It's interesting to hear the pundits claim that the Clinton's refusal to allow Trump to bait them

[Empowerer]

into a pissing match shows that Trump intimidated them by unloading on Bill Clinton's past.

They really must think this is the Clintons' first time at the rodeo. It never occurred to them that the opposite may be the case.

I suspect that Hillary Clinton purposely drew Trump out, knowing that he couldn't stand being called a sexist and wouldn't be able to resist going there on the Clintons. And true to form, he started bleating about Bill Clinton's indiscretions, to the delight of the sophomoric pundits who were growing bored but love nothing more than talking about what Bill Clinton did with his private parts 20 years ago. And then when Trump and his reporters got a good head of steam going, she dropped it and walked away, cutting off the oxygen Trump's attacks and the coverage thereof needed to survive.

As we saw in the 90s, when the Republicans demonstrated an inability to lay low and strategically pick their battles, Trump couldn't wait to show his hand and brought up the issue far too early for it to have any negative impact. If he brings it up again later, it won't be nearly as interesting to the press or damaging to the Clinton's. It will just be annoying - "Oh, no - not this again . . ." It will just once again be old news that no one is interested in.

Of course, I have no idea if there was any strategy by the Clintons at play here. But given what they've had to deal with over the years and how deftly they've handled the drama in the past, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that they played Donald Trump like a fiddle on this one.

Time will tell . . .

[Motown_Johnny]

1. She was engaged in a back and forth with Trump for a couple weeks.

When you are the first one to quit the pissing match, you lose.

[Empowerer]

2. Whatever

[Motown_Johnny]

4. Do you deny that happened? n/t

[Tanuki]

3. Actually, it's more like a tug-o-war, if one side unexpectedly lets go of the rope

and lets the other fall backward on their arse.

[Empowerer]

5. I once watched a trial in a custody case where the father was accused of infidelity

The mother's attorney had gathered a boatload of evidence - witnesses, photos, videos, letters, hotel receipts, etc - to prove it. While this issue was remotely but not critically relevant to the case, its highly prejudicial value was what made it important to their side, who hoped to smear the guy so badly in front of the judge that she would be too disgusted with him to award him custody, regardless how good a father he was.

When his big moment came up during the trial, the attorney stood up and very dramatically announced his next witness who would testify that the man had committed adultery. before he could go on, opposing counsel stood up and said, "Your Honor. Plaintiffs stipulate that the Mr. Smith committed adultery on several occasions" and sat down. The Judge noted it for the record and told the mother's attorney to move on. For the rest of the trial, he kept trying to get it in, but the Judge shut him down, saying, "That has already been stipulated. Please move on." But he refused to give up until the judge got so irritated with him that she said, "Counsel you're the only one interested in this. I'm tired of hearing about it and if you mention it again, I'm holding you in contempt."

Hillary and Bill have already stipulated that he was unfaithful. It has been noted and people are sick of hearing about it. If Trump tries to relitigate it later, he'll probably get shut down, just like that attorney did.

BTW - Dad got custody.

[Agschmid]

7. Well that sure seems to be the strategy of some on DU...

I get it now.

SMH.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Trump isn't going to be the nominee so why get in a pissing match with him.

It would be like Floyd Mayweather getting in a pissing match with the one hundredth ranked middleweight boxer in the world.