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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (12432)	5/13/1999 6:52:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

I understand the emotion you express. He has done things that disgust. In that good article, comparing across time, divided into similar categories. And the conclusion was not bitter but reasoned and 'fair'. This is that final roundup: <These are all perfectly good spins. But the point of an apology is to accept responsibility for what you did and otherwise to shut up. To apologize, in short, is to abstain from spin--one of the few feats of which Clinton seems incapable.> How is it we demand an apology? That is a value that Clinton has very low on his list. It doesn't mean he does not feel regret, does it? It doesn't mean he doesn't change to avoid what caused the hurt, does it? It means only a public expression of emotions. Responsibility is not intrinsically linked to those words, is it? He has personal problems apologizing. Hardly a reason for the third circle of Hell. Another quirk of the man is that he does terribly under attack. The things you hate to see in our President comes quickly to the surface. I think him unstable, as I've said. His friends are leaned heavily upon. They seem to protect him willingly, until they are used up and write a tell-all. This is not an ideal trait, but hardly a fatal one. The very people who hate to see what he does when attacked, are the people who most unrelentingly attack. If you believe in disposable Presidents, you may be in luck. With decent, and not extravagant care, he would be fine, not doing those things we hate. He doesn't get much of what he wants politically. Any revolution vision for the country is dead. He has thousands of watchdogs dogging his tail to keep him from gross missteps. Can't we just have an slightly inept President for a couple years without digging up ancient hostility?