[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I thought she did detail out the context of the conversations, who she was having them with and for what purpose. She outlined that often arguments are posited for the purpose of discovering gaps in your reasoning, and potentially discovering new viewpoints and better articulating her own.

I think the part that you feel unsatisfied about is that she didn't self flagellate herself, apologize, and beg for contrition. Given that she was having what she believed to be a private conversation which was more about defining and formulating ideas on sensitive subjects, she probably doesn't believe she needs to apologize for participating in said conversations and any snippet thereof.

If she was still a candidate, I think it would be a duty of the interviewer to challenge her a bit further and ask questions for the public record about her specific views and then have her articulate them for the record.

That's fair, and in my original mega response I did mention that she mentioned that they were supposedly "Academic" conversations. But that was about 30 seconds of a 15 minute interview?

The vast majority of that interview was dedicated to outlining how horrible of a person the guy was.

I'm more inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they are willing to explain their own actions than to point out the fault in others actions, particularly when your closing argument is about how attacks and smearing aren't how you think politics should be done.