2T), more infotainment than information. Everything became fair game. We lost our manners and our respect for others.

I am not condoning Cain's behavior, but he'd fare better admitting it and apologizing, then lying about it.

This is actually along the subject of something I want to talk about. I'm going to be starting a new thread concerning how we "perceive" politicians since Watergate & comparing it to how the English saw their King after the abdication of Richard II. I think it's less of a Turning thing--although it might exist there in microcosm--and perhaps might speak more to where we are in a Mega cycle (if you believe in those things).

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

I just heard something interesting on MSNBC. Republicans hate Mitt Romney so much that if it's between him and Obama, some would rather lose the election to Obama than have Romney win, because they feel he will turn all liberal, the way "Bush did." Hehe.

If Cain manages to win the election, even after all the dirt being pulled up on him, then this country has truly gone insane.

I am also watching this situation with great interest. FreeRepublic has stopped posting any pro-Romney statements. I heard an interview with a conservative activist who repeatedly trashed Romney and hedged about supporting him! I continue to believe a TP third party is not impossible if Mitt is nominated. I think Cain is toast now, though. Things will only go downhill from here.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think Cain is toast now, though. Things will only go downhill from here.

I am not so sure. After all that has happened since Monica and Clarence Thomas, I am not sure these accusations have the salience they once did. The cable networks seem to have gone wild, but suppose its just gets tuned out? "Its none of our business", "Its the liberal media again", "Its because he is a black man" will all suffice as good enough reasons for many to just tune it all out.

James50

But what does it matter?

People act as if Herman Cain actually had any chance of getting elected!

FWIW - Cain rises in Post-ABC poll despite scandal; most Republicans dismiss allegations

Businessman Herman Cain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are running nearly even atop the field of 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows, with most Republicans dismissing the harassment allegations that over the past week have roiled Cain’s campaign.

Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s — allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain’s campaign — do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.

Perhaps 4T are different.

James50

Not sure where to post this considering it can fit into a few conversations on this forum. At any rate, I decided to post it here.

Are you 25% richer today than you were two years ago? Congress is. New analysis from Roll Call reveals that during the last two years since the financial crisis, the average net worth of each individual in Congress has increased by an average of 25%.

As the rich continue to get richer, who is the government looking out for? Author Catherine Crier joins the Dylan Ratigan Show to discuss the growing gap and dysfunction of our government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...24374#45124374

Originally Posted by Deb C

Not sure where to post this considering it can fit into a few conversations on this forum. At any rate, I decided to post it here.

Are you 25% richer today than you were two years ago? Congress is. New analysis from Roll Call reveals that during the last two years since the financial crisis, the average net worth of each individual in Congress has increased by an average of 25%.

As the rich continue to get richer, who is the government looking out for? Author Catherine Crier joins the Dylan Ratigan Show to discuss the growing gap and dysfunction of our government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...24374#45124374

You should be careful with those data. Remember, "average" is based on the available data at the time. Every two years we have an election, so the replacement of poorer politicians with richer ones can have an undue impact without having any nefarious meaning behind it ... except that we choose rich people to represent us. I don't know that this is true, but it might be. We certainly have many members of Congress who sit on fat wallets. Who else can afford to run for the jobs, maintain two homes if they win, and be able to tap their friends for money to fund their campaigns?

The Citizens United case made politics intolerable, but it was bad already.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

Philandering, womanizing politicians (and presidents) are nothing new. It's pretty well known JFK himself was not faithful, and had affairs with Marilyn Monroe and other film stars. Yet it didn't significantly hurt his credibility or popularity. Why is that? Because during a 1T, such personal matters are assumed to be personal, and not appropriate to drag out into the public sphere and be picked apart and debated in public, the way they were in the 3T with Clinton. JFK never had to defend himself or lie about his womanizing ways, because back then people actually believed such things were really none of their business and in bad taste to drag out in public, and what's more, they realized such things had no real bearing on a man's ability to lead a country. In the 3T, similar transgressions by Clinton was cause for impeachment. We forgot that good taste dictates that certain things are better not discussed in the media and over the dinner table.

It's the same reason why the news became so sensationalistic during the 3T (and even the late 2T), more infotainment than information. Everything became fair game. We lost our manners and our respect for others.

I am not condoning Cain's behavior, but he'd fare better admitting it and apologizing, then lying about it.

But the way a person treats people in their personal lives does give us glimpse in how they treat people in general. If you are going to lie to and deceive your spouse (the person who is suppose to be your partner in life) then why would you have problem with lying or deceiving someone who you have absolutely no emotional ties to? Like the American people. I do agree that what a politician does in their private lives is off the table to a certain degree, but at what point do we draw the line? Do we want a president who beats his wife or sexually molests his children? Is that none of our business too? Or how about a president who is a drug addict? Is that his personal business also? What about a president who has sociopathic tendencies who derives joy out of destroying people's lives around him? I don't think we want someone like that. I think we do want presidents with good moral character who are proven to be trustworthy. A man who is constantly cheating on his wife and has no guilt or qualms about it, is a morally corrupt and not trustworthy in my opinion. Sorry but that's just the way I see it.

I think Bill Clinton was a pig. He had more than one affair through out his marriage and was sued for sexual harassment. He obviously had little respect for his wife and the women he sexual harassed. BTW, Paula Jones was not the only woman who accused him of sexual harassment. And I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton as far as I could throw him. I've come across other men like Bill Clinton in my life. They are narcissistic with little regard for other people's feelings and they are lying and manipulative with other people in their lives in varies different types of situations. To me how a man treats his wife and his family is a key to how he treats his friends, his co-workers and business associates, and people of the world in general.

As far as Hermain Cain goes, he fits the profile too. I'm not one bit surprised he sexual harassed women. Look how little disregard he has for people who are unemployed and suffering. He has no sympathy for them. He says it's their own fault. It also been said that his staffers and employees aren't allowed to talk to him unless he addresses him. He thinks he above common decency and courtesy. Hermain Cain cares about one person and one person only and he is a bully. Sexual harassment is just another form of bullying.

You can call it 3T sensationalizing if you want to. But I think how a person conducts himself and treats people in his personal life is a key to what type of person they are.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I think Bill Clinton was a pig. He had more than one affair through out his marriage and was sued for sexual harassment. He obviously had little respect for his wife and the women he sexual harassed. BTW, Paula Jones was not the only woman who accused him of sexual harassment. And I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton as far as I could throw him. I've come across other men like Bill Clinton in my life. They are narcissistic with little regard for other people's feelings and they are lying and manipulative with other people in their lives in varies different types of situations. To me how a man treats his wife and his family is a key to how he treats his friends, his co-workers and business associates, and people of the world in general.

IMO Clinton comes across as a "decent guy who had trouble keeping it in his pants", not a narcissist. Of course that's not to say I approve of either his philadering or his pro-corporate "centrism", but I don't think he's a bad person.

Like the Roosevelts before them, the Clintons evolved their own marital partnership. The Roosevelt case, by the way, is a good deal more complicated than most people realize. FDR had told Eleanor that he wanted six kids. He told another, much more attractive young woman the same thing when he was courting her, and she declined him for that very reason--"I decided not to marry Franklin Roosevelt," she later said, "because I did not wish to become a cow." Well, Eleanor did have six kids, one of whom died in infancy. And at that point, according to several sources--including her own daughter--she turned to Franklin and said, "OK, you wanted six, you got six--and that's it!" From then on they had separate bedrooms. And it was after that that his big affair began. It's funny, you can now read every single one of Eleanor's newspaper columns on line and I've read quite a few. While Franklin was alive they rarely dealt with policy or events of the day. They detail her travels, and any reader could see that this woman was not spending a lot of time with her husband. Yet they used each other to do an enormous amount of good. And however Hillary feels about Bill, she would have a hard time getting where she is without him.

I just can't agree, Amy, that people's marital fidelity or lack thereof has anything to do with their ability as a politician or public servant. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. I am no huge fan of Clinton myself, but I'd certainly rather have him in the White House than George W. Bush for example.

Either Cain or someone close to him is really losing it. Word is he is thinking of suing Politico over the story. This is rather bizarre, since everything they said has turned out to be completely accurate, and a suit could only lead to discovery and all the details coming out.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Either Cain or someone close to him is really losing it. Word is he is thinking of suing Politico over the story. This is rather bizarre, since everything they said has turned out to be completely accurate, and a suit could only lead to discovery and all the details coming out.

What do you expect? He is an idiot. I'm truly beginning wonder if we have a situation of no one really wanting to be president and that's why we have all these crackpots running in the Republican primary. Anyone would have to be crazy to want the job...Because it sure seems like most of "applicants" are nuts. And Obama is probably sitting there thinking, "Crap. It looks like I just might win again and I'm going to be stuck with this job for another 4 years."

Originally Posted by ASB65

What do you expect? He is an idiot. I'm truly beginning wonder if we have a situation of no one really wanting to be president and that's why we have all these crackpots running in the Republican primary. Anyone would have to be crazy to want the job...Because it sure seems like most of "applicants" are nuts. And Obama is probably sitting there thinking, "Crap. It looks like I just might win again and I'm going to be stuck with this job for another 4 years."

You may have to be nuts to want the job, but you certainly have to be nuts to get the Republican nomination--or at least pretend to be so. Romney may not make the cut.

If Romney is not nominated, the Republican candidate will lose by default: Obama versus That Crazy Guy. This may make Obama the first president ever to be reelected with an approval rating below 50% (unless it comes up above 50 by then).

On the other hand, if Romney IS nominated, Obama may win reelection because too many of his core voters won't support him either because he's too much the centrist, or because he's a Mormon. So there again, it would be Obama versus someone unelectable, his victory signifying very little except the deterioration of the Republican Party.

All of which brings me back to saying that next year's election is unlikely to be of any great significance.

Nate Silver does a very good job handicapping the presidential race this morning. (I recall some posters, one in particular, routinely discounted his predictions a year ago right up until the election, but he was right.) Of course, he doesn't claim to know what is going to happen, but he begins with the significance of Obama's relatively low approval rating at this time, 40-45%, which historically indicates (not proves) that he is likely (not certain) to lose. That's a data point we already have. There are now, he says, two key variables to watch: the economy, and the nature of the Republican candidate and his distance from the mainstream.

Silver notes, to begin with, that the record of economic forecasting 12 months out is absolutely terrible, much worse, for instance, than trying to predict who is going to win next year's pennant. He also has some interesting comments about people who manage to find some obscure microeconomic indicator that has correlated well with the election results. That, he argues convincingly, is luck, the kind of luck out of which academic careers are made.

Basically, he thinks the economic variable is the most important. If the economy has a surprisingly good year--say 4% growth--Obama will almost surely beat any Republican candidate, including Romney. If the economy grows modestly--2% --Romney is a major favorite, but Obama would probably beat Cain or Perry. If the economy tanks, even Cain or Perry would probably beat Obama. (In an interesting footnote, he thinks John Huntsman would be by far the strongest Republican candidate but of course he has no chance.)

It occurs to me that Silver may have missed one important point. With respect to the economy he focused on what happened in the year before the election (although even that didn't save Bush I.) But unemployment has never been so high for so long in the entire period he is basing his predictions on. That could change the calculus, and not in Obama's favor.

There are, of course, wild cards, including potential shock headlines (the one I liked was, "Romney affair with Filipina maid--illegal immigrant received Romneycare.") Another is a Tea Party third-party effort if Romney is nominated. But in general, the message is clear: Obama needs some luck to win.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Nate Silver does a very good job handicapping the presidential race this morning. (I recall some posters, one in particular, routinely discounted his predictions a year ago right up until the election, but he was right.) Of course, he doesn't claim to know what is going to happen, but he begins with the significance of Obama's relatively low approval rating at this time, 40-45%, which historically indicates (not proves) that he is likely (not certain) to lose. That's a data point we already have. There are now, he says, two key variables to watch: the economy, and the nature of the Republican candidate and his distance from the mainstream.

Silver notes, to begin with, that the record of economic forecasting 12 months out is absolutely terrible, much worse, for instance, than trying to predict who is going to win next year's pennant. He also has some interesting comments about people who manage to find some obscure microeconomic indicator that has correlated well with the election results. That, he argues convincingly, is luck, the kind of luck out of which academic careers are made.

Basically, he thinks the economic variable is the most important. If the economy has a surprisingly good year--say 4% growth--Obama will almost surely beat any Republican candidate, including Romney. If the economy grows modestly--2% --Romney is a major favorite, but Obama would probably beat Cain or Perry. If the economy tanks, even Cain or Perry would probably beat Obama. (In an interesting footnote, he thinks John Huntsman would be by far the strongest Republican candidate but of course he has no chance.)

It occurs to me that Silver may have missed one important point. With respect to the economy he focused on what happened in the year before the election (although even that didn't save Bush I.) But unemployment has never been so high for so long in the entire period he is basing his predictions on. That could change the calculus, and not in Obama's favor.

There are, of course, wild cards, including potential shock headlines (the one I liked was, "Romney affair with Filipina maid--illegal immigrant received Romneycare.") Another is a Tea Party third-party effort if Romney is nominated. But in general, the message is clear: Obama needs some luck to win.

And in 2016 it will be just the other way around. After 4 years of disappointment with Republican rule, the Democrats could put up Lady Gaga and win. I'll bet you a dinner at El Patio in Albuquerque (blue corn green chile chicken enchiladas.)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Nate Silver does a very good job handicapping the presidential race this morning. (I recall some posters, one in particular, routinely discounted his predictions a year ago right up until the election, but he was right.) Of course, he doesn't claim to know what is going to happen, but he begins with the significance of Obama's relatively low approval rating at this time, 40-45%, which historically indicates (not proves) that he is likely (not certain) to lose. That's a data point we already have. There are now, he says, two key variables to watch: the economy, and the nature of the Republican candidate and his distance from the mainstream.

Silver notes, to begin with, that the record of economic forecasting 12 months out is absolutely terrible, much worse, for instance, than trying to predict who is going to win next year's pennant. He also has some interesting comments about people who manage to find some obscure microeconomic indicator that has correlated well with the election results. That, he argues convincingly, is luck, the kind of luck out of which academic careers are made.

Basically, he thinks the economic variable is the most important. If the economy has a surprisingly good year--say 4% growth--Obama will almost surely beat any Republican candidate, including Romney. If the economy grows modestly--2% --Romney is a major favorite, but Obama would probably beat Cain or Perry. If the economy tanks, even Cain or Perry would probably beat Obama. (In an interesting footnote, he thinks John Huntsman would be by far the strongest Republican candidate but of course he has no chance.)

It occurs to me that Silver may have missed one important point. With respect to the economy he focused on what happened in the year before the election (although even that didn't save Bush I.) But unemployment has never been so high for so long in the entire period he is basing his predictions on. That could change the calculus, and not in Obama's favor.

There are, of course, wild cards, including potential shock headlines (the one I liked was, "Romney affair with Filipina maid--illegal immigrant received Romneycare.") Another is a Tea Party third-party effort if Romney is nominated. But in general, the message is clear: Obama needs some luck to win.

Thanks for sharing, great analysis from Silver.

Obama has seen some small ticks forward in the Gallup approval ratings, the next one is released tonight or tomorrow. Silver looked at approval ratings based on their absolute score. I did an analysis looking less at the actual percentage and more upon whether momentum/improvement was seen out of the mid-term elections. This looks to be a pretty good predictor and indicates Obama will lose. All prior incumbents (or their parties lost with similar trends).

The only candidate to break this rule was FDR in 1940. But even he mounted a stunning improvement in his ratings in Q4 1939.

As Silver points out, the Gallup numbers (and other approval indicators) were pretty unreliable before 1944. However, since the analysis I did doesn't look at the absolute number, just relative gains or losses, there may be something to gleam.

All in all things look bleak for Obama short of a vast approval ratings rebound over the next eight weeks and/or an economic miracle in 2012 (which Europe is sure to destroy any chances of occurring).

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And in 2016 it will be just the other way around. After 4 years of disappointment with Republican rule, the Democrats could put up Lady Gaga and win. I'll bet you a dinner at El Patio in Albuquerque (blue corn green chile chicken enchiladas.)

I don't disagree with that at all. That was what happened in the Gilded Age: wild swings in Congress and one razor-sharp close election after another (1880-1892), none of them changing a thing.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Thanks for sharing, great analysis from Silver.

Obama has seen some small ticks forward in the Gallup approval ratings, the next one is released tonight or tomorrow. Silver looked at approval ratings based on their absolute score. I did an analysis looking less at the actual percentage and more upon whether momentum/improvement was seen out of the mid-term elections. This looks to be a pretty good predictor and indicates Obama will lose. All prior incumbents (or their parties lost with similar trends).

The only candidate to break this rule was FDR in 1940. But even he mounted a stunning improvement in his ratings in Q4 1939.

As Silver points out, the Gallup numbers (and other approval indicators) were pretty unreliable before 1944. However, since the analysis I did doesn't look at the absolute number, just relative gains or losses, there may be something to gleam.

All in all things look bleak for Obama short of a vast approval ratings rebound over the next eight weeks and/or an economic miracle in 2012 (which Europe is sure to destroy any chances of occurring).

It was very clear from the 1940 data, which I have written up in my book, that FDR both ran and was elected because of the European war. It changed everything in the polls--whether people thought he would run again and whether they would vote for him.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was very clear from the 1940 data, which I have written up in my book, that FDR both ran and was elected because of the European war. It changed everything in the polls--whether people thought he would run again and whether they would vote for him.

That makes sense. So another variable that might help Obama, that Silver didn't mention, is the sudden threat of an imminent large external war. Don't think that will happen, but aren't we due for some event to set off the regeneracy soon?

Obama may very well turn out to be the first president reelected with an approval number lower than the 48% that GWB had in 2004. I, like many, see this as more likely to happen if someone other than Romney is the GOP candidate. Of course, Romney himself has a low ceiling in the Republican primaries because he is a mormon. Even if he can out point his rivals in state after state there is the possibility of a breakaway Tea Party, the populist TP not the bought and paid for astroturf corporate wing, candidate splitting the right leaning votes.


The point being, a year is a long time before an election and if someone like Cain who is an unknown gets the GOP nomination then we could see a nationwide replay of the same dynamic that we saw in Senate races like Nevada and Delaware last year where Angle and McDonnell were just unelectable against a conventional candidate with office holding experience.

In uncertainty sometimes people choose the "devil" they know over the "devil" that they don't know.

Originally Posted by ASB65

But the way a person treats people in their personal lives does give us glimpse in how they treat people in general. If you are going to lie to and deceive your spouse (the person who is suppose to be your partner in life) then why would you have problem with lying or deceiving someone who you have absolutely no emotional ties to? Like the American people. I do agree that what a politician does in their private lives is off the table to a certain degree, but at what point do we draw the line? Do we want a president who beats his wife or sexually molests his children? Is that none of our business too? Or how about a president who is a drug addict? Is that his personal business also? What about a president who has sociopathic tendencies who derives joy out of destroying people's lives around him? I don't think we want someone like that. I think we do want presidents with good moral character who are proven to be trustworthy. A man who is constantly cheating on his wife and has no guilt or qualms about it, is a morally corrupt and not trustworthy in my opinion. Sorry but that's just the way I see it.

I think Bill Clinton was a pig. He had more than one affair through out his marriage and was sued for sexual harassment. He obviously had little respect for his wife and the women he sexual harassed. BTW, Paula Jones was not the only woman who accused him of sexual harassment. And I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton as far as I could throw him. I've come across other men like Bill Clinton in my life. They are narcissistic with little regard for other people's feelings and they are lying and manipulative with other people in their lives in varies different types of situations. To me how a man treats his wife and his family is a key to how he treats his friends, his co-workers and business associates, and people of the world in general.

As far as Hermain Cain goes, he fits the profile too. I'm not one bit surprised he sexual harassed women. Look how little disregard he has for people who are unemployed and suffering. He has no sympathy for them. He says it's their own fault. It also been said that his staffers and employees aren't allowed to talk to him unless he addresses him. He thinks he above common decency and courtesy. Hermain Cain cares about one person and one person only and he is a bully. Sexual harassment is just another form of bullying.

You can call it 3T sensationalizing if you want to. But I think how a person conducts himself and treats people in his personal life is a key to what type of person they are.

You make a good point. I am not condoning Clinton's extramarital affairs and indiscretions. I agree that to a point, they indicate the way a man will treat his fellow Americans. But only to a point. I think in Clinton's case, his philandering was more a sign of an addictive personality type. He came from an alcoholic background, not that that's an excuse. As a president, however, he really wasn't that bad. Under his clock, the economy soared, and many new jobs were created. He ended welfare as we knew it (and leftist that I am, that move did motivate more people to find work in a time when jobs actually existed). I do not think Clinton was a bad person, even if his views were a little more right of center than I would have liked. I never really understood all the hatred toward him. Like I said, JFK was also a philanderer and womanizer, but his transgressions were not discussed endlessly and debated in public. It did not seem to hurt his credibility as a president and he is considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents (personally, I think he was middle of the road, neither great nor terrible). I do think any president or public figure, if they must have extramarital affairs (which they really shouldn't be doing while in office, of course) should take extra care to keep it a secret. Clinton assumed he would not be caught and he would not be called out on his behavior, and in so doing made fools of all of us.

In contrast to Clinton, who I agree with Odin was not a narcissist or a bad person, I really do not get a good vibe at all from Herman Cain. He doesn't even pretend to care about the American people, with his coldhearted comments about the poor and unemployed deserving their lot. To me, that's more offensive than the fact he sexually harrassed several women who worked for him, which did not surprise me in the least.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

In contrast to Clinton, who I agree with Odin was not a narcissist or a bad person, I really do not get a good vibe at all from Herman Cain. He doesn't even pretend to care about the American people, with his coldhearted comments about the poor and unemployed deserving their lot. To me, that's more offensive than the fact he sexually harrassed several women who worked for him, which did not surprise me in the least.

Cain strikes me as having Anti-Social Personality Disorder, that is, sociopathic tendencies.

Originally Posted by Odin

Cain strikes me as having Anti-Social Personality Disorder, that is, sociopathic tendencies.

Being seldom in agreement with Odin lately, I am all the more pleased to record total agreement on this occasion.

Cain has announced he will have nothing further to say. Perhaps this will be a turning point in our politics at long last where sex is concerned.