Quote from Mom0/pH0x:
fair enough. to be sure my opnion was shaped in no small part by scandals which have publicly surfaced, and my exposure to politicians, mostly on the state, not the national level.
in DC senators and politicians are the "group leaders" because DC is a politics town. most places are NOT political towns, and politicians aren't looked at with the esteem and prestige that they are in dc, esp those on the federal level like senators.
in dc politicians are the stars, in most of america they are boring rejects who happen to have some power. much like the hall monitor in highschool.
my family was quasi affluent politically. my grandparents had condolence/recognition letters issued by the state house when they died etc. most of their mates and mistresses were not particularly attractive. bill clinton is a perfect example. no one can argue the FACT that he is the ROCKSTAR of politicians, hes also very wealthy. if ANYONE should have serious pull with women based on his political persona, it should be him ESP during his presidency...
his MISTRESS, not wife ( so the age argument that rearden mentioned wont apply here) was monica lewenski. personally probably wouldn't do monica lewenski if i was hammered. she's simply not an attractive woman. she's SUPER UGLY, but not really attractive either. she's overweight and average looking at best... and that's being generous...even all the other supposed mistresses of his that surfaced after the scandal, THEY weren't really attractive either! so if the rockstar of politicians can't pull choice women even for a MISTRESS then who can?
my guess is that we differ in our standard for what "attractive women" actually are OR these senators were good looking/charming guys and were being selected by attractive women on other merits OR it was DC and politicians are actually not considered adult hall monitor losers there are they are in most other social environments...
Nor inbred for that matter.
