IQBAL
You haven't read enough about Lyndon Johnson who with reference to JFK said something to the effect of <<Christ, I screwed more women by accident than he did on purpose.>> And he was probably right. The achievement, no doubt, being that much greater because he was ugly with big ears and a crude manner. The only one Johnson probably couldn't have said that about was Joe Kennedy, the Father, whose fortune, earned privilege, and, to be sure, sins were visited upon the sons. Joe's sexual legacy was probably too great a burden for any children to bear well (and certainly not without perpetual STD's or worse). Even Clinton, whose idolization of JFK was enormous, became, in my opinion, a kind of adopted legatee and placed himself in the competition, probably taking pleasure in doing some of the same things as his hero in some of the same cubbyholes and spots of the same home. Joe, the old codger, would probably take great pleasure in all of his strange impact..
I have no antipathy for or need to campaign against sexual encounters or affairs of any kind which are conducted in a reasonable and adult manner. On the other hand, if you can read "Darkside of Camelot" without getting a queasy stomach, even just about the sexual stuff, we probably don't live on planets close enough to have a conversation about this. This, however, is aside from understanding the further horror of how close we came during the Cuban Missile Crisis to the fate of Nagasaki or Hiroshima because of something close to a macho recklessness on the part of the Kennedys, of which the sexual stuff was only one reflection. And beyond that, how compromised JFK might have been by the so-called "back-channel" deals, initially given credit for resolving the crisis, if he had gone on to a second term or how compromising the same may have been to RFK had he ever succeded JFK while Krushchev was still in power in the USSR.
With respect to Clinton, his real "sin," and he would probably agree with this including the use of the terminology, is to be one of the greatest politicians in history and yet to have mis-read the political-moral-emotional landscape of the American people and institutions as a whole. His mis-reading of what he could get away with or of its potential impact if it came out or his failure to consider this possibility, reflects a Kennedy-like recklessness which has destroyed any chance of his leaving the kind of legacy he so desired. I say this as someone who supported his attempt to establish universal healthcare, the lack of which is, if you please, a national sin. I also say this as someone who sees great irony in the possibility that he may become the first modern President to leave office, whether sooner or at the end of his term, without losing a soldier in direct military aggression. The irony being that, while he is now under attack somewhat justifiably for being a bad role model for our chidren, nevertheless, in another sense he also could go down in history in different and better light as a man who made love, of sorts, and not war. Which deserves some admiration in itself as well suggesting a re-consideration of a message of the 60's.
Nevertheless, as a Politician and President of all the people, he mis-read or failed to read, for one of the few times in his career, his constituency (Meaning all of the people, even the one's you think are wrong. Even if, in fact, they are wrong, because they are, nevertheless, still there creating whatever grief they may [especially if you give them some to create.] and that needs to be in the equation also.). And it has sandbagged him, his legacy, the Presidency, the nation, the marketplace, and beyond.
I also say this knowing that I would probably damn well enjoy meeting this genuinely likable guy at a party or pub..
Larry
|
