Why I have zero sympathy for the “eavesdropping” argument:

We are not talking about someone whose home was bugged. We are not talking about someone whose private conversation was recorded surreptitiously on a cell phone by a person in the next aisle of a grocery store. We are not even talking about a media innocent who stumbled into a TV studio.

We are talking about someone who was wearing a microphone, being followed by a camera crew, and talking to an interviewer while participating in a reality television production.

This same person had a decades-long career of carefully crafted media presence wherein he created a “character” (as he has called it) of himself that included the character trait of objectifying women.

He may say now that he didn’t know the mic was on. But, given the hundreds of contradictory statements he has made about almost every subject I can think of, I have no reason to believe this. This is especially the case since the remarks he made paralleled statements made in instances where he clearly knew the mic was on.

As for “third-party” judgements: I do not think what was said was an ambiguous double entendre. It was graphically clear.

As you say, we are talking about presidential politics here. I agree that scumbaggery is not confined to any gender, be it in or out of politics.

Have I said anywhere that I am a fan of Hillary Clinton? I have not. I am not a fan.

I do give her a free pass? No. What I give her is competence, which is more than I can say for her opponent.