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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Short A. Few who wrote (16638)	12/2/1998 9:49:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

The anti-Packwood crowd always tries to contrast Packwood's antics to Clinton's so-called consensual affair. What they fail to realize is that the comparison is with Clinton's forceable attempts to have sex with Jones and Willey, not Monica.

To: Short A. Few who wrote (16638)	12/2/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Short, re: Gary Hart, unfortunately that was a little too long ago for me to remember all the details. I was a student at the time. It seems to me that Harts biggest problem with his behavior was that he was an unknown and this "scandal" was the only exposure anybody had to him one way or the other. This in contrast to a popular incumbent president. So right there you have a different frame of reference. But beyond that, just on specifics - Clinton has a few advantages that Hart didnt have. First of all, Hillary is no ones idea of a victim. And, Clintons first accuser (Genifer Flowers) was a bit of an opportunist financially speaking. So right there you have a perception of Clintons side as right and his accusers as wrong - as opposed to Hart where Donna Rice almost came off as a victim. I also think people are more offended by "one night stands" as was the case with Hart vs. an affair which spans a number of months. Thats a minor thing, but its there and it helps Clinton. Finally there is this situation with Starr, which CLEARLY helps Clinton. People dont like Starr. And they really dont like publishing all this dirt on the internet. I have said before that I think Starr is the biggest problem the Republicans have. It is his complete lack of judgement on how to handle something like this that has destroyed the momentum of the republicans. Maybe if Hart had some overzealous voyeuristic partisan prosecutor after him then he could have won the nomination. Again, I say its all image in a situation like this and these guys that post here are too naive to know that. Im not commenting on right vs. wrong, just WHY Clinton can get away with this where Hart and Packwood cant. BTW this disparity between who can get away with what exists in all aspects of business too I think. For example Ellison gets away with all kinds of stuff where some creepy unix guy cant. Nothing against unix guys but when youre creepy youre creepy.