I normally try to stay out of these discussions, but,
intending no defense of Clinton whatsoever:

<rant on>

Paul,

The primary thing that disturbs me about the parade of
folly you allude to is the pathological appetite that
the public seems to have acquired for dirt on our civil
servants. The media has morphed into a dirt-fueled machine
that cannot survive without a steady supply thereof, and
there appear to be virtually no bounds on the severity of
error or indiscretion that must be reported. Who among us
would survive such scrutiny untarnished?

What I cannot for the life of me now understand is why
on earth any but the most reckless, strong-willed and
power-hungry among us would ever want to subject themselves
to the trial-by-fire that is now required of any candidate
for public office.  And if you accept this as necessarily
a rhetorical question, then it should be no surprise to
anyone that we wind up with reckless, strong-willed and
power-hungry politicians.

Seek, and ye shall find. I think that if the people want
better choices, then they need to (a) give decent but
imperfect people some breathing room to run for office,
and (b) have the courage to offer them decent pay. The
gap between public and private salaries at top management
levels is inexcusable. Skilled, creative senior managers
within government can increase their annual incomes tenfold
simply by entering the private sector. The implications of
this should be obvious.

--Bob

BTW, I would be very surprised if more than a very few
people voted for Clinton because of his indescretions.
I think that, astonishing as this may seem, many if not
most people placed a higher importance on policy issues,
whether or not you agree with their choice.  Many others
seem to have simply felt that the alternatives sucked
even worse.

<rant off>

Disclosure: I do work for a US government agency,
but I am very happy with my pay, my job and with my
managers. Yes, I'm lucky in that way. Before anyone
asks, I always post from a private account to help
make it clear that my words in no way represent
the views of my employer.

On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 08:01:52AM +1000, Paul B. Webster VK2BZC wrote:
> Isn't politics remarkable?
>
>   I recall when I was still in school and thought government was about
> managing a country and looking after the people, providing services such
> as transport, medical care etc...
>
>   Our pollies, colourful though they be, have mostly been eccentric in
> proportion to our scale to the world.  We just sit and marvel at the
> sheer breathtaking scope of presidents elected on the basis of their
> career in the movies, their prowess as an adulterer (with the staff
> allocated them), or the vision of election to the senate on the basis of
> sympathy for the wife of such a former.
>
>   Isn't politics remarkable?
> --
>   Cheers,
>         Paul B.

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
bob@drzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================