I really hate to defend Bill Clinton. However, I think that much of the anti-Clinton rhetoric tends to focus on the wrong aspects.
Not a day goes by when I don’t hear someone make a comment about his “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” statement. Some use it to attack his intellect (“You mean he doesn’t know what “is” means?”) while some use it as an example of a slick lawyerly dodge.
Here’s the thing–it was a legitimate explanation of a legitimate answer to the question he was asked.
IIRC, the comment referred to a question from his original testimony–“Is there a relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky?” He answered, “No.” Of course, there had been a relationship between him and Ms. Lewinsky before, but at that time there was not. So if by “is” you mean “is there right now” (which is what I would think), his answer is correct. If you mean “is there right now or has there ever been”, his answer is incorrect. This sort of subtlety is the stuff of the legal profession.
Let’s say I ask about an ex-girlfriend of yours. I ask, “Is there anything going on between you two?” What’s your one-word answer? “No.” You might go on to explain, but Clinton was under no obligation to do so. He answered the question as he understood it, and as I think most people would.
Don’t get me wrong–the man is as crooked as the proverbial dog’s hind leg, although I don’t think he is moreso than the average politician. (I do think that he is better than most at the art of being crooked, but that doesn’t mean he’s more crooked.) I’m just tired of seeing this statement taken out of context.
I put this in the Pit since it’s a general rant. Just to make it properly Pit-worthy, shit fuck piss ass bitch.
Dr. J
