Clinton still doesnt get it

25 years of Clinton's raging pscyhopathic, oversexed behavior:
    Hillary has been a willing partner.

    nothing but control freaques and obscene power trippers. there
    is only amorality in that house --and power by any means.

New York Times
September 13, 1998 
IN AMERICA/By BOB HERBERT 
Still Doesn't Get It 

David Maraniss, in his biography of Bill Clinton, "First in His Class," 
writes about an "intense relationship" that Mr. Clinton had with a 
young woman who had volunteered to work in his first campaign for 
public office. Mr. Clinton was running for Congress and the woman was a 
student at the University of Arkansas. 

A campaign aide, quoted in the book, said, "The staff tried to ignore it as 
long as it didn't interfere with the campaign." But it did interfere, because 
Mr. Clinton was also intensely involved with Hillary Rodham. 

Mr. Maraniss writes: "The tension at campaign headquarters increased 
considerably when Rodham arrived as people there tried to deal with the 
situation. Both women seemed on edge. The Arkansas girlfriend would ask 
people about Hillary: what she was like, and whether Clinton was going to 
marry her. When she was at headquarters, someone would sneak her out 
the back door if Rodham was spotted pulling into the driveway." 

It was all there more than two decades ago at the very beginning of Bill 
Clinton's political journey: the thoughtlessness, the recklessness, the 
wanton use of friends and associates to cover up his ugly behavior, the 
willingness to jeopardize the hopes and dreams of people who were 
working for him and trusted him, the betrayal of those closest to him. 

There is nothing new in Kenneth Starr's report, just confirmation in 
extreme and at times lurid detail of the type of person Mr. Clinton has 
always been. 

In 1992, when he was running for President and people across the nation 
were investing their time, money and even their careers in him, he 
rewarded them with the Gennifer Flowers scandal. He carried his 
psychodrama onto national television when he went on "60 Minutes" and, 
with Mrs. Clinton at his side, called Ms. Flowers a liar. 

He told Steve Kroft and 30 million viewers: "It was only when money came 
up, when the tabloid went down there offering people money to say that 
they had been involved with me, that she changed her story. There's a 
recession on, times are tough, and I think you can expect more and more 
of these stories as long as they're down there handing out money." 

In other words, it was the economy, stupid. 

But even as he was denying that he had had a sexual relationship with 
Gennifer Flowers, Mr. Clinton was going out of his way on "60 Minutes" to 
convey to the public that he had learned a lesson, that he had matured 
and that his irresponsible behavior would not be a problem if he were 
elected President. 

"I have absolutely leveled with the American people," he said. 

In fact, his comments were about as level as the Himalayas. We now know 
that he was willing to risk everything, his family, his Presidency, the 
welfare of the nation, on a dangerous fling with a White House intern. For 
him, it must have been great fun. He got to play so many people for fools. 
He got to chat on the phone with Congressmen while engaging in sex. He 
got to play hide and seek with the Secret Service. 

Very mature behavior. 

Now the Clinton psychodrama has much of the Government paralyzed 
and the Democratic Party in a state of panic. But Mr. Clinton still doesn't 
get it. On Thursday he met with the members of his Cabinet, who had 
been duped and lied to like so many others. He went into his emotional 
routine and said he was oh-so-sorry, etc. He begged for forgiveness. 

But he got upset when the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
Donna Shalala, said that she was appalled by his behavior. Ms. Shalala 
complained that the President seemed to believe that pursuing his 
policies and programs was more important than providing moral 
leadership. 

A story in The Washington Post said Mr. Clinton responded sharply to Ms. 
Shalala, rebuking her. My understanding is that his response was critical 
but not harsh. Either way, it's clear that Mr. Clinton has not learned the 
requisite lessons. He lied to Ms. Shalala months ago and sent her out to lie 
to the public, and now he's criticizing her. The President is not sorry. He's 
apologizing because there's a gun at his head. He's not changing what he 
now describes as his sinful ways. He's trying to manipulate public opinion 
so he can survive to sin again. The psychodrama remains as long as he 
remains. 

There are no surprises here. With Bill Clinton, it was ever thus.

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, attila wrote:

Well, I've been working for a couple of days and spent the weekend before
that with The Report. I read all of it, including the footnotes, every
damn one of them, and they're where all the good stuff is, btw.  Given
that weekend study, it's apparent to me, after reviewing several days
of posts on this topic on this list, that most of you people can't
or don't read or have the attention spans of gnats.  

The perjury case has some serious reasonable doubt problems, the
abuse of power case is thin, thin, and the executive privilege 
stuff is there as sheer trade goods to give Congress something
to throw out.  In legal parlance, it wouldn't pass Rule 11.
And I don't know who is giving you legal advice, but there's
no sexual harrassment count in the thing.  Read it, if you can.
Peferably after your medication.

Much of what you guys have had to say about this matter since
Friday is hilarious, much of it pungent, some of it poingnant,
and even some of it accurate.  But mostly pretty ignorant and
beneath your usual standard. One of you had the good sense to
post the column i repost below, because that fellow seems to
have gotten a pretty good handle on this squalid mess.  

But punks . . . well, punks . . . a few years ago when I first
subscribed to this list, to lurk and learn, as I still mostly
do, there were some hardasses you could depend on to come out
of the woodwork when things got way out of space, and they'd 
say: Punks write code. 

And they were write.
MacN

> 
> New York Times
> September 13, 1998 
> IN AMERICA/By BOB HERBERT 
> Still Doesn't Get It 
> 
> David Maraniss, in his biography of Bill Clinton, "First in His Class," 
> writes about an "intense relationship" that Mr. Clinton had with a 
> young woman who had volunteered to work in his first campaign for 
> public office. Mr. Clinton was running for Congress and the woman was a 
> student at the University of Arkansas. 
> 
> A campaign aide, quoted in the book, said, "The staff tried to ignore it as 
> long as it didn't interfere with the campaign." But it did interfere, because 
> Mr. Clinton was also intensely involved with Hillary Rodham. 
> 
> Mr. Maraniss writes: "The tension at campaign headquarters increased 
> considerably when Rodham arrived as people there tried to deal with the 
> situation. Both women seemed on edge. The Arkansas girlfriend would ask 
> people about Hillary: what she was like, and whether Clinton was going to 
> marry her. When she was at headquarters, someone would sneak her out 
> the back door if Rodham was spotted pulling into the driveway." 
> 
> It was all there more than two decades ago at the very beginning of Bill 
> Clinton's political journey: the thoughtlessness, the recklessness, the 
> wanton use of friends and associates to cover up his ugly behavior, the 
> willingness to jeopardize the hopes and dreams of people who were 
> working for him and trusted him, the betrayal of those closest to him. 
> 
> There is nothing new in Kenneth Starr's report, just confirmation in 
> extreme and at times lurid detail of the type of person Mr. Clinton has 
> always been. 
> 
> In 1992, when he was running for President and people across the nation 
> were investing their time, money and even their careers in him, he 
> rewarded them with the Gennifer Flowers scandal. He carried his 
> psychodrama onto national television when he went on "60 Minutes" and, 
> with Mrs. Clinton at his side, called Ms. Flowers a liar. 
> 
> He told Steve Kroft and 30 million viewers: "It was only when money came 
> up, when the tabloid went down there offering people money to say that 
> they had been involved with me, that she changed her story. There's a 
> recession on, times are tough, and I think you can expect more and more 
> of these stories as long as they're down there handing out money." 
> 
> In other words, it was the economy, stupid. 
> 
> But even as he was denying that he had had a sexual relationship with 
> Gennifer Flowers, Mr. Clinton was going out of his way on "60 Minutes" to 
> convey to the public that he had learned a lesson, that he had matured 
> and that his irresponsible behavior would not be a problem if he were 
> elected President. 
> 
> "I have absolutely leveled with the American people," he said. 
> 
> In fact, his comments were about as level as the Himalayas. We now know 
> that he was willing to risk everything, his family, his Presidency, the 
> welfare of the nation, on a dangerous fling with a White House intern. For 
> him, it must have been great fun. He got to play so many people for fools. 
> He got to chat on the phone with Congressmen while engaging in sex. He 
> got to play hide and seek with the Secret Service. 
> 
> Very mature behavior. 
> 
> Now the Clinton psychodrama has much of the Government paralyzed 
> and the Democratic Party in a state of panic. But Mr. Clinton still doesn't 
> get it. On Thursday he met with the members of his Cabinet, who had 
> been duped and lied to like so many others. He went into his emotional 
> routine and said he was oh-so-sorry, etc. He begged for forgiveness. 
> 
> But he got upset when the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
> Donna Shalala, said that she was appalled by his behavior. Ms. Shalala 
> complained that the President seemed to believe that pursuing his 
> policies and programs was more important than providing moral 
> leadership. 
> 
> A story in The Washington Post said Mr. Clinton responded sharply to Ms. 
> Shalala, rebuking her. My understanding is that his response was critical 
> but not harsh. Either way, it's clear that Mr. Clinton has not learned the 
> requisite lessons. He lied to Ms. Shalala months ago and sent her out to lie 
> to the public, and now he's criticizing her. The President is not sorry. He's 
> apologizing because there's a gun at his head. He's not changing what he 
> now describes as his sinful ways. He's trying to manipulate public opinion 
> so he can survive to sin again. The psychodrama remains as long as he 
> remains. 
> 
> There are no surprises here. With Bill Clinton, it was ever thus. 
> 
> 
> 
>

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Mac Norton wrote:

>
>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, attila wrote:
>
> >  25 years of Clinton's raging psychopathic, oversexed behavior:
> >  Hillary has been a willing partner.
> >
> >  nothing but control freaques and obscene power trippers. there
> >  is only amorality in that house --and power by any means.

>
>  snip
>
> One of you had the good sense to
> post the column i repost below, because that fellow seems to
> have gotten a pretty good handle on this squalid mess.  
>
  
  the American public was informed, and snowed under by the Clintons
  together on TV; unfortunately, the stories very true.  and, it 
  should have been abundantly clear that Hillary, and her far left 
  agenda, was driving the car.
  
  I "like" Clinton for one thing only: he _is_ a made for TV
  President who _could_ project an image to the world which would
  make Americans proud to be Americans.  unfortunately, he never
  graduated from the sandbox" "...it's mine... it's all mine...."
  
  I will grudgingly give Bill credit for accepting the clarion call 
  for him to reign in Hillary, after the health care package she
  shepherded by fascist means, and the largest tax increase in 
  some time; to be a Centrist --too bad it took Newt Gingrich and
  friends to deliver the message.
  
  however, my premise, which you did not include underneath the 
  said by (in fact, the mail [mis]quoting potential places some of
  our more vociferous philosopher kings in jeopardy), is that for
  whatever reason, Clinton was born without, or destroyed enroute,
  any sense of morality --Bill is, and has been, the man who must
  honestly believe he has the right to play the game without rules.
  
  Hillary is unquestionably obsessed not only with power, but 
  revenge for her enemies.  
  
  well, the process goes on; Starr is back to working on White-
  watergate, Fostergate, Travelgate, FBIgate, and a few more 
  "?-gates" --the primary focus probably on Hillary.
  
  and, as much as I think the two of them are scurrilous pests 
  which should be dealt with by Terminix, I don't like the process;
  does America have any pride? not much, and hanging Hillary or 
  Bill will leave America just that much poorer.
  

> But punks . . . well, punks . . . a few years ago when I first
> subscribed to this list, to lurk and learn, as I still mostly
> do, there were some hardasses you could depend on to come out
> of the woodwork when things got way out of space, and they'd 
> say: Punks write code. 
>
> And they were write.
> MacN
>
  correct; and I was one complainer, and part of the group which 
  started coderpunks.   but, cypherpunks, and the arguments and 
  discourses, is an excellent diversion --with the exception of the 
  often one-sided "arbitration and adjudication" of opinion.

  anyone who can follow the threads of cypherpunks continuously
  has too much time on their hands; I can only afford the luxury
  of the occasional hit and run.

	attila out...

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

Mac Norton writes:
> Well, I've been working for a couple of days and spent the weekend before
> that with The Report. I read all of it, including the footnotes, every
> damn one of them, and they're where all the good stuff is, btw.  Given
> that weekend study, it's apparent to me, after reviewing several days
> of posts on this topic on this list, that most of you people can't
> or don't read or have the attention spans of gnats.  
> 
> The perjury case has some serious reasonable doubt problems, the
> abuse of power case is thin, thin, and the executive privilege 
> stuff is there as sheer trade goods to give Congress something
> to throw out.  In legal parlance, it wouldn't pass Rule 11.
> And I don't know who is giving you legal advice, but there's
> no sexual harrassment count in the thing.  Read it, if you can.
> Peferably after your medication.

Mac,
Rather than merely writing to say what bozos all the list members
are (unfairly stereotyping us all - even those not from AOL :-),
why don't you give us the benefit of a little of your expertise?
Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems?
{Were I on a jury and if convinced that matters are as Starr
presents them, I would have no problem deciding that Clinton lied
in the deposition at least, where the term `sexual relations' seems
to have been carefully and explicitly defined - even assuming that
he /shouldn't/ be convicted on what seems a clear intent to deceive
the court and later the grand jury on multiple points.}

And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer.  But
where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in?  I don't see
that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment.

And what about obstruction of justice?  Do you see any merit to those
charges?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 - Frondeur