BY NANCY cotten HIRST

Contributing Editor, Delta Business Journal

Well, now that we have President Clinton's non-apology, blame-casting, and legalized non-truths, we can proceed with all the other matters at hand - or can we? What strikes me most - and has since the beginning of all of this - is that very few people seem to think that character in small things is important. I believe that it is virtually impossible to have any significant degree of character in large things if at the personal level a person is a liar, cheat, and abuser of other people.

I realize that it isn't au courant, since the sexual revolution of the sixties, to in any way criticize anyone's behavior in the boudoir department. However, I am so sick of hearing people declare that President Clinton's private life should be private that I feel I must speak out on this issue.

The worst thing about it is that the people doing this speak in such self-righteous tones, as if they held the high ground. I well remember when the high ground was held by those who managed to remember that they weren't, indeed, rabbits or alley cats, but human beings, who can and should exercise a degree of control over their urges and passions.

That, however, is not the central issue here. At a very basic level, I too believe that a personÕs private life should be private. But that is assuming that a person confines his or her amorous behavior to places and times that could be deemed as private. Under law, there are many situations where the expectation of privacy is voided by the behavior of an individual.

These lines are drawn when a person is obviously in public, talking on a cell phone, or other similar instances where common sense tells us that privacy cannot be taken for granted. What could be a better example of forfeiture of the expectation of privacy than indulging in sexual behavior in an office, most particularly the Oval Office, the most public - indeed owned by the public - office in the land?

And what could further assure this forfeiture than using an office of public trust as a tool to prey on young women bedazzled by the heady perfume of power? Or using a similar office of public trust to intimidate and/or reward women, whether mature or not, into semi-public liaisons?

I am not, as a woman, holding the women in these cases blameless. I am, however, saying that if Bill Clinton were living in, say, Greenwood, Mississippi, toiling away at an insurance company, printing concern, or local factory, there is no way in the world that he could manage much in the way of an extracurricular sex life. He wouldnÕt have the tools of persuasion.

Oh, he has charm and is a smooth talker, but if he werenÕt a governor or the President, women would notice the decidedly unmasculine shape of his person, the insincere nature of his attentions, the exceedingly obvious need to prove his masculinity on any creature close at hand. He would shortly become, not a ladiesÕ man, but a laughing stock - the pitiful guy who hangs out in the local bar hitting on every female who passes by.

The fact that Clinton chooses to use his public trust to further his private hedonism is very psychologically close to that of the pedophile - preying on those who are perceived as weaker and vulnerable. Sexual predation is a far cry from an affair of the heart.

The willingness to leave shattered lives strewn all over the path behind him is symptomatic of a callousness that boggles the mind. The great show of supporting women's issues in the political marketplace while systematically demeaning the numerous women close to him is symptomatic of a hypocrisy of even more staggering proportions.

How, in an age when society is reeling under the results of years of sexual profligacy, can Clinton champion Òfamily valuesÓ and the welfare of children when he is publicly setting an example of the very behaviors that have produced such a flood of social problems?

None of ClintonÕs escapades has had even the appearance of affection - at least on his part. Rather, he has quickly abandoned and tried to ruin each partner if it appeared she could cause him trouble. This is true in other contexts than sexual. He has abused and brutalized many friendships in addition to many sexual partners.

President Clinton is not a private citizen whose behavior affects only those close to him. We should expect better from our leaders. Character does count. No one should expect to be forgiven for thumbing his nose in the face of others. That is an intentional insult and that is what Clinton has done, to many individuals in his life and to the American people. DBJ

HOME || SUBSCRIBE || CIRCULATION || ADVERTISING || CONTACT DBJ

P.O. Box 129 - Shelby, MS 38774
601.398.9660 (ph) - 601.398.7314 (fax)
webmaster@deltabusinessjournal.com