ash wrote her share of commentary regarding the Lewinsky matter. Unusual but hardly rare for a liberal was her anti-Clinton stance.
Benefit of the Doubt
February 2, 1998
I suspect that she pursued him and that he acquiesced. Nevertheless, the man is a sleaze and, as of his deposition in the Jones suit, a documented liar. His wagging finger is reminiscent of Patsy Ramsey in her media interviews. In my opinion, their credibility is equal.
This is an elaborate morality play in which there are no heroes and every player has anything but altruistic motives. It pits raw instinct against nobility, portraying the frailty of the human condition in terms of power, corruption and intimidation.
Defending Linda Tripp
July 27, '98.
As a woman and a liberal, I object to Ellen Goodman's column regarding Linda Tripp.
Linda Tripp is not a villain. I dispute Goodman's assertion to the contrary. I have confided in girlfriends and if I ever begged one of them to actively participate in sabotaging a legal proceeding, whether or not on behalf of a self-styled lothario ("don't brag; deny") then I would become fair game if she resorted to documenting our conversations with concrete proof.
It was Monica, not Linda, who betrayed the friendship. Action and reaction. Cause and effect.
Moreover, I object to Goodman quoting Tripp out of context. Clearly Tripp was referring to the fact that she wouldn't agree to lie, though Goodman implies otherwise.
Linda Tripp has been vilified because a bunch of partisans, hypocrites and dupes who think they see the Big Picture or just think Clinton is cute have given him behavioral carte blanche while diverting attention toward vulnerable, convenient targets.
Clinton is the villain, not Tripp or Lewinsky. Those who shield him because of his politics only expose themselves. Never mind that he's corrupt, never mind that he doesn't deserve his office. Instead let's be outraged that one woman taped another woman who wasn't really her friend.
Corruption is Corruption
September 14, ‘98
By now it has occurred to some that the Lewinsky matter is merely a demonstration of Clinton's personality: reckless, juvenile, exploitive, and possessed of a dangerous sense of entitlement. That the Starr report focuses on the sexual aspects only reveals that it is the issue Clinton covered up less diligently, because it was the least significant of his alleged legal/moral offenses.
There is an instruction in the law: false in one, false in all. If a jury decides a witness or defendant has lied on one material fact it may justifiably disregard all of his testimony. Similarly, if Clinton lied through his teeth about his affair, which he did, and recruited his ulterior-motivated supporters to lie on his behalf, which he also did, it is reasonable to assume he has lied his way through Whitewatergate, Filegate, Travelgate, Campaign 96gate, and possibly other "gate"s yet to be discovered.
Smirking defenders and those who fear impeachment would create a ripple effect in their own lives have resisted upheaval by arguing the sex scandal is private and that Special Prosecutor Starr can't prove the ones of substance vindicates Clinton. What these compartmentalizing and rationalizing enablers don't foresee is the havoc wreaked by a discredited, emasculated, crippled presidency. Unless and until the general public makes the connection between is defective character and the series of scandals I anticipate a national jury nullification in which no amount of damning evidence can convince the majority that Clinton is unfit for office. In turn, members of Congress, unwilling to alienate their constituents, will be forced to leave him there.
Corrupt in one, corrupt in all. Regardless of the outcome, Clinton's legacy is undermined.
An Aside
ash has long forgotten this person's existence. He may have retired shortly after the publication of this letter for strictly unrelated reasons.
November 27, ‘98
Donald Kaul's column regarding smirking conservatives was very revealing. Smirking has been the consistent tone of his Clinton farce articles since the story broke. In my opinion, that qualifies him not only as a bona fide hypocrite but, as the psychologists say, a first class practitioner of projection, superimposing his own take on the scandal onto a select group of people.
As far as I'm concerned, Democratic politicians, presidential defenders, liberal writers and commentators have been smirking (read: bluffing) their way through the evidence all along, if arguably none so overtly as Mr. Kaul himself.
Furthermore, has he glanced at his byline photo lately? That's what I call a smirk. And I'm as much an expert in interpreting facial expressions as he is.
A smirk is in the eye of the beholder.
Clinton on the Couch
February 11, ‘99
OJ Simpson paraded his personality disorder (Narcissism) before the whole world. Now Mr. Clinton does likewise.
History will record Clinton as an imposter who catapulted his early survival skills into career tactics and doggedly scammed his way into office.
He has charmed his minions into forming a moat around the castle which is his ego.
Clinton wanted to be somebody. I repeat, to be, though if he did something admirable in the process so much the better. He wanted to prove his abusive stepfather (as in "you'll never amount to anything") wrong, and that he did. There is a psychological term known as transference. The whole world has become Mr. Clinton's stepfather.
To paraphrase Mrs. Clinton, there's a great story here, for anyone willing to find and explain it.
Finally, Clinton has been caught redhanded breaking the law. The dilemma is how much does it matter for whom?
What It's About
January 27, ‘99
I love the latest SOP (Save Our President) mantra: If they say it's not about sex, it's about sex. How about if they say it's not about perjury? It's not about corruption, sophistry, and a self-absorbed lout with the biggest sense of entitlement since OJ Simpson?
It's not about hypocrisy and, as the lawyers say, disingenuousness either.
As for it not being about sex, Mr. Clinton said it himself. He didn't have sex, remember?
Piling On
March 14, ‘99
President Clinton has been compared to Houdini and Lothario, among others. How about the Wizard of Oz? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."