Fred Flaxman, in a recent article in the San Francisco Herald Examiner called "Here's the Truth bout Clinton", crisply summarized all the reasons why Clinton was honorable in lying about "sex." Instead of making one or two points, he really covered the entire gambit of "rationale" from the point of view of Clintonistas. He related how this whole thing is really Ken Starr's fault and not Bill Clinton's. Few people of reason or with any sense of morality could read this article without reacting with total disgust or amazement, hence it really exposes radical liberal idealism for what it is.
In a nutshell, Mr. Flaxman says "...lying was the honorable thing to do." because that is...one area of our lives that is appropriate to lie about." He says that men are not monogamous "animal(s)" and that this is just the way life is. Since Monica did not charge Clinton with sexual harassment, or with using the power of his office to obtain sex, then this (Flaxman says) is a "private affair." There is more, but it basically says the same old thing. Bill's crime was victimless...so the jest of the article infers.
Saying that the president is really "honorable" in committing perjury or suborning perjury, because the lie is only about sex, is disingenuous. It also begs the question: "Is having sex in the office with one of your employees about sex? Or, is it about power?" Using this same liberal logic, can one reasonably mitigate some forms of rape to lesser importance? After all, isn't it really just about sex? Given a different set of circumstances and political affiliations, I'm sure that liberal feminists would say that this activity was indeed sexual harassment, regardless of the consent of the underling.
Not long ago, I recall that a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court who was alleged to have made a joking remark about "a pubic hair on a coke can" to a female subordinate 11 years prior to his nomination. For this, and similar alleged behavior, he was sanctimoniously condemned (by liberals) as an evil, perverted "sexual predator." The allegations were ultimately not considered credible, yet Judge Thomas continues to be assailed by left coast liberals, movies and pop media.
My, how the perspective changes depending upon whose ox is being gored. Now, it seems, a 50-year-old married president can entice a 21-year-old bubble brained intern to give him oral sex in the office, a multitude of times over several years, lie under oath about it, point his finger to television cameras and lecture that he "did not do this," then, only when DNA evidence proves him a liar, (and as long is she doesn't complain,) hey, it's no big deal. It now seems that the same type liberals involved in the attempted "high tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas say...Clinton really did an honorable thing. Amazingly, newspapers all over the country print their statements of support as if there were actual credibility in their viewpoints.
Mr. Flaxman's viewpoint reflects the direction that our society is heading. This attitude permeates virtually every popular movie theme and television program. Our children see his theory portrayed in about half of their collective parents behavior (and not just the male half.) Hollywood personalities pretty much behave as his theory dictates on screen and off. Appropriately or not, few really care about their private behavior, only their image and on-screen persona. Bill Clinton, it seems, is viewed by a lot of Americans in exactly the same way. Trouble is, (and this is the real problem,) the president does not portray a fictional role in a movie. Though the popular sports figure, articulate luminary and role model Dennis Rodman is quoted yesterday as saying "the pres is cool," The president is not "Charles Barkley." He is not "Pee-Wee Herman." He IS (unfortunately for society) a role model.
Ultimately, all laws are rooted in man's sense of morality. The president is the chief lawmaker. If liberal attitudes such as those of Mr. Flaxman's are allowed to neutralize selected laws, (those which impede his favorite politician's ability to remain in office,) who is to say what other laws may be ignored if and when the political tide shifts?