REPLY #6 TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) I agree with the part of your response, Mark, where you think Hillary will drop "Slick" after his term is completed. I've been saying the same thing since the whole Monica situation was exposed. (I think she should have dumped him already. Not even Hillary deserves the kind of public humiliation that her husband has put her through. She appears idiotic by standing by him and supporting him.)
(MB) Her "support" is politically shrewd. Her poll numbers have always improved whenever she has been able to look as though she's the "victim" of some event. When she "shows strength" in the face of adversity, she has always gained support. She knows that she needs to milk her marriage to Slick for everything political drop that it's worth to her. When his career is over and done with, so will be their marriage since it will no longer serve any purpose for her.
(R) I don't think you answered the respondent's question about where did Hillary get all this authority. That's a great question and a serious matter when you look at the legal side of it. Who did
elect her? And by what right has she gone beyond the standard First Lady role into this quasi-official co-Presidency?
(MB) Hillary has no legal or elective lawmaking or governing authority. However, she, like any other citizen, can certainly be appointed by the President to serve on, contribute to, or chair any committee or project that he wishes. Being First Lady, she has extra leverage in trying to get her agenda to become official policy or national law. It's only the degree of Hillary's involvement that has produced the appearance of a "co-Presidency". It's a good example of why nepotism is politically unethical.
(R) Do you think there's anything illegal in the way she's seized authority in areas where none was officially granted to her?
(MB) There's nothing illegal about it that I've been able to determine. It's just Democratic party politics in the Clinton mode. Fortunately, they're all so inept, that few people take them seriously.
(R) And by the way, what ever happened to the sanctions (I can't remember what the legal term they used for it was) that the government was supposed to slap on Bill as his official punishment for
(MB) I think there's a large rug in the West Wing under which they have been swept.