By SHAWN P. O'LEARY
Editor-in-chief
 

So let me get this straight: If he were a bad president, ultimately meaning if he served during an economic downturn, we'd toss the bum out on his ear. Well-well, what does that say about our collective sensibilities?

It means, quite obviously, that we will sell-out our morals to a man willing to engage in a sordid affair with a woman less than half his age so long as we believe his policies will provide us with some form of monetary gain.

Excuse me, but isn't that similar to one of the objections our quoteunquote conscientious objectors to the Gulf War raised? Now perhaps the whole moral code for card-carrying bleeding-hearts has changed, but I remember hearing claims that our involvement in the Gulf War was wrong because we were protecting our monetary interests (i.e. oil supplies). What I am driving at here, if it is not already painfully obvious, is that the defenders of the Clinton Presidency are, by and large, hypocrites.

Throughout the whole mess I have been absolutely flabbergasted at what people have said with a straight face. First and foremost: "We have no business snooping into the President's private life."

Private life.... are you serious? He is the President of the United States, working in a public office, earning public funds and engaging in an adulterous affair with a public employee. Would someone please explain to me how that can actually be considered public? Call me crazy, but if this were a high school principal engaging in these acts in his office with a college intern I don't think he could call it private.

Also, critics have charged that Ken Starr's report included graphic details as a means of smearing President Clinton. Am I the only one that realizes that, surprise-surprise, if Clinton had possibly abstained from such behavior that Starr wouldn't have anything to report?

Isn't also appalling that Clinton points to the length and cost of the investigation when trying to deflect criticism? Excuse me, Mr. President, but if you were actually concerned about wasting the taxpayers' time and money wouldn't you have come forward seven months ago rather than wrestle with Starr's office over who could testify, where they could testify, when they would testify, etc. Didn't ever occur to you, even for a minute, that by simply admitting to an affair rather than trying to cover it up that you would save the nation tremendous embarrassment?

And what of the women's groups that have supported the Clintons so fiercely? Are they admonishing Bill and urging Hillary to claim her independence and self-respect by leaving him. Oh no, they've made their bed with the Clintons (apparently the more the merrier for Bill) ... they can't back-out now. Seriously, rather than encourage Mrs. Clinton to leave her patently unfaithful husband, many women's groups are admiring her for her courage and staunch defense of her husband and marriage.

Come on folks, if you believe for a minute that Bill Clinton is any more concerned with the state of the nation than his own personal affairs, you're diluting yourself. Its time to stop accepting his desperate excuses and call for his resignation.