I beleive that you beleive that-  You may or may not be right-  I just wish people on all sides woulds quit listening to the noise that is put out there to distract from real issues, real information  etc-    Trump has always touted himself but he IS a good businessman-    He has developed alot of class A properties around the US and the world- 

For me, I have seen the Clintons, how they operate, their history etc since Bill Clinton1st started his White House run for pres-  As much as i did not like Bill Clinton, Hillary has always been, IMO (I think the record supports too) the most self serving, power hungry person to be nominated by a major party for President-  She will continue to corrupt the system and sell the white house/the country for her drect and indirect gain-  all while using the politiacal power she gains from groups/organizations that she, in practice often disdains or at best is extremely hypocritical about-   Like this thread-  how do feminists reconcile her ACTIONS  -  V what she says -   She has disdain for virtually anyone (including Obamah)  that is not completely loyal to her and whaty she wants

Totally different it was women involved with her husband, by all means attack, attack, attack and (attack Bill to as I'm sure she did in private). Trump was not married or dating most of these women thats how it's diffrent. BTW SJW's really suck.

I imagine they simply look at the Republican candidate and recognize him to be even worse---considering that Trump is personally alledged to have raped a 13 year old girl, was personally accused of various cases of sexual harassment, and actively tries to ruin the lives/reputations of everyone who came forward with these claims.  Trump has a long and well-known history of sexism and misogyny--possibly to a criminal extreme.

The fact is, if you judge both candidates objectively and by the same standards, Trump comes across far, far worse than Hillary--especially to feminists.

Clinton has a long history of bad acts behind her.  Trump is worse.  This applies to attacks on women as well as generally. That is how feminists vote for Clinton.

sounds like the answer is mostly denial/minimizing with a bit of Faustian bargaining

"choosing the lesser evil" isn't a Faustian bargain. 

I assume feminists would be highly critical of people who make false accusations of rape. Given no one has managed to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence applies to Bill, in terms of rape. Therefore Hillary has every right to go after Bill's false accusers.

If you think Hillary knows Bill is an actual rapist and she's still going after these legit victims then yeah that's bad. But that's all in your mind, because you don't know the truth, you just want it to be the truth so much you've decided it is the truth.

Having an affair is not illegal. And also there is nothing at all wrong or unusual for the scorned wife to have a lot of anger towards the other woman. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." People have heard of that saying right? If the other woman comes out publicly then I see no problem with going after them as long as you don't break any laws in what you do (like paying to get them kneecapped or something). Coming out publicly only serves to give the other woman (or man as the case may be) 15 minutes of fame and serves as fodder to political opponents. If they were willing participants in the affairs at the time then I have no problem with Hillary hounding them for going public.

Clearly Hillary was not going to publicly castigate Bill for his part in it, but I bet behind closed doors some harsh words were spoken, and Bill probably spent a lot of time on the couch.

I do know some feminists who think Hillary played the whole thing wrong and they wish she wasn't in line to be the first woman president. But they certainly think she's a miles better option than ole misogynist Drumpf. And not in a lesser of two evils way, in an actual materially better person, better candidate and better ideology way.

Hillary with out a doubt- she will intimdate threaten discredit ect any woman that has slept w her husband that she see s as a threat just as she always has-  She has done exactly what feminist have said for years (even peole who are not feminists) have fought against for year and that is blaming the victim, slut shaming, discrediting ect-  

The question in the thread is "how do feminists supporters of Hillary reconcile her well documented actions V what she says she stands for and what many of her supporters consider a major issue-     So far most of the answers have been something about Trump or lesser of 2 evils kind of thing and/or some type of Faustian bargain-  but none of the answers make an effort to reconcile her actions V what she says she stands for -  I think the reason is, it would be difficult if not impossible to do- 

The rape acusation was /is credible but you are right it has not been proven in a court of law because it never made it that far- but the rpae acusatinons are a small part of the history of Bill sleeping w awomen, the news coming out, Hillary going after the "rodeo queens"  in every manner that feminists despise including trying to discredit them and the affairs alltogether-  but evenutaully they were actualy proven true- 

Whichh accussed rapists (other than Bill Clinton)  have feminists come to the defense of?  

So someone who says they are with the feminissts but whose actions are diametrically appossed is better than a person that does not pander to them?

Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewensky are 2 of many that she went after that were proven to be telling the truth-  in case you are too young to remember or don t know much about the Clintons history- 

You do recognize that those two are completely different things, right? 

As for her actions vs. words, I agree with your criticism of her attacks on Bill's lovers (which she did before they were proven true), but that does not invalidate for instance her policy positions etc.  Suppose she had been super anti-gay before she supported them (which is not true; she didn't support gay marriage but it would be wrong to say she was fighting on the other side).  That would complicate her political character, but it would not erase the fact that she is wholeheartedly supporting gay rights now.  In a similar sense, her attacks on women involved in Bill's affairs is bad but does not mean she cannot be good for feminist policy, especially when that stuff happened decades ago. 

What kind of "reconciliation" are you imagining, Dunban?