Farkel; I, along with most of Continental Europe, was amazed at the amount of moralistic BULL spouted during that sorry affair. Clinton was wrong to cheat, and stupid to lie. However his sexual morals were not pertinent to his competence as a leader. Him lying over his sexual morals were not pertinent to his integrity as a leader - most men and women lie about their sexual morals when they get caught out.
How many CEO's are expected to resign 'cause they &uck their PA? How many lie about it when it gets out? How many are pilloried in public about a matter irrelevent to their competence or inetgrity in their job?
The facts are that many of those criticising Clinton had done what he did in some way or other, unless you are implying that journalists, legislators and politicians have better morals than most people. I don't think you're going to imply that because you're far too smart to say anything quite so stupid! This meant that the slack-jawed consumption of the media-feast by the public was a display of credulity matched only in extent by the VAST numbers of members of the public who hypocriticaly condemned Clinton for lying and cheating like they did. If you doubt this, check the USA's divorce stats, and think how many planted percy or allowed percy to be planted before severing ties.
I would also subscribe to the opinion that if Bush had tried to emulate the approach Kennedy took (Ask not what America can do for you, but what the people of the free world blah blah), and had managed the PR of the whole War on Iraq thing better, and hadn't lied quite so much, then people would consider him in a far better light. However, from the outset he has consistantly made the situation WORSE by saying dumb things.
Leaders are spokespeople. To elect a leader who is more likely to stick something in the spokes when he opens his mouth is insane. Don't blame the speech writers either - if he's dumb enough to read a speech about a war against a threat that happens to be largely Islamic, and to use the word 'Crusade', he's got it coming to him when people react to it.
You are welcome to think that leaders don't have to be capable of making a speech without alienating or aggrivating people. I can't for the life of me think why you would think so, as it's silly.
