Bargeroth its not your job to educate me. First of all, i dont like or dislike clinton, since that seems to be the entire basis of your statement. I dont believe what clinton says or does anymore than i believe bush. I dont want to believe that clinton was morally superior, because i realize that hes not. So aside from that, all infractions of the law, from a legal standpoint, are all the same, the difference is the severity of the punishment.

Now, i will also let you know, that George W. Bush was under oath just as Clinton was. Perhaps not the presidential oath. If you watch when immigrants recieve citizenship, they take an oath to abide by the legal restrictions of the united states, as well as follow its law.

GW was born in the united states, and by accepting his citizenship, he implicitly agreed to this accord. He violated his oath as a citizen, by commiting his crime, (and yes the immigration oath includes upholding the constitution). Ultimately this caused him to undermine his form of government by not following the laws set forth (as you claim clinton did).

Bush had no repercussions brought upon him, just as clinton did not. BOTH violated oaths, that they had made to there country. The severity that exists in your mind is apparently there due to the fact that you dislike Clinton, which is fine, i dont like or dislike him, but i know people do.

Did lying under oath affect eithers ability to do what they needed to do? Not really. Also i dont want to point out that bush had all of his records sealed by his state government (which he was the governor of). Clinton according to you publicly admitted that he commited a crime? How is hiding the facts any worse than publicly disclosing them? Quite frankly it takes the more "presidential" person to admit that they were incorrect, as opposed to "hiding" the records.

Either way, its really irrelevant, if you are so short sighted to assume that because Bill Clinton likes the ladies, that he has systematically destroyed the american presidency, your mistaken. The presidency has been discredited through many people before him, namely FDR and Nixon (a democrat and republican respectively).

Its interesting to see that the candidate you like can commit crimes and just be ignored, and even commended for his superiority to the morality of another. Its called bias my friend, i think you need to get past the fact that you use clinton as your scapegoat for the demoralization of the whitehouse, when all evidence would point to the fact that by the time that clinton took the office, "rule of law" was essentially destroyed by previous presidents as noted above.

Hastley

"who wishes bargeroth would stop using Clinton as his scapegoat for the legal corruption of an institution"