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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (12736)	8/2/2004 11:46:14 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I agree. The coverup did Nixon in and rightfully so. Neither the deed or the cover-up did Clinton in and that is wrong. Ahh, but the difference, from the public's perspective (excluding those who simply wanted to nail Clinton for whatever misdeed they could find), was that Nixon was covering up a politically motivated and, importantly, criminal misdeed while Clinton was covering up embarrassing personal, but not criminal, misdeeds (we're talking Monica here, not anything else he may have done). However wrong Clinton's personal misdeeds were or however criminal the cover-up was (and judgement of the former is highly subjective), most people and, as a result (at least in part), most of the Senate did not feel it was just cause to remove him from office. OTOH, Nixon's misdeeds and cover-up, in the minds of most, did rise to a level justifying removal from office. BTW, I didn't like the guy (Clinton) at all as president, but I thought the whole thing was an embarrassingly ludicrous display and would have preferred that congress censure him or something like that instead of making him a martyr for the left by going for the kill (and not getting it). But that's JMO.