On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, attila wrote: Well, I've been working for a couple of days and spent the weekend before that with The Report. I read all of it, including the footnotes, every damn one of them, and they're where all the good stuff is, btw. Given that weekend study, it's apparent to me, after reviewing several days of posts on this topic on this list, that most of you people can't or don't read or have the attention spans of gnats. The perjury case has some serious reasonable doubt problems, the abuse of power case is thin, thin, and the executive privilege stuff is there as sheer trade goods to give Congress something to throw out. In legal parlance, it wouldn't pass Rule 11. And I don't know who is giving you legal advice, but there's no sexual harrassment count in the thing. Read it, if you can. Peferably after your medication. Much of what you guys have had to say about this matter since Friday is hilarious, much of it pungent, some of it poingnant, and even some of it accurate. But mostly pretty ignorant and beneath your usual standard. One of you had the good sense to post the column i repost below, because that fellow seems to have gotten a pretty good handle on this squalid mess. But punks . . . well, punks . . . a few years ago when I first subscribed to this list, to lurk and learn, as I still mostly do, there were some hardasses you could depend on to come out of the woodwork when things got way out of space, and they'd say: Punks write code. And they were write. MacN

New York Times September 13, 1998 IN AMERICA/By BOB HERBERT Still Doesn't Get It

David Maraniss, in his biography of Bill Clinton, "First in His Class," writes about an "intense relationship" that Mr. Clinton had with a young woman who had volunteered to work in his first campaign for public office. Mr. Clinton was running for Congress and the woman was a student at the University of Arkansas.

A campaign aide, quoted in the book, said, "The staff tried to ignore it as long as it didn't interfere with the campaign." But it did interfere, because Mr. Clinton was also intensely involved with Hillary Rodham.

Mr. Maraniss writes: "The tension at campaign headquarters increased considerably when Rodham arrived as people there tried to deal with the situation. Both women seemed on edge. The Arkansas girlfriend would ask people about Hillary: what she was like, and whether Clinton was going to marry her. When she was at headquarters, someone would sneak her out the back door if Rodham was spotted pulling into the driveway."

It was all there more than two decades ago at the very beginning of Bill Clinton's political journey: the thoughtlessness, the recklessness, the wanton use of friends and associates to cover up his ugly behavior, the willingness to jeopardize the hopes and dreams of people who were working for him and trusted him, the betrayal of those closest to him.

There is nothing new in Kenneth Starr's report, just confirmation in extreme and at times lurid detail of the type of person Mr. Clinton has always been.

In 1992, when he was running for President and people across the nation were investing their time, money and even their careers in him, he rewarded them with the Gennifer Flowers scandal. He carried his psychodrama onto national television when he went on "60 Minutes" and, with Mrs. Clinton at his side, called Ms. Flowers a liar.

He told Steve Kroft and 30 million viewers: "It was only when money came up, when the tabloid went down there offering people money to say that they had been involved with me, that she changed her story. There's a recession on, times are tough, and I think you can expect more and more of these stories as long as they're down there handing out money."

In other words, it was the economy, stupid.

But even as he was denying that he had had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, Mr. Clinton was going out of his way on "60 Minutes" to convey to the public that he had learned a lesson, that he had matured and that his irresponsible behavior would not be a problem if he were elected President.

"I have absolutely leveled with the American people," he said.

In fact, his comments were about as level as the Himalayas. We now know that he was willing to risk everything, his family, his Presidency, the welfare of the nation, on a dangerous fling with a White House intern. For him, it must have been great fun. He got to play so many people for fools. He got to chat on the phone with Congressmen while engaging in sex. He got to play hide and seek with the Secret Service.

Very mature behavior.

Now the Clinton psychodrama has much of the Government paralyzed and the Democratic Party in a state of panic. But Mr. Clinton still doesn't get it. On Thursday he met with the members of his Cabinet, who had been duped and lied to like so many others. He went into his emotional routine and said he was oh-so-sorry, etc. He begged for forgiveness.

But he got upset when the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, said that she was appalled by his behavior. Ms. Shalala complained that the President seemed to believe that pursuing his policies and programs was more important than providing moral leadership.

A story in The Washington Post said Mr. Clinton responded sharply to Ms. Shalala, rebuking her. My understanding is that his response was critical but not harsh. Either way, it's clear that Mr. Clinton has not learned the requisite lessons. He lied to Ms. Shalala months ago and sent her out to lie to the public, and now he's criticizing her. The President is not sorry. He's apologizing because there's a gun at his head. He's not changing what he now describes as his sinful ways. He's trying to manipulate public opinion so he can survive to sin again. The psychodrama remains as long as he remains.

There are no surprises here. With Bill Clinton, it was ever thus.