Ahhhh, I am still amazed that this affair of theirs is taken to be anybody's business but theirs.
ossobuco wrote:Ahhhh, I am still amazed that this affair of theirs is taken to be anybody's business but theirs.
On that we are in complete agreement....
It's funny, but at the time that the news of the affair first surfaced, I was absolutely livid. It was not because the president was fooling around........so what else is new? A lot of presidents had paramours.
My concern was one of national security. Some little twit of an intern is playing around with the president's private parts. Who knows who the hell she is, and whether there is a greater agenda on her part than a little hanky panky? Pillow talk has gotten a lot of men into big trouble before.
I thought that Clinton was showing piss poor judgement, as a president, by having a casual affair. To me this kind of affair is not the same as the ones that Roosevelt, or Eisenhower had. Those were long term, serious affaires de l'amour, as compared with a casual quickie.
I also was concerned about the possibility of blackmail, but I shouldn't have been worried about that. It seems that Americans have become so inured to the misbehaviors of their leaders, that there was really nothing to worry about, on that score!
Noddy24 wrote:I just did some Googling and the handbag business is temporarily suspended.
This might explain the very public complaints regarding the book.
Gala wrote:call it gold digging if you like, but her mother landed well. she married peter strauss, a power lawyer, who hired vernon jordon once he left the urban league. jordon had to put up with the bullshit of being rejected from many law firms for being black. strauss is no dummy, and he is by now in his 70s (?), which means he is of the WWII generation of jewish men who grew up with the very real threat of hitler. i doubt he would have married monica's mother if she was a ditz.
and, why is it when a woman marries well that she is a gold-digger?
Not to negate your point here, but I believe it has something to do with the psychological connection between the phrases "marrying well" and "marrying wealth."
Regarding the affair being no one's business but their own, sure, if someone doesn't CHOOSE to be in the public eye like Clinton did, it is no one's business. Fame and power are a double edged sword. If you want fame and notoriety, along with it comes the public looking at your life with a microscope. If he wanted his private life to be private, maybe he should have stayed out of politics or any other "limelight" occupation. He knew what he was getting into when he entered politics. Too bad.
As for Monica, she's just one of those people who needs to hitch her wagon to someone powerful because she apparently doesn't think she can earn any notoriety or attention (or power) with her own merits. She's pathetic.
Limelight may attend the lives of those in power and seek out the small corners of their lives, and yes, especially in our times, people who run for office should know this. The possibility of discovery may even enhance certain experiences. This does not change my view that people's sexual affairs are not an appropriate concern of the public.
I forget...how did it all come to light anyway? Linda Tripp?
That's an interesting question -- if Linda Tripp hadn't spilled the beans, would Monica have kept quiet forevermore? She'd lasted that long...
I have always considered Monica's behaviour honourable in that she - as far as I know - did not spill any beans except to a trusted (sadly very wrongly so) friend.
I despise "kissing and telling".
As I recall - she also kept silent under great pressure - until forced to speak by legal threats.
Is anyone else struck by the colossal inappropriateness of the might of the American legal system being brought to bear on forcing a young woman to say whether she had consensual sexual activity with a man, or not?
Well, Marilyn didn't tell. But she had class.
(or she was dead. Either way, all quiet).
doglover wrote:
I think Monica is extending her long ago expired fifteen minutes of fame...and the money ain't bad either. She made something like $175,000 for doing that interview for a British TV network.
My initial reaction was similar, ie. that she wanted to extend her fifteen minutes of fame and get back in the limelight, then I saw the $175,000 figure. That in itself could account for the whole thing.
I mean if they are paying her that kind of money they want something CONTROVERSIAL from her, not: "Well I wish him luck and I have no hard feelings."
Yeah, he could have done something nice and splashed out on a new dress for her!!
