and was very disturbed that he was never willing to just admit the truth on any past transgressions until he had no other choice. On Vietnam there was never a reason to lie about everything he did to avoid going.
The truth, that he was completely against the war and by 1969 and an intern for Fullbright, he knew facts that meant he could say that he absolutely knew that there was no US interest in fighting this war. In contrast the price to fight would have been to give up an earned year as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. How many sons of single mothers growing up in Arkansas ever had that chance. I was female, in college at the same time. I did not face the same fate of serving in a war I did not believe in - nor - though a good student - did I have the opportunity of being a Rhodes scholar. I doubt anyone in my generation, who would consider voting for a Democrat, would not accept the truth and admire that he found a legal way out. (the snotty letter to the military official who gave him the ROTC out was uncalled for and unnecessary, but written by a man in his twenties.)
He was given a pass for his affair, but before getting it he trashed the woman - completely unnecessary. That actually bothered me more than the affair.
None of that was why I was not for him. He was too conservative and he had a terrible environmental record in Arkansas. However, when he became the nominee, I supported him and read his putting people first and found the areas I agreed. When I next questioned supporting him was when his minions, Begala and Carville, attacked John Kerry in the general election by labeling him "Anybody but Bush" - a meme that really hurt and not really reasonable in a general election, in anger I realized that had I followed the logic of his minions -- I was not a supporter of Clinton, I was "anybody but Bush". I think I was better canvassing and calling when I thought I supported Clinton ... rather than just being ABB.
= new reply since forum marked as read
