Anyway I should probably get to some sort of point here. The President did nothing legally/morally wrong to warrant this questioning. Lewinsky was not pressing charges, and Clinton's history with a consenting adult was of no relevance to the previous (and notably, CLOSED) case. I am all about women's rights in the workplace, but it wasn't sexual harassment if Lewinsky was comfortable with it. Thus, while Clinton did a variety of things wrong, but they were caused by wrongs brought upon him. I'm not arguing that 2 wrongs make a right; Clinton should not morally have lied under oath. Was it an impeachable offense? No. He was not lying about murders or real scandals. The man lied about his personal life. Not to mention his family... If Clinton had a chance at getting away with his lie, in this case, I wouldn't personally blame him. That is an affair for him and his family to work through, not the public. Proportionality at some point should kick in here, and thank goodness that he didn't get the boot with a 76% public approval rating. That's how civil wars start, kids.
This was a really great case to look at. 'Twas very interesting.
I agree with your point that Clinton should not have had his personal affairs investigated by Starr. He shouldn't have lied under oath but I agree that his crime did not justify impeachment trails. After all what precedent did it set? I also want to comment about Lewinsky. Lewinsky continued to say that she had never been forced into the relationship so I feel is it unfair to assume that Clinton was in the wrong. So I guess I agree with your points. I also hope that the percentage of women who like the movie Love Actually is much lower.
ReplyDeleteI actually love that you brought up Love Actually again. Sadly, I don't think your point about the affair being acceptable and all applies, because the legal matters came into play because Clinton lied under oath, not because he had an affair. I do agree, of course, that the affair needn't have been brought to light in the first place (well, most of me believes this, and another part wonders if there's anything to that idea that Monica Lewinsky was swayed by Clinton's power...but it was still a decision that she made...).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, David brought up an interesting point in the debate on Tuesday regarding this case. In response to our example of Clinton as a president who screwed up in private life but did superbly in public life, David said something like, he still broke the law. And that's true, and I think I see even another side of that. Clinton lied to protect or cover up (or whatever) his private life. I'm mostly in agreement that no one should have gone digging to uncover this affair, but the point is that Clinton made the decision to lie rather than to say "no comment" or something. Of course, saying something like that would simply be regarded as a yes anyway. So, he was left with little choice, really. Perhaps they had no business asking him in the first place.