On Tuesday I received my second least-favorite type of web assignment -- a diskette of random files with an accompanying note saying that so-and-so wants this stuff on the web site. What is this stuff? Who is going to be reading it? To what other documents is it related? A little bit of direction, please!
My least-favorite type of web assignment is receiving a diskette filled with detailed, precisely formatted web pages -- all of which look like crap and don't in any way, shape, or form fit in with the rest of the stuff on our web site. I'd much rather deal with someone who doesn't know what they want than with someone who has already made up their mind without any consultation.
So let's talk about this whole Monica Lewinsky thing. First off, I'm pretty much liberal on social issues, moderate on fiscal issues. Bill Clinton wasn't my favorite among the Democrats (I preferred Paul Tsongas. I can hear the chorus saying "Who?"), but I find it unlikely that I'll ever vote for a Republican for president. So, in short, I'm biased in favor of Clinton, but not to the point of zealotry.
When I first heard that Bill Clinton was being accused of having an affair with a White House intern, my feeling was "so what?" It may well be of interest to his wife, but it certainly wasn't any of my concern. If the owner of the local grocery store cheated on his wife, I certainly wouldn't feel that it was my place to poke my nose into his business, particularly not if his wife was staying with him.
Then when I heard that Clinton was being accused of lying about the affair under oath, my feeling was "who wouldn't?" I really can't imagine myself cheating on my (non-existent) wife, but if I did, I doubt very seriously that I would feel like talking about it in public. In any case, while lying under oath might be of interest to a prosecutor, it made very little difference to me.
In short, even if what was said was true, I didn't much care.
Then I began learning a bit about Monica Lewinsky, and the more I heard, the more I began to wonder if perhaps Clinton was, in fact, falsely accused. The more I heard, the more it sounded as if perhaps she might be a little bit... odd.
Apparently she had been infatuated with Clinton for quite some time. It sounded quite possible that she had manufactured an imaginary affair, which she related to her friends to impress them with the wild, exciting time she was having at the White House. Eventually she was called to testify in the Paula Jones case, where she told the court that no affair had occurred, while still telling her friend Linda Tripp that it had.
So if all of this was made up, why doesn't Clinton just come out and say, "Monica Lewinsky manufactured an imaginary affair in her head"? Well, she hasn't testified before Kenneth Starr yet. If Clinton says something to make her angry, all she has to do is tell Starr a version of the story that fits what he wants to hear, in exchange for immunity.
Of course, it may well turn out that Clinton is guilty as charged. But, as I said, what business is that of mine?
In other news, it seems likely that the election held in the year 2000 will feature Vice-President Al Gore running against former Vice-President Dan Quayle. Oh boy. Can you feel the excitement? I'm feeling it.
Comments