My main issue with the Spitzer thing (I think that’s what the original post was about!) and other cheating politicians that have come before him, is why do they feel the need to drag their wives in front of the press and further humiliate them? Who decides that’s a good PR move (because I assume that’s why they do it), and why? Do they believe that the general public is thinking, ‘well, she’s standing by him so I guess I should too?’ Come on, the look on that poor woman’s face says it all, depsite her bravery in standing with him. I can appreciate the argument of doing it for the children on so many levels, but I think she can be there for her children privately and intimately, without being paraded in front of the press for all to see her very raw pain.

How do you know? Presidents have to keep lots of secrets. I mentioned this before. If Linda Tripp had left her big pig mouth shut, my guess would be that Clinton would have continued on being a great President, with or without the continued contribution of Monica Lewinsky, and none of us would have been any the wiser.

As for the college president, are you assuming he lives in his office or in some portion of that building where presumably he’d have sex with his wife too?

If yes, then sex is acceptable within the confines of that building, the intern is of age and consenting, yeah…I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s nobody’s business. If however, he has a home to go to, he should really take her there since no acceptable form of sex would be allowed in the campus building. Residence in the White House does not prohibit sexual activity.

If Bill Clinton had romanced Monica at a Motel 8, would you still think it’s the public’s right to know, or is it only because it occurred in the West Wing, ostensibly his home? I’ll venture a guess and say that most people would have found that a more egregious offense, since he should be available at the White House.

I think I could agree that if at some point, there was a consensus that Clinton’s ability to perform (as PRESIDENT…geesh!) was actually compromised by his affair, then maybe you’d have an argument for public notification. But I don’t think anyone has accused him of that.

Same goes of the police man. He should have taken her to a hotel. I think I’ve heard that you’re a policeman 24/7, but they actually do work shifts, so he should have had an opportunity to rendezvous off the clock, unlike the President.

And didn’t the woman report that money did change hands, although it’s being disputed exactly what for? Could be solicitation, but I wasn’t there and it’s none of my business.

I’ve never said that every romantic affair should be scrutinized publicly. But when a person in a leadership position engages in a clandestine affair with an underling, his desire to keep the affair secret compromises both his leadership and the organization he serves At that point, it’s no longer a private matter.

That Clinton lied under oath, whether he should have ever been asked or not, is an indication of just how far he would go to keep the whole thing a secret. Clinton behaved recklessly with no regard for the consequences. He deserved to be reprimanded and he was.

Let me ask you this:

Should the policeman who had consensual sex (suspicious, I know, but let’s assume it was) with a hooker in the park have been fired? Afterall, he wasn’t charged with breaking any laws.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

I’ve never advocated that government should decide matters of personal property. Are you saying that Monica was Bill’s personal property? (See how easy it is to twist someone’s meaning.)

Let me ask you a simple question:
If the president of a public university has sex with an intern in his office, is that strictly a private matter?

The women’s studies majors are awaiting your reply.

I can’t disagree with many of the comments regarding differences in interpretations of “ethical” behavior while holding political office. Clearly many have different views of what that means. Personally, it bothers me more to lie about the philandering than to own up to it and try to move on whether its the president, governor, etc…

First, you say “that he sought to protect himself from politically motivated attacks is one thing-not good, but hardly a matter of natiaonl security”..true it was not a matter of national security. But, it was under oath. We have a legal system and he tried to obstruct it. Although some of Ken Starr’s investigation was politically motivated, I dont think the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit was for Paul Jones. The fact remains that Clinton lied in a sexual harrassment suit. He had a long history of messing around with people who worked for him and I will not give him a pass for that. It is sexual harassment pure and simple. And I do believe Jones and Juanite Broderick. It fits Clinton’s pattern.

Regarding President Bush’s obstruction of justice in regards to Iraq, I dont know what you are referring to. Please provide more details and I will respond. I dont support obstruction of justice.

Regarding the firing of the federal prosecutors. I still dont understand what the issue is. Whether it is for political purposes or not, those prosecutors serve at the Presidents will. If he wakes up one morning and doesnt like his coffee he can fire them for NO reason. It happens quite often. I dont talk too much about Hillary and Travelgate, but if she wants to fire them, then go ahead and fire them.

Also, I am a believer in the constitution and the office of the president. I dont care too much about the person occupying it. If Hillary wins, I will respect the office, although I personally dont like her.

You say President Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. I say he was impeached because of a politically motivated witch hunt that cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and turned up nothing. Don’t forget that the Office of Independent Counsel final report found no evidence of any criminal activity on the part of Bill or Hillary Clinton in the various dealings that fell under the catchall heading of “Whitewater.” No, it wasn’t until that investigation improvised and went after anything that smelled like a scandal that Kenny Starr found anything worth reporting. The entire investigation was a sham – it was partisan from the start, born in dirty tricks and manipulation that began with the first Bush administration. The OIC report itself presented facts that substantiate those claims.

President Clinton should never have been asked those questions in the first place. He shouldn’t have lied, but he shouldn’t have been asked either.

R.M.
You said that “the fact that he (President Bill Clinton) was obstructing justice does concern me.” That he sought to protect himself from politically motivated attacks is one thing – not good, but hardly a matter of national security. How do you characterize W’s obstruction of justice related to the investigation of the Iraq War or the firing of federal prosecutors? I see both of these as much more damaging, yet there has been no hue and cry from the right. Do you think instigating a Constitutional Crisis is good for the country if it’s perpetrated by a Republican???