<<A very large part of the disgust, although usually little of the argument, among those that are disgusted with Clinton, is centered on his sexual transgressions, and hiding them from the light of day. Of course the prigs never admit this. Never do>>
You have also accused his detractors of engaging in similar sexual behavior. You can't have it both ways. His political detractors don't care about the sex, they just want him out. His moral detractors are only concerned about the sex because it shows the lack of respect he has for women in general. The lying of course speaks for itself. You shouldn't profess to know what people are thinking. Your thought processes are so different from theirs that I doubt either side could possible understand the feelings of the other.
<<He felt it vital to his political health to conceal his Lewinsky transgressions >>
The ends don't justify the means.
<<Linda Tripp may well have been recruited as well. >>
Now who's a conspiracy theorist <g>. Using this kind of speculation, a case could easily be made for the guilt of the President regarding Whitewater, travelgate, etc. If you insist that one side must prove its allegations, you should stick with the same level of proof for your positions.
<<Finding a stooge like Paula Jones>>
Again, prove it. I'm not saying it isn't true, but you're being inconsistent in your requirements for proof.
<<Some right wing media outlets>>
The same could be said of the left-wing media outlets such as Salon.
<<But this story has been utterly drowned out by the spectacle of a popular President being possibly brought down by a sex scandal with tinges of illegality>>
I disagree with you here. From discussions that the media pundits have had on the talking head shows, the media is angry at Clinton for lying to them and abusing their trust. Apparently, the easiest way to piss off the media is to lie to them. |
