<< First, the editorial on how they were tipped off by a Florida retiree
with a grudge, but no connections:
http://www.salon1999.com/news/1998/09/16newsc.html
>>Bottom line: the "apolitical" Salon editors (and I do support them in the
decision to run, but not with this logic:) >>
>>It will be argued that Hyde's 30-year-old affair cannot be compared to
Clinton's, because Hyde's sexual intrigue was not carried out in Washington
and because
he did not lie under oath.>>
Not likely, Salon. It will be argued by the Clintonistas that this is what is
argued, and it always will be off the mark.
>>Clinton is not being investigated because he had an affair, those who argue
this insist, but because he lied about it. >>
Wrong again. He's being investigated because he lied under oath in a sexual
harassment case about having sex with a subordinate. Why is this distinction
so hard to grasp?
>>This is, we submit, either absurdly naive or disingenuous: Lying and having
an affair can't be separated. To have an affair is by definition to lie about
it -- an affair is a lie.>>
That's right, if that's your premise.
>>Consequently, the notion that Clinton's lies about the nature of his
relationship with Lewinsky could constitute an impeachable offense is blatant
politics, hiding under a legal fig leaf. >>
Again, Salon: Under oath about a relationship with a subordinate. It was
testimony in a sexual harassment case.
Story: http://www.salon1999.com/news/
>>FWIW, the husband, who is pushing the story, had moved out on her and the
three kids because she "drank and stayed out", and then she saw Hank while
separated. Doesn't forgive Hank, though... Kept woman, the apartment, the
clothes, all of it. >>
"My mother originally didn't want me to say anything to the press," said her
daughter. "But she's just so fed up with [Hyde], with how two-faced he is.
She knows she wasn't his first [mistress] and she wasn't his last.>>
>>She hates his anti-abortion stuff, and all the family values stuff. She
thinks he's bad for the country, he's too powerful and he's hypocritical."
>>
NOW we're talking politics!
Some choice - I'm either hypocritical, disengenuous or naive if I criticize
the President for lying under oath in a sexual harassment case, and I don't
even have the benefit of having an affair with someone powerful (unless you
count my sexual fantasies of Alan Greenspan).
Geege