(Preface written 03 October 2007.)

In retrospect, all I can say about this column is, “Oops! I was very wrong!”

"The Fine Print", by M. H. Schrader

CLINTON IS SLICK, NOT STUPID!

(Originally published in the “Neighborhood Journal” 28 January 1998. Posted 03 October 2007)

Not guilty. That is my verdict in the Interngate affair. No, I am not kidding. No, I have not lost my mind. I don't think Mr. Clinton had a fling with Monica Lewinsky.

In fact, the more I hear about the "incident", the more I believe that Clinton is innocent. When word got out about Mr. Clinton's racy telephone conversations with Ms. Monica, one thought popped in my mind--"So that's who the breather is who has been calling the house! It's Bill Clinton!" Uh-huh. Right. And the next thing that they will say is that Clinton frequents the AOL chat rooms and "cybers" with unsuspecting young ladies.

What do I think about all of this? I think that Ms. Lewinsky is a pathetic young woman who wanted to have a relationship with the President, and when she was rebuffed, decided to get even. She obviously thinks she is important; how else can you explain why she was pounding on the White House gates, trying to get in, screaming at the guard, "Don't you know who I am?" If I were the guard, my reaction would have been, "Should I?"

Doesn't seem odd that Kenneth Starr was just a tad bit eager to get involved in the whole affair? Sound kind of suspicious? Like a set up, perhaps?

When you really want to bring someone down, the very best way is to accuse them of sexual misconduct. Be it harassment, affairs, homosexuality, whatever. It doesn't matter; it all works just the same. Even when accusations are completely bogus, there will always be someone, somewhere, who wants to believe. The result, then, is a tarnishment of a reputation and always a kernel of distrust.

Why is it so effective? It cannot be proven. Or disproven. It's one persons' word against another. Theft, embezzlement, murder--all have to be proven with facts. Hearsay is not acceptable. Not with matters of conduct--there are no hard facts, only words. Hearsay.

Why would any person in their right mind level such charges? Many reasons. Didn't get their way. They had some fantasies that were unfulfilled. The bad thing is, groundless sexual misconduct charges do more to create hostility between the sexes than any amount of bra burning ever could. It's a lose-lose situation for men these days. If you speak to a woman, you are harassing her; if you treat here like "one of the boys", you're not respecting her femininity, and you're therefore harassing her. It is reaching a point that men will only want to be around other men, and will only hire other men. Thus, because of the glory-seeking women who seek fame through reckless charges and accusations against men, all of the gains that women have fought so hard for are being eroded away. And, as the father of three daughters, I am perturbed that their opportunities are being squandered away by those who care only about themselves.

Before I get myself in trouble, let me say this--many women are harassed in the workplace. This is fact. And I think that kind of activity is deplorable. But let me add, that their are those out there who want to perceive every little thing as either a come-on or harassment, actions that 99% of the population deem as innocent. I think both Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky fall into this category. I just can't believe that Bill Clinton, as slick as he is, would be stupid enough to drop his drawers in front of a low-level female employee. Especially around others, be it state troopers or White House aides. I just don't by it. The man loves being a politician way too much to jeopardize it by being a moron.

Yes, I do believe that there is something rotten in Washington. But it's not Bill Clinton.

BACK TO “THE FINE PRINT” INDEX