Food-chain folly

Posted: Aug 29, 2001 12:00 AM
There are more uncanny similarities between the Clinton and Condit affairs than between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. So why are Democrats reacting so differently to Condit? Clinton and Condit both: had affairs with an intern and both denied it – way beyond the point of believability. sought affidavits from other women with whom they'd allegedly had affairs – denying those affairs. Both, in the process, likely obstructed justice. The sleazy defenders of both tried to minimize this potential felony as a minor ethical infraction at most. trashed women who had asserted they had been involved with them. had secondary victims whose stories seriously damaged them (Paula Jones and Anne Marie Smith). left a trail of circumstantial evidence by exhibiting a pattern of conduct with other women that was so consistent as to be undeniable. issued instructions to their victims as to how to avoid detection and deny the relationship upon being caught. probably had no romantic feelings for their victims, but led them to believe otherwise in order to perpetuate the sexual relationship. employed legal mouthpieces to make ridiculous arguments on their behalf, many of which did not pass the laugh test. displayed narcissistic characteristics and demonstrated no remorse – indeed, a chilling absence of conscience for their conduct, much less a concern for their respective young victims. had the audacity to exploit their own families as shields to hide behind as an excuse not to answer specifics concerning the respective adulterous relationships. insulted our intelligence by saying that the American people would understand their unwillingness to drag their families through it. assaulted the English language and the people's intelligence by referring to their adulterous exploits (which they would not specifically admit) as "mistakes." explicitly forbade their victims to breathe a word of their affairs, but both victims violated the decree and confided in a close friend or relative, each of whom came forward. have distinguishing physical characteristics (if you get my drift) according to certain of their respective victims. claimed they were not perfect, but refused to apologize for specific behavior. The non-apology apologies, being generic, were diluted to the point of meaninglessness. Ultimately they both excused themselves with the rationale that "everybody does it." have characterized their conduct as private and thereby off-limits to public scrutiny, thereby invoking the myth that one's private character can be reasonably separated from one's public conduct. used sex as a sword and a shield. They tried to diminish their conduct as a private matter involving sex, all the while denying sex was involved. And, while claiming that the matter was only about sex, they nevertheless complained that too many questions revolved around sex. Query: Would Condit have preferred more questions about murder? exhibited righteous indignation and lashed out at having to answer legitimate questions about their conduct. denied making damaging statements to certain third parties, and when confronted with the third parties' statements to the contrary, brushed them off as a misunderstanding on the part of the third parties. became general national-security risks by exposing themselves to the risk of blackmail. have enabling spouses. have exemplary brothers. drew primary victims whose fathers were doctors. were less than cooperative with investigators and brazenly insisted that they had been perfectly cooperative. attacked the media for sensationalizing the stories and simultaneously sought to manipulate the media in an effort to rehabilitate their public images. Why, then, are Democrats so willing to throw Condit overboard when they sold their souls to protect Clinton? It's not because of the missing body – none of these Democrats is suggesting Condit was involved with that. I'm also not fully buying into their apparent outrage that he didn't cooperate with authorities and thereby jeopardized Chandra's chances of being found. That's just a convenient excuse. If Condit didn't have anything to do with Chandra's disappearance, how likely is it that he could have shed light on her whereabouts? Sadly, it all boils down to political expedience. Condit is expendable and Clinton wasn't. So, in order to make sense of all this, we must understand the Clinton-defense doctrine and the Condit corollary. The former is that felonies committed by Democratic officeholders to cover up adulterous relationships are excused. The latter is that the rule only applies to those Democratic officeholders who are unusually good liars – unusually good – and who are high enough on the food chain to matter to the Democratic cause.