<<Yes, it certainly appears Clinton has been a major womanizer>>
Do you remember John Towers, the Bush nominee for Secretary of Defense? At the time of his confirmation hearings, the Democrats said he wasn't fit for the office because he was a drinker and a womanizer, and therefore a bad example for the people he would be in charge of. Amazing how political our morals are (as opposed to heartfelt). FWIW, hypocrisy in politics is rampant on both sides of the aisle. I just wanted to make sure that the question was not whether Clinton had a series of "sexual" encounters with subordinates (and others), but whether those encounters should be an issue. Obviously, I am not discussing the lying under oath, or other charges. That being said, I agree with your position about the sex, er, that is, inappropriate intimate contact.
<<(It's actually a rather cleaver exploitation of the disconnect between the contemporary American cultural understanding of the word, and its continuing preferred, or first, dictionary definition. >>
Of course, the second definition includes any sexual contact, not merely intercourse.
<<Having sexual relations (either definition) with someone lower in the organization is not sexual harassment>>
Although this statement may not be true in some states (who could keep track?), I agree that it probably is not harassment by itself. However, it is reckless and ill-advised, and leaves the company/country with the real risk of someone turning it into a harassment case. That's why so many company's internal policies forbid such contact. The current juries seem to side with a person who says they were injured through turning down sex. The employer ends up having to prove otherwise, a not too simple task with all the variables involved in personnel decisions. How do you prove you didn't do something, especially without trashing the person who was passed over - something else that Clinton has been able to do, but that juries frown on. |
