Ebbie et al.

Firstly, I replied to your thread mostly because you are a woman. I have a great deal of respect for women and I look forward to the day when the first competent qualified woman becomes President of the United States. I do not want a masculine woman (think of past world leaders, how is that for male bias?) I want a "real" woman who is capable of reasoning and has the educational credentials to lend credence to her ability to think critically.

I acknowledge to sometimes being black and white it my views, but only following thinking things through and mostly only regarding human social behavior and based on my opinion. I have spent a good deal of my life in the science field and have dealt with scientific methodology. I am acutely aware of the non black/white shades of grey chromatic nature of life. I welcome that diversity and variability as the fact of evolution and view life as extremely beautiful, even to the extent of recognizing the beauty of a deadly virus or bacterium under high-powered microscopy. I do draw the line, in my own mind at least, when it comes to issues involving certain current social mores.

Bill D, jaze and others: WHERE the act occurred and by WHOM are of utmost importance. WHAT occurred is not the issue.   Mr. Clinton was in a position of authority "over" a subordinate in the office that should symbolize what is, or should be, good, right, and honorable about our democracy.

I have been in a position of authority when I could have taken advantage of potential consensual sexual situations. However, no matter how strong sexual urges are, there are just some situations where ethical, moral men and women abstain from disgracing a position of trust and authority. I missed several experiences I know I wanted but would have regretted because I would have violated my employer's trust and more importantly my own self-respect. In Clinton's case, his employers were also the American people and it had ramifications (no pun intended) throughout the world. The President of the United States should set an example of trust, honor, ethics, and moral standards worthy of emulation. If you have read some about Clinton, you will remember he idolized JFK and likely emulated Kennedy's sexual exploits subconsciously or consciously. Young men and women should in turn not think what Clinton did was cool and worthy of emulation.

A recent professional discussion on the current dramatic rise of STDs of the oral cavity in young teens revealed that, partly because of Clinton's actions and subsequent statements, teens thought oral sex was not "real" sex. The scientific evidence of infections of the buccal cavity illustrates otherwise. During the discussion a group of young teenaged girls, when asked why they would do something so intimate to someone they did not love and barely knew, retorted while giggling; "President Clinton did it!" I do not have a daughter (just a son), but if I did I would not want her life marred by permanent STDs anywhere, but especially not of the mouth and throat.   

I am most certainly not a prude, I am an atheist, and without further details, I have experienced just about everything sexually pleasurable a woman can do to a man. I still would not do certain things in certain places no matter how strong the stimuli. A free will, the ability to reason and exhibit moral behavior are several of the many characteristics that separate us from other members of the animal kingdom.

Furthermore, I despise Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton equally. They are both deservedly the brunt of jokes and have done irreparable harm to the Presidency. One fool is responsible for the death of innocent humans while the other "killed" the high moral standard of and respect for the most important office in the world. It is equally as serious to have persons of the world, enemies and allies alike, who do not respect the office and power of the presidency. Such disrespect will often lead to disputes then war, which inevitably leads back to senseless killing and destruction.

In closing, JFK was not worthy of the office either and further reading by anyone will reveal he was also a very flawed unethical immoral man. Just because we have had many very flawed past presidents does not justify those flaws that have worldwide consequences. Perhaps having a woman in the office of the presidency will change the paradigm of political science to the betterment of our Nation and the world. However, unless some of my aged college professors consider running, I do not see any woman now that has the integrity and qualifications that should be required for that high office. Hillary will only cause the Democrats to lose any chance of regaining the White House. If she has any moral bearing whatsoever she will not ever run for that office. Unfortunately, I do not think the Democrats have a chance with the current field of potential candidates, male or female.

(I am a registered Republican, but notwithstanding that, I try to use reason on such political issues, if that is even possible with politics)