Second News Conference
 

You may not agree with all of his policies but is sure does a great job with the news conference.

Hilter gave great speeches too

I didn't think it was so great - Was he unaware of his statements being wrong or was he just giving us happy talk?

http://www.xoutpost.com/lounge/politi...both-ways.html

Some of the media looked downright foolish, and they concentrated much too pointedly on "when did you know this," and other trivial things, letting him skate on much more important large scale things he should be questioned about fiercely.

They let a lot of things slide, like "evidence" that restructuring the charity tax situation would not adversely effect charities.

I think he did a pretty good job considering he didn't use a teleprompter which is his typical MO. The guy is certainly articulate and smart and I think he should be given a fair chance to get some stuff done. Someone once wrote, regardless of how you felt about them personally, when Clinton was in the room (like at a meeting or press conference) he was the smartest guy there, when Bush was in the room, he was the dumbest guy there. I think President Obama at this point falls somewhere in the middle. (Clinton sure would not have had that gaff on the Tonight Show, Bush would have done 100x's worse.)

If Clinton was so smart how come he "didn't have sexual relations with that woman?"

I don't need him to be smart, I need him to be able to manage his administration and the zealots in Congress into getting us somewhere useful. Jimmy Carter was smart too.

Frankly I really didn't and don't give a shit what he did in his private life. The guy who developed PCR changed the course of science forever (in a good way) and he smoked pot and took LSD weekly. It is only with that modality that gene therapy will ever come to success. I don't see people or congress attacking him.

Actually I do need him to be smart. These are complicated issues and deserve to be thoroughly evaluated by someone who didn't graduate with a "D" average from a school he only got into on legacy.

Ah, his twiddling in the Oval office isn't exactly his private life. I am not passing judgement from a moral perspective (although he is just about without any morals for doing this) but he brought shame to the presidency and the office while creating a huge distraction and a massive amount of tax payer money to be spent.

Your example, don't know who that guy was, sounds pretty effective and smart for sure. His contribution was significant sounding.

Was he an elected Federal official, paid by the people?

My point is once you are elected to a Federal office (states probably have similar standards) and taxpayer dollars are used there is a higher standard of ethics and responsibility than in private life.

TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL

CHAPTER XVI--OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

PART 2635_STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH--

Subpart A_General Provisions

Sec. 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.


(a) Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a
responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place
loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private
gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the
integrity of the Federal Government, each employee shall respect and
adhere to the principles of ethical conduct set forth in this section,
as well as the implementing standards contained in this part and in
supplemental agency regulations.

Section

I don't disagree with you there, but I think that the character of the people he puts in position and his ability to work with Congress should not be overlooked in favor of his intellect (which I am also not disputing).

I completely agree with you on the moral issue and so forth. It wasn't the right place or the right time to be doing that stuff and he did bring shame to the office. Frankly, he is married with a kid and that's enough in my book.

Having said that, I still don't care about his private life as long as he gets the job done. I know nothing about the privates lives of congress and they may be more wacked out then even the weirdest Taratino movie. What interests me is whether or not they are doing their jobs, and the answer to that is quite obvious.

No the scientist was not an elected Federal official, but he was working in a Federally funded lab using Federal funds.

So the next set of questions then I'd propose is:

Given Clinton's activities, did that make him less effective at his job?

Could he have accomplished more if he didn't do this and subsequently get caught?

Did other people work with him differently (maybe less effectively or work against him) because of what he did?

If the end result is a diminished capacity to lead or execute on the tasks small and or large does that matter?

Again good points. Drop Clinton for a second and think about Spitzer. Maybe it was the regular hotel 'visits' that made him so effective at his job and without them he would have accomplished half as much. Now we'll never know.

Ha ha... :bustingup

We live in a strange world taking a woman to dinner the theater and buying jewelry is fine.

Just thought about this. If you follow Formula 1 and know who Max Moseley is and the scandal that involved his private life last year, there is an interesting contrast between his situation and the Spitzer situation that would certainly warrant debate relative to the comment I made below.