- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
- Thread starter
- #41
I'm in a bit of a quandary on this one. Fundamentally, everyone is entitled to a private life and - no matter who they are - they have a right not to have their personal life dragged through the mud for political point scoring or for the general consumption of the public.
Having said that, I do feel that... if one is capable of treating one's own family so badly, or one breaks the vows of marriage... then why should I trust that person to take their oath of office seriously? If people cheat on their life partner, they are unlikely to treat anyone else any better.
And for me is that I could not care less if a man has a girlfriend on the side or 100 girlfriends (or even boyfriends) on the side. I never did care.
None of that, to me, translates into his ability to do the right things in office and it never has.
But for years all we ever heard about was Clinton's morals and now it seems that all of the sudden morals don't matter. There's a lot of inconsistency on this one and I have no problem pointing it out.
Obviously to the voters it didn't matter. Fully aware of Gennifer flowers millions voted for him anyway.
If you want to play this game, if it didn't matter than, it doesn't matter now.
You can't play the game of "I didn't think it mattered then, but now I do."