Keep your fornicative hobbies out of our high-minded message board, you sex fiend. 
God, I hope so.
Absolutely, but he didn’t pursue it to the root cause. Clinton may have been able to do with the carrot what Bush has been unable to do with the stick.
You know, and maybe it’s just me here, oral sex is called oral sex for a reason.
Ex post facto reasoning. In 1998 we couldn’t have made that comparison. That’s what makes this so hard. We didn’t know, although some suspected, that things would happen the way they have. Back then it was Clinton lying through his teeth, and it pissed people off.
A year or two ago I read a great book called “Clinton & Me,” by Mark Katz. Katz is a speechwriter who focuses on writing humorous speeches, most notably for things like the Gridiron Dinner and the Correspondents’ Dinner, and he did a lot of work for Clinton over most of those eight years. Katz really paints a great portrait of the frustrations inherent in working for the Big Dog – the guy’s insatiable curiosity balanced against his short attention span, his political genius balanced against his fear of damaging his legacy, etc. The tragedy of the Clinton White House is that here was a guy that, if you could get him to focus for five minutes on your briefing, he would not only get it, he’d get it right. But actually getting those five minutes when he was willing to listen to you was a dangerous task; meanwhile, even when Clinton understood an issue and knew the appropriate steps to take, his political capital was always being spent on completely peripheral battles, mostly regarding his inability to keep his pants zipped. In a lot of ways, I’d think the current White House is an easier place to work – you know you’ve got no real chance to influence policy if your views or your evidence happens to be different than what supports Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove’s preconceived policy decisions, so you’re kind of off the hook for what poor decisions come.
–Cliffy
Most would agree with you. But in my American Heritage Dictionary, the pertinent definition of “sex” is “sexual intercourse”. Look up “sexual intercourse”, and it is defined as “coitus”. Look up “coitus”, and it reads “the physical union of male and female sexual organs, leading to orgasm and ejaculation of semen”. By this logic, fellatio is not sex, since the male and female organs are not in contact.
Personally, I’d take Karenna, Kristen and Sarah. Barbara, Jenna, and Chelsea could help out. But no sex! Blowjobs would be fine.
Thanks for the logic lesson, Mr. Spock. The rest of us on Earth will continue to consider “oral sex” to be sex, thanks.
I think you are straining at a gnat here. Most folks who are not in “open” relationships would sure as heck think that if their SO gave or received a blowjob, sex had taken place.
Personally, I’d rather have sex (including oral, anal, digital, and titty jobs) with a woman than with a dictionary. I know that this touches on a controversial issue, but in my mind, once pubes are touched in any way, sex is going on.
Give him a break. It can’t be easy getting some only once every seven years.
Come on now. Men have three stages of their sex lives: Tri-weekly, Try weekly, and try weakly. I haven’t hit the last stage yet.
:dubious: It’s dead, Jim.
BobLibDem: As someone who voted for Clinton both times and would give up one (but not both) of my testicles to have him as president again, I gotta say that it appears he enjoyed (speculative, but whaddaya gonna do?) sexual congress with Monica. No, he didn’t dip his pen into the ink, but he definitely got his rocks off. And yeah, he lied about having sex. SFW? The commission was formed to investigate a land deal wherein he lost money, not his personal peccadilloes. The lie was a non-issue as far as I (and enough of the American populace to reelect him) was concerned.
And welcome Airman Doors, USAF to a couple more years of frustration and anger.
Hell, I’ve been pining for Bill Clinton to be Prez again since 2003.
So is it to the delight of homophobes everywhere or to their absolute dismay that it turns out that gay and lesbian people aren’t having sex after all?
There’ll always be a few who simply cannot get it.
Screw Em.
Hey if it makes homophobes feel better, bully for them.
My approach was hyper-literal but in a court of law, I dare say that Clinton could very well argue that his statement that he never had sex with Monica was technically true as he understood the definition of sex to be. Therefore, no lie and no felony.
But in 1998, a lot of us - in fact, most of the country - were capable of determining that the President’s sex life was not a matter for national panic. The fact that we have been proven so right it hurts in the time since then doesn’t mean no one was capable of figuring out back then that it wasn’t actually a big deal.
And if memory serves, “sex” as defined by the court in which he testified actually did, technically, not include receiving oral sex. (Oddly enough, though, I think giving oral sex did count.) Either way, only a fool would have thought - then or now - that it was something that ought to be the subject of investigation in the first place.
That’s my impression, too. But if Clinton had made some smarter choices, Gore would not have had to decide “will campaigning with this guy hurt me or help me?” It would have been an easier call.
Similar to Doors, when I see the good that Clinton is doing these days with his Global Initiative and the various relief funds, I wonder how the hell he was thoughtless enough to do something as stupid as pardon Mark Rich. That was moronic. Clinton’s legacy didn’t have to be this mixed. It’s almost bewildering that someone as smart as he is made some of these stupid mistakes.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Clinton, but I would have in '92. Maybe not '96; he lost me when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Even at 14 I thought that was wrong. But I do get that sighing nostalgic feeling when I see him on TV.
Really. So if I am busted for paying for a blowjob, I can sucessfully argue that no sex occurred? Has that ever worked, to your knowledge?