Bill’s Affair in the Information Age

Re; Random
Sorry for an oversight, , I had missed on first reading that you had read TAhmed`s reply.

Re; Random
You may not have read TAhmed`s similar comments, (and my reply) earlier.

Pakistani morality has little relevance to the ``American`` president`s impeachment.
Your American friends may have been faithful in their marriages, but the figures I quoted are from scientific studies done on American people, not someone`s subjective opinion. I don`t know if such research exists in Pakistan ( highly unlikely ), but if it did, I would still find no reason to quote it in this article about `` American`` sociopolitical phenomenon.

Re: afrasiyab et al

Thought this might be interesting...

Ckeck out the CNN poll on the 2K presidential race. The address is:

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/08/ president/.2000/poll

Thanks!

Aliya`s post # 16

Dear lady you are absolutely correct. The problem will not go away till we, the public, change our own perceptions on the issue.

My last reference to fund-raising was not to minimize the ability of Elizabeth Dole or Hillary Clinton to raise monies. Mrs. Dole was the head of the American Red Cross, a non-profit organization, for nearly nine years. She knows how to raise money. The point I was trying to make was that the ability to raise money is what determines a potential presidential candidate. The elected offices in this country are still the last bastion of white male dominated priviliged classes and are basically ``a millionaire`s club``.

Re: afrasiyab`s post # 20

I think that this country is more ready for a black president than it is for a white woman president. American politics, despite the efforts of the best spinmeisters, is still a patriarchal structure.

Why do you think that Americans are so impressed when Third World countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh elect women leaders. We have more political egalitarism than exists in this country. However, the fact that our leaders are ineffective and corrupt is another matter...

Re: Random

Excellent points !

Re: Godot`s post # 19

I will try, but I doubt it that Chowk will publish it. This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights, but has to do with ``good tastes``. Umair Khan has immpecable tastes in picking and publishing articles (mine excluded from the list)on Chowk and I sincerely doubt that he will be amused by such a story!

No harm in trying, right ?!

Find this whole strain of slamming American morality slightly amazing. I think a lot of us form our general opinions about Americans by watching TV shows and movies, while we socialize mostly with desis. Most Americans I know have neither better nor worse social values than us Pakis. Annogul said this somewhere. What I believe desis usually focus on, when there is a comparative attempt, is the difference in sexual permissiveness and the debasement this carries in our culture. This is a debatable issue and the jury is still out on it, but many of us fall into the requisite values of our own upbringing. Most Americans I know are honest; have personal integrity; have a work ethic; are generous (emotionally and financially); are not dumb as portrayed by a number of us; may suffer from information overload; do have a fairly self-centered view of the world; and yes, believe it or not, a sense of fairplay. Lets not confuse US Govt policy with US morality, even though in theory one should be representative of the other. I agree with TAhmed that its disingenuous to paint American`s with such a broad brush, wherein we tacitly project ourselves as the bee`s knees.

Yes, the media is biased, and a large majority of Americans accept it too. Witness the burgeoning audience for CSPAN and CSPAN2, with its raw and uncensored coverage. No spin. Joe/Jane Public have sent the message that we are smart enough to judge for ourselves, simply present us the LIVE feed. CSPAN picked up the baton and ran with it.

Re: Ferozek

I think Colin Powell and Elizabeth Dole ticket might turn out to be a little bit more radical. Having a woman and a black man might backfire. This might be an ideal ticket but politically it may not be as expedient.

Re: afrasiyab`s post # 13

You are right. Elizabeth Dole can certainly pose a threat to Al Gore in 2000, but her ability to do so is incumbent upon the GOP leadership accepting her as their standard bearer in 2000. Right now the establishment is favoring Geroge W. Bush.

Also, this point needs to be stressed. The ability of a candidate, to run for presidency, is dependent on his or her ability to raise money. It takes nearly 20 million dollars to run for a party`s political ticket. There are roughly 100 weeks left till November 2000 which approximately comes to around 200,000 dollars a week or 28,571 dollars a day. This is what Elizabeth Dole needs to raise per diem to maintain her candidacy for 2000 Presidential elections.

This is the reason why candiates are declaring their intentions, to run, so early and the other consideration is the front-loading of the primaries into March. With California, deciding to hold its primary in March, instead of June, and the Rocky Mountain States (Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico) holding a Rocky Mountain primary at the same time, a party`s presidential nominee will be decided upon by the end of March 2000. That is three months before the traditional convention dates in June which would leave an eight month campaign season before the elections. Hence, about 80 percent of a candidate`s money will spend during those March primaries.

This brings up an interesting question on the efficacy of campaign finance laws which limit individual contributions to $1000 per person and $5000 per PAC. It takes time to raise the money and identify likely sources of contributions. It is the money and the ability to raise it that will determine a presidential candidate. Hence, to pose a serious threat, you have to raise money and make sure it lasts till the nominating convention. Once nominated, you can get additional monies from the national party coffers and from the Federal Election Commission Funds, amounting to some 30 million dollars for your election campaign, but you still need 20 million to be nominated for president in the first place!

The ability to raise monies determines a president and an election for any elected office in this country.

If Elizabeth Dole can do this, she may end up challenging Al Gore, if not someone else will. Personally, I`d like to see a political team of Colin Powell-Elizabeth Dole for 2000!

Well written analysis.
The American people appear to be in agreement
that this whole thing has gone too far but
some still want a piece of the Clinton hide.
How unfortunate that such behavior is being used
as a foundation for impeachment.

Ras

Thanks everyone. This dicussion is quite interesting.

Re:Tahmed
I am not quite sure how Pakistan and it`s (im) morality is of relevance in this commentary about the American president`s impeachment. Thank you for referring me to AA`s excellent article, I actually read it and( wrote in it`s replies section) a few months back.

As for the divergence of public and republican opinions, I mentioned it in para 3 of the article, and I am glad that you agree.

re; Ferozk

Personally, I agree with you that today`s lack of privacy is hardly a good thing, yet I can not imagine that this will go away. I tried to stay away from commenting on this issue in the article to avoid biasing it.

As for the glass ceiling for women in politics, I don`t think raising money should be more difficult for Hillary or Elizabeth , they are definitely as savvy as ( if not more than) their husbands, yet both raised money for their husbands , and not themselves.Perhaps they knew that America is not ready to see a woman president (yet). I hope I am wrong, and there is no such ceiling, but the gender distribution in the house and senate is skewed quite severely.

Women are judged much more harshly in general, so the American people were outraged by Hillary`s baking cookies comment, I wonder what the public opinion polls be like if it was Hillary having an affair with a secret service guy.

Re: Aliya (16)

``I wonder what the public opinion polls be like if it was Hillary having an affair with a secret service guy.``

The way--dare I say all--cultures have evolved since the cave-age women are viewed as ``honor`` for men. While a society accepts men lusting after women as not-out-of-normal, it does not accept women doing such thing as readily, be it liberal American culture or conservative Pakistani culture. Men and women, for better or worse, are viewed differently when it comes to sex. A man sleeping with many women is a ``stud,`` a woman doing the same is a ``slut.`` People still find discomforting to see a white woman with a non-white man, especially a black man, than a minority woman with a white man.

The answer to your wondering, then, is that Hillary would be considered a slut. Bill is considered a mere philanderer. This is how we have evolved.

Re: Ferozk (10)

Thanks! And, by the way, I would love to read a story by you on sorority sisters and your ``escapades``! (I don`t remember where you mentioned it to me.)

Re: Godot`s posts # 5 and 7

Well said!

Re: Aliya`s post # 8

I was not denying the power of the information age. My comments were directed towards the media which controls the flow and the scope of the news which an average American hears and forms his her opinions on. In my opinion, the media has done more to polarize politics than the Democrats or the Republicans.

As to the norms and perceptions of a society, who shapes them ? Who tells the Americans what they want and what they should be thinking about? The media influences an average American more than any politican could hope to. The high standard of holding public office is a media creation and it is the media which inforces this standard. Who really profited from this Monica Lewinsky Ken Starr impeachment filled 1998 ? The media.

I have nothing against the freedom of information, but this mircoscopic activity to find dirt on anyone holding a public office, in the quise of responsible journalism, is wrong. It amounts to blackmail. It is like J. Edgar Hoover holing files on politicans. It demeans the political process and ironically, it lessens the calibre of good people entering into politics.

Re: afrasiyab`s post # 7

George W. Bush is the only Republican politican who has appealed to the minority vote, capturing traditionally democratic voters, and appeals to a broad spectrum of American life. Elizabeth Dole, though capable, has a WASPy persona around her and comes from a rich southern family. If the Republicans are going to carry the White House in 2000, they have to sway the traditional democratic support to their side: Blacks, Hispanics and minority voters. Elizabeth Dole appeals to white suburban soccer moms and that is not enough. Thats why Liddy will make a good VP.

In response to Aliya; at this level there are no glass ceilings, but only monetary and financial skills which will determine a presidential candidate. If you have the ability to raise 20 million dollars between now and Nov. 2000, you will be a contender!

And talking of moral superpowers, I refer you to another article posted in Chowk (``Sex Everywhere`` by AA) which points the finger towards - heavens - sexual practices in Pakistan. That, I may add, is a refreshing change.

Interesting topic, and I dont think you have a strong basis for your conclusions concerning ``if the majority of Americans expect their leaders`` - remember that the majority of Americans (65-70%) in fact have supported Clinton through this period, and really dont care what their leaders do with their private lives. The people going after him are the Republican politicians, and they too you might recall started by looking for financial - not sexual - improprieties. His sexual episodes turned out to be the only stick they could find to beat him with.

Of course, we Pakistanis, being a moral superpower, need to help the rest of the world climb to the same moral pedestal we occupy.

I was obviously responding to an invisible yet specific question of whether George needs Liddy more or otherwise.

I still believe that Elizabeth Dole can pose some serious threat to AlGore`s chances in 2000 standing without George however without Elizabeth George may not get as close to winning.

``Depending on which study one picks, 26% to 66% of American men are estimated to have extramarital affairs, which makes an extramarital affair a commonplace phenomenon (more common than natural blondes for example). ``

The president of the country is the supreme executive officer, elected from among 250 million people. I don`t think it is too much to expect him or her to do better than 66% if the populace.

That said, no one is saying that an affair in and of itself warrants removal from office. It is, afterall, a private matter. But Clinton`s tryst is not a usual affair either. He had sex with a woman who was half his age, and worked in his White House. No matter how much you rationalize, there is at least an appearance of manipulation. The president should show better judgement than that.

According to Ms.Lewinsky`s testimony, Clinton was very much aware of this. He was also aware of the scrutiny he would be under, considering his past scandals. Yet, he succumbed to his libido. Not once, not twice, but numerous times. I am not sure that someone who is so incapable of control is deserving to be president. But even that doesn`t warrant removal from office.

The charge against Clinton is that he lied in a court of law. The word of the supreme executive of the country can no longer be trusted, even if it`s under oath. The lying was calculated and persistent. It is this crime that he`s accused of in the impeachment trial. Regardless of what the crime stemmed from, I don`t think 66% of American men will lie in a court of law.

The president was not forthcoming with the truth because he had pangs of guilt. He was cornered by physical evidence. And only then he admitted that he `misled` the people. To this day he insists that he didn`t lie.

Perjury before a grand jury is a felony; so is obstruction of justice or witness tampering. Convicted felons cannot run for public office. I haven`t seen anyone arguing that this is bad because it would bar some people from running for office. Many state constitutions (like Mass.) stipulate that the governer be removed from office if found guilty of a felony. Yet the presidential felony is not considered impeachable. Why?

a) Because as a counter-reaction to 2000 year old religious dogma, sex is now not only considered unpunishable (which is how it should be) but a mitigating factor in related crimes. Today perjury about sex is okay. Tommorrow, bribery and then murder related to sex will be okay too.

b) Unfortunately the American people link their current prosperity with Clinton. If Clinton goes, they fear that their mutual funds will go down the drain. The White House and the Democratic Party has done its little bit of demagoguery to spread this view. Hence public dissapproval of impeachment.

``There was little public outcry and examination of facts when a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was bombed, no president was impeached for the needless loss of American and Vietnamese lives, yet a tryst in the Oval office will ultimately bring down the president of United States of America. ``

I find it ridiculous that you suddenly brought Sudan and Vietnam into this. Suppose the charge against the president was that of taking bribes. Should or shouldn`t the president be impeached for bribery? Or are you still going to lament the indifference to Sudan and Vietnam and question the rationale for impeaching the president ?

The president is alleged to have broken the law of this land. If found guilty he deserves punishment, like any other citizen. In my opinion that should mean a disqualification from office AND the punishment stipulated by the penal code. Fighting a war in Vietnam or bombing Sudan is not a violation of Federal or State laws. That is a matter of policy.

Finally, Americans were not completely indifferent towards Vietnam. There were people who set themselves on fire in protest against what they saw as an unjust war.

It is astounding to hear this talk of Elizabeth Dole as president. Unfortunately the U.S. is not ready to accept a woman as its Commander in Chief. While a run by Mrs. Dole would be very interesting, consider this:

1. The only reason Mrs. Dole is even viewed as a contender is that there is a sense in American Society that if Bob Dole were President, they wouldn`t be going through the current mess. If she wasn`t Bob Dole`s wife, you would have never have heard of her.

2. Who would be her Vice President. Certainly not Bush, he has too much going for him to play secong fiddle to Mrs. Dole.

3. The feminists won`t support her. As hypocritical as they are, the feminists here, would much rather have a philandering S.O.B in the White House that makes them feel good then a cultured, educated decent woman who uptil now has lived in the shadow of her husbands public life.

4. She`s too nice. Mrs. Dole cannot fight the fight of American politics. Consider Bill, you hear people say ``he is the first black president`` or I even heard a feminist say that ``he is the first woman president``. To succeed at American politics you need to spin, spin, spin. Clinton has convinced people that he is a black woman- the man knows how to spin! Mrs. Dole on the other hand, is not as marketing savvy as most career politicians.

Let me close by saying that I respect the both Bob and Elizabeth Dole a great deal. They are truly good people, and represent the best of American ideals. However, in the current state of politics in America there is no way that Elizabeth Dole can be president.