There is so much sexism here that it’s crazy. Hillary Clinton is ambitious? Everyone — run to clutch your pearls. That must also mean that she’s conniving and vicious and Machiavellian.

Funny, you list several leaders of foreign nations and two Americans who are not in elected positions. Your analogies are false.

Ugh.

Oh, so it’s “guilty until proven innocent” when it comes to sexual assault?

You and others keep perpetuating this ridiculous interpretation of “have the right to be believed”.

If Hillary truly believes that sexual assault victims “have the right to be believed,” then the inevitable inference here is that Hillary has concluded that her husband is a rapist

Did you not read the article? She only brought up her alleged rape in 1999 while HRC was running for senate, two years after she was subpoenaed and either LIED UNDER OATH and said it didn’t happen, or in some sort of Hillary hating which hunt decided she wanted to misconstrue a handshake as being menacing. I believe…

No one said we shouldn’t believe Broaddrick because Hillary loves Bill. The point being made is that it is understandable why Hillary would want to believe that her husband is not a rapist even whilst simultaneously holding the belief that women who claim to be raped should be believed, not that we should never…

So people should still believe the UVA woman’s rape allegations then?

But what if she started from the assumption that the claims were true, evaluated them based on that assumption, and still found them to not be credible? Is she required to keep believing the woman on principle?

It could be that you are taking the phrase “right to be believed” too literally. Nobody has the “right” to have any particular utterance accepted as the truth simply because of the subject matter. Not even on silly things that can hardly be disputed. (“You’re favorite color is blue? Why haven’t I ever seen you wearing…

If I saw someone at a party who I believed was having a consensual affair with my spouse, I would avoid them (preferably), or make a loud, possibly drunken, ridiculous ass of myself (more realistically). I wouldn’t use coded pleasantries to convey a below-the-radar threat.

Do people really think that Bill Clinton came home after the incident with Juanita Broderick and said, “Hey, honey, guess who I just raped?” I know that sounds flippant, but I really can’t think of a better way to explain the level of incredulity I have, not at the allegation against Bill Clinton, but at the idea that…

That seems to be a huge oversimplification. In general, yeah, sexual assault victims should be believed. But I don’t think it’s fair to expect Hillary to immediately turn on her husband because of an accusation that hasn’t been proven and has no really compelling evidence (which I know doesn’t mean she’s lying, and…

“in 1997, when she was subpoenaed during Paula Jones’ civil sexual harassment suit against Clinton, she had signed an affidavit and denied under oath that the rape occurred.”

You basically have to believe that Bill told Hillary that he raped a woman, to believe that Hillary intimidated Broaddrick. And then you also have make additional leaps as to why Bill’s actions are Hillary’s fault. And then it gets more confusing since Broaddrick seems more focused on Hillary than Bill.

Setting aside anything having to do with Bill, I just can’t buy her story about the Hillary Clinton encounter.

Don't you know? A woman is nothing more than an extension of her husband. Chuh.

I have no idea if Broaddrick’s allegations are true or not, but her story is credible enough, and should be treated with sensitivity and seriousness.

I don’t know if Bill Clinton raped her or not, but I do find it odd that she seems to focus so much on ruining Hillary’s career over the issue. Her evidence that Hillary even would have known about the incident is shaky at best - Hillary shook her hand and said thank you, in what was perceived to be a menacing tone?…