Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51152)	6/21/2004 10:08:21 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

His difficulties with women are something to consider, though. Someone as psychologically deficient as Clinton scares me. Other than the Monica L. scandal, there were no truly difficult, soul wrenching, events during his presidency. No Bay of Pigs, no showdown with the USSR over nukes in Cuba, no 9/11, no Great Depression, no World War I and II, etc. I don't think his mettle and ability were tested. Given his psychological difficulties, I am very pleased that he was not at the helm when a history-changing event took place that might have required him to use skill and judgment in a way he had never used them before. I shudder to think what he would have done, if anything. He lied and prevaricated with respect to Lewinsky (his only major crisis) when the best course clearly was to admit the affair at the outset. I think that the Fred Barnes piece on the issue posted by Gina V. was quite on the mark. Clinton's relative passivity, his failure to try to make things happen, like Reagan, and his lack of a vision, suggest to me that Clinton or someone like him, such as Kerry, would clearly be someone I would not want as President during these perilous times. We will unfortunately be fighting terror for the rest of our lifetimes. Passivity and denial are out of the question as appropriate responses.