If the only “proof” that Bill Cosby had sex with another woman is her word, it didn’t happen.

Even a pay-off doesn’t mean much; a man in Cosby’s position may pay a woman just to leave him alone.

With everyone I was talking to over there, their impression was “so what if he’s induluges in a little side action”. My point was that it ain’t about the man, rather the office.

In most companies, Clinton would have been fired for exploiting his position of power, irregardless of if Monica wanted it.

Clinton was supposed to be a leader, a real leader will often deny himself certain “privileges” or self-gratification in order to lead by example. A leader should avoid anything that hints of corruption.

In spite of his indiscretions, if Clinton had been a MAN and accepted responsibility, that could have been the end of it, but he had to go obfusticating to the point of perjuring himself.

In the end, poetic justice will prevail, the legacy that Clinton got is temporal and a generation or two out, his accomplishments in 8 years will be but a footnote in history — a president elected with one of lowest % of the popular vote in history, thanks to Perot diverting at least 10% from Bush 1 — yes I voted for Perot to teach Bush 1 a lesson. Clinton’s ranking will end up in the bottom half, probably to be eclipsed by the likes of Andrew Jackson & Grant.

For sure, he will be seen as the one of the worst in the 20th Century, if not THE worst, altho LBJ ranks pretty close. Rawanda, Somolia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan & N. Korea will seal his fate as a miserable failure.

Andy: “…never once did I see CNN international anchors and talking heads express outrage against Clinton.”

I searched the CNN website for the word “Lewinsky” and found “about 1,761″ hits — that’s a LOT of coverage. CNN’s archive doesn’t seem to have punditry on it — it’s news, not editorial. The news stories pull no punches and lay bare all the gory details. In story after story, Clinton is said to have lied, to have misled, to have engaged in intimately-described forms of hanky-panky, and so on.

Here is one CNN story that shows Democrats expressing outrage against Clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/14/starr.report/index.html

Daschle said, “There is a basic understanding of the standard of truthfulness that the president failed to meet.” …

Gephardt said Clinton “had a wholly inappropriate sexual relationship with a young White House intern and failed to be truthful about it. …

—–

CNN had over 1,700 stories with the word “Lewinsky.” CNN had on some days more than 10 stories all critical of President Clinton. CNN reported that Senate and House Democratic leaders and less-senior legislators castigated Clinton. Back in 1998, the news was Clinton and Lewinsky, 24/7. I was there. I listened to it every day. It was rough.

(But, opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans, knowing all the gory details, did not feel that impeachment was justified.)

In any case, it’s complete fiction to allege, seven years later, as Andy does, that the press or the pundits went easy on Clinton. I shall not be troubled to debate this point further.

I would say clinton’s message was quite diminished by the outrage over his affairs.

Note, I asked “could” it be that the MSM threw out a few token outrages.

you missed the point that I had access to CNN International — Not the same as CNN Domestic. But I also picked up NBC as well as BBC World. Down at the PX I could pick up any of the current news magazines, etc. Tho Stars & Stripes did a pretty good job of lambasting the idiot Commander-in-Chief.

And on Sundays (Monday actually) I could get LA Times, NYT, if I wanted to. But why buy paper when I had access to unlimited internet (we had enough T1 lines to drive a semi thru it). So you see, it was like the next best thing to being here. I certainly didn’t see millions of hits on Alta Vista nor on Northern lights, thru which I subscribed to a few alerts including the “travails of Slick”.

But the outrage must have really been something since Slick stayed on and as polls would have us believe that he was “popular” as ever.

I also seem to remember donks lambasting Reagan at every turn, but once he passed away, they came rushing in to claim pieces of his mantle like Jesse Jackson annoiting himself with MLK’s blood.

I get it, you were against him before you were for him.

Go ahead and whitewash your history, you ain’t bamboozling me.

Read: I don’t care how many examples you show, I’m going to believe what I want to about this one. Why even bother pointing out that the MSM beat Clinton up for a long, long time about it? No one will concede even a logical, factually supported argument when faced with the liberal media boogeyman.

Plus, the guy commenting on that was in Germany, and thus not exposed to local papers (who were also outraged).

Eh, forget it.

Is he forgiven for his discretions, by God, I assure you he is, to be judged by me, No way!!

I live in a “Glass House!” Do I approve, Hell no, but I cannot hold myself up as a prime example either!! Many things I have done in my past that I’m not all that proud of!

I don’t know about just 2 of millions of examples of MSM outrage against Clinton. Seems more like just 2 of hundreds drowned out by thousands of outrage against the “persecution”. Could it be that the MSM threw out a few token “outrage against Clinton” as an alibi? Talk about playing both sides.

I was in Germany all during that time and never once did I see CNN international anchors and talking heads express outrage against Clinton. The only time that happened was when they brought in a fundie so they could gang up on him and accuse him of intolerance. NPR wasn’t much better. As for the print, International Herald, WSJ and other sources was heavily biased against the witch hunt.

Linda trip certainly got the full measure of luv from MSM. Where was NOW and other Femnazis to defend her from the VLWC out to protect POTUS’s abuse of power?

The Euro-attitude was so what? If a Prez wants to play around that’s just his perogative. In fact, having a mistress or two just shows what a stud he is. Ruler by day, lover by night, a veritable James Bond of the political class.

Best way to fix the problem is to not hit the Escape Key which literally does what you ask, escape.

Not so. The San Francisco Chronicle is part of the mainstream media — if anything, considered relatively liberal. The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized Sept. 25, 1998: “Clinton’s behavior and his persistence in a lie caused incalculable damage to himself, his family, his staff and supporters — as well as the American presidency.” This was one of many outraged criticisms of Clinton on the Chronicle’s editorial page.

The New York Times is as mainstream as it gets. New York Times liberal columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a pulitzer prize winning column September 16, 1998 in which she said: “He is like the cursed girl in the fairy tale: Every time he opens his mouth, a toad jumps out…. When he drains meaning from words, he jeopardizes his ability to govern. He has made Washington Orwellian. His corrupt language corrupts thought.” And she was even more critical in other columns.

These are just two of millions of examples of mainstream media outrage against President Clinton’s affair. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the mainstream media failed to express outrage over Clinton’s affair.

By the way, LaShawn, your blog is great, but there is one annoying problem. If one accidentally presses the esc key while entering a blog comment, the whole comment is lost. Would there be any way to fix that, please?