Michael, thanks for your response.
But it, too, may be a bit "off base" (your term). :-) That is to say, you are raising new issues, rather than the issues I originally raised.
1) I was not talking about Clinton "supporters", i.e, Clinton partisans. More than that: one of the points I was trying to make was that expressing doubt about the impeachability of the Monicagate does not automatically make one a "Clinton supporter." By that standard, for example, 68% of the population "support" Clinton (if the polls are accurate).
2) You do seem to be assuming that anyone who actually does support Clinton on one issue or another supports him on everything. As I was implying (okay, maybe I didn't spell it out), "support" is usually more nuanced.
3) I am sure there are people who show almost a blind faith in Clinton, and defend him, as you say, simply because he is a Democrat and a liberal. You mention some professional politicians and well-known activists specifically. But I was talking about the population at large, and my impression is that such folks are definitely in a small minority. Besides, there are also people who defend everything that Republicans do to the death -- are they, too, acting in "blind faith"? :-)
4) Democrats and Republicans. I did not bring up party affiliation at all. For one thing, posters to SI do not seem to line up along strictly party lines on such issues as the possibility of impeachment, the relevance of personal morality to performance in office, etc. As a matter of fact, of those people who have been branded as "Clintonistas," and have felt it necessary to declare their party affiliation, more than half have described themselves as registered Republicans. And some who can't abide Clinton say they are Democrats. (I keep track of things like that. -G-) In other words, although this may be a partisan issue on the Congressional level, it does not appear to me to be as partisan on the grass roots level.
5) What I was focussing on was the tendency of "certain circles" (love that conspiracy theory terminology!) to pin the "moral and intellectual idiot" label on just about anyone who disagrees with them about the Clinton issue on any point. You don't do that, as you point out. Good. But do you think I am imagining that others do, or do you think I have a point? Do you agree that may be one thing that is poisoning these SI "debates"?
6) Do I think some Democratic/liberal circles have raised/would raise a hullaballoo if some Republican were found out in some unsavory activity or other? Yes. Is it, or would it be, hypocritical? Yes.
Neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
jbe
(Joan, not Jim.) :-)
|
