SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Healthcare.com Corporation (Nasdaq: HCDC)was [HDIE] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MeDroogies who wrote (3623)9/12/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Charliss  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15094
 
Hi MeDroogies,

>>>As it stands, he looks like a schmuck, and the country looks stupid.<<<

Yes, I agree, to many he looks that way, as does our country.

Actually, many of us who voted for him the first and second times were not all that blind to the troublesome areas concerning his character. We voted for him because of his particular vision, as he stated it, and because of his policies.

If not immediately a schmuck, but perhaps potentially a schmuck, he was nevertheless our schmuck (other party voters had their own schmucks)

We decided we would live with what was troublesome about our choice, just as others would do likewise with their choice, had that person been successful in getting elected.

Mr Clinton's first claim-to-schmuckdom was his failure to dismiss Linda Tripp, who had been put there by the Bush administration. Usually, a new president would re-staff more thoroughly with sympathetic appointments. We can only wonder why he chose to keep her.

A significant part of the president's campaign platform was his promise to do all that he could as president to correct the disgraceful policy of prejudice and discrimination regarding gays in the military. In the end, he backed down- an expediency, a moral disappointment. This one act alone did more damage to our country's national character, its soul and spiritual life- and to the esteem and natural right to equality of a significant portion of our population- than whatever damage he may have personally inflicted on us via Monica .

Damage done by backing down on the gays/military issue was directly, exclusively, his doing. This was maybe his first failure as a role model for moral courage, a failure interpreted by many as permission to continue this particular prejudice and stereotyping in other areas of personal, social, and political life.

Damage done via Monica, was done by the nature and character of the investigation and the decision of the media to make all aspects of the investigation into network programing and commercial success. It was done by the creation of what we call scandal.

The French offer an interesting contrast here. Their understanding of scandale is a bit more complex, not so rash and eager. They can differentiate between the "sinful" act and the impact of the publicizing of the act, the scandal itself.

Granted, President Clinton appears to have conducted his private sex life on a level of discretion and sensitivity far lower than that of former French president, the adroit and sophisticated Francois Mitterand, and of course his was not an enduring and loving, mutually supportive relationship with the woman outside his marriage, as was the case with Mitterand, but see the difference in the public perspective and perception: At President Mitterand's stately funeral in 1996, the massive attendance included the president's wife and family, and his mistress and his offspring by that relationship- together and supportive.

While it would be ridiculous for the President to blame the citizens for his troubles, it would also be equally ridiculous, and far more disastrous, for the citizens to blame the president for how the country appears to others as they see the scandale, what you have described as "the-country-as-stupid." To do so would be to have no one willing to accept responsibility.

Best,
Charliss

PS .....a nice balmy day here, perfect for roller blading....:-)