OT: What do you think?

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2275889&mesg_id=2275889

[karynnj]

1. I posted there

Bill and Hillary shouldn't touch this with a 10 foot poll. The offenses aren't equivilent. Foley likely committed a crime. Clinton didn't.

The only remote similarity is that interns, like pages are young and are in a new, exciting place where their respect and enthusiasm for being among the leaders of the country ... in person can make them vulnerable. Inappropriate relationships are likely to be far more serious on the side of the intern/page than the politician. Monica clearly worshipped Clinton, fantasized that he would dump Hillary at a time where Clinton, with a memory an elephant would envy, couldn't remember her name.

That said, Monica was a consenting adult who initiated the relationship - indicating a pretty stange environment, as I would assume such behavior more likely to get a person fired than involved with the target. Though strangely such behavior may have been more common in the pre-feminist era - where there were many boss/secretary relationships.

The page was underage and far more vulnerable. It may well have been the first time he was away from home and in an adult situation. (Summer camp is still a kids' environment.) No adult should have done this or ignored it.

[ProSense]

3. The distinction is clear

and the media is completely disingenuous for engaging in this discussion.

[Blaukraut]

2. posted

No way should he get involved. This is what they're hoping for; As soon as Clinton even utters one word in relation to this, they'll be all over it and the focus will be on Clinton from that point on.

[ProSense]

4. Agree!

Frankly, it's unfortunate, but any attempt to clarify such a ridiculous comparison will only add legitimacy to it as a point for debate. Foley and the Republican leadership are in enough trouble.

[TayTay]

5. Ahm, the media is again pushing a false comparison

Another false equivalent from a MSM that is too lazy to do it's homework. One sex act equals another sex act equals another sex act. This is simply untrue and ignores that moral issue at the core of this: Rep Foley was actively interfering with underage boys against their consent. He was somewhere between 48 and 52 years old when he initiated contact with 16 year old boys. He was in a position of authority and a reasonable case can be made that his contact was threatening in some way to someone who might believe that this powerful person could negatively impact their lives. There was no consent and some argue that there could be no consent because of this.

Why should former President Clinton comment on this, besides a general comment that such actions are to be condemned? He was not and is not a member of the House of Representatives, his wife was not and is not a member of the House of Representatives. He had no ability whatsoever to interfere with how the Republican leadership ran their page program and how they interpreted law and a common sense of decency in policing their programs. This had nothing to do with him. I have no problem with Clinton issuing a statement that this was a morally wrong practice, as I see nothing wrong with anyone in Congress doing this. The idea that he should fear doing this is to buy into the media misconception of moral equivalency that is wrong and keeps people from speaking out on moral issues in general.

I wouldn't tell Bill Clinton what to do or not do in this case. If he strongly feels that his voice added to others might result in alerting parents to a danger and in protecting children from a danger then by all means he should speak out. There is no comparison between what happened to him and what happened with these pages. They are not morally equivalent and should not be treated as such.