I’m still stewing over an exchange I had in the comments section of a thread over at Obsidian Wings in which the blogger wrote how much better he felt after Clinton’s expression of contrition. I responded by commenting that Clinton’s statement does not meet the standard for contrition since it was neither followed by penance nor a sincere commitment to change.
I was then taken to task by other commenters for daring to comment on something that was a purely private matter.
I’m sorry, but what takes place in the People’s house instead of conducting the People’s business by someone sworn to conduct the People’s business is absolutely open for criticism. And I wouldn’t have been commenting on it anyway if Mr. Clinton weren’t parading it in front of us to promote his autobiography. If it’s so gosh-durned private why didn’t he respond to Mr. Rather’s question (drawing himself up to his full height): “Mr. Rather, that is none of your business and I’ll kindly ask you to restrict your questions to public matters of how I conducted my Presidency”?
Other than that it wouldn’t sell books, of course. Really. Harrumph.
I agree with you, 100%. There are two huge principle involved here, one is forgiveness (that would be the people forgiving Mr. Clinton, I suppose I ought to explicate), the other is the nature of the unforgiveable. Of course, nothing is unforgiveable, so the term, though familiar, is a misnomer. It must imply a codicile, “unforgiveable in lieu of the transgressor’s atonement”. So far, Mr. Clinton’s atonements are both easy and remunerative, and that fact, when viewed in the light of the man’s known record of personal/politcal behavior, makes the truth of the matter very much arguable, and, as so much else in the Clinton penumbra, confusing, contradictory, sinister, and unpleasant.