Question behind Clinton’s “definition of is, is”
You always here in brought up… However, what was the original question that made this exchange possible?
The complete transcript is here.
Yeah, this is going to get into IMHO or GD territory, and leave it to me to be the first to steer it that direction.
But, for all the ridicule of Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’” debate, I must say that it is not an unreasonable response, given the question that prompted it.
That part of the question—“saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind”—is pretty ambiguous. That’s not a common or natural phrasing. “There is no sex?” To me, that implies the present tense, and is tantamount to saying “I’m am not having sex with her at this moment, on the witness stand.” That’s (probably) very true.
Perhaps the question should have been phrased more clearly…as in “there had been no sex.” But, the way it was stated is pretty confusing, and it only makes sense to ask whether it meant “currently” or “ever.” I know I’d be thinking the same thing.
Taken out of context, the “is” question sounds terrible, and makes Clinton look like a jackass. If more people understood the context, it wouldn’t be nearly as funny.
Note: I’m not defending Clinton. I just think he could make himself look like a jackass just fine without the help of out-of-context quotation.
Hmm… I think that sort of phrasing is a bit too literal. Instead, I would take the meaning of question to be, “Are you in a sexual relationship with her?” If the case was that they were no longer in such a relationship, then he would have been telling the truth. If they were still, currently, then as far as I’m concerned it would be a lie. It’s basically that the two questions–“Is she your lover?” or “Was she your lover?”–are very different.
From the context of the remark in question, it seems like Clinton was being sarcastic, though I don’t recall the tone of his voice indicating as such. shrugs
As similar thing happened with Geniffer
Flowers. She claimed to have an affair with Clinton, but he denied it. I think he rightly denied the “affair”, but he probably couldn’t deny the sex part.
Perhaps he had a legitimate point, but the way he phrased it was itself confusing. At the time, it looked like he was trying to obfuscate.
Given what’s happened in the last few years, this whole controversy now looks so quaint.