She got a lot of money from Bill, what else can she get?
The respect due to a person who was honest about what happened, rather than the appearance of a money-grabbing bimbo.
If you believe Clinton, then you're forced to conclude that Jones is a liar. If this is your conclusion, Jones will suffer from any position where your judgement is involved.
In essence, this is about reputation. Where I grew up, your reputation and your character are things that are valued and prized.
It's a sense of self-worth. And it's the reason why I think the case should have gone to court. I think Paula Jones was mistaken to settle without a full confession from Clinton as part of the deal. As it stands, she sold her reputation for money. Over time, the money has gotten less satisfying, and the stain to her reputation harder to dismiss.
As for me, I don't care either way.
Really? What if you were interviewing her for a job? Are you saying you'd not even consider whether or not she was honest? Whether her reputation was of being upfront, or of being false accusor?
You see, my opinion is that Paula Jones is a jilted ex-lover, a money-grabbing bimbo. I believe that any trial would have shown her to be exactly that - a willing participant who is not trying to capitalize on the position of her partner. But, in my opinion, Clinton tried to use his position to deny this woman her day in court - a right granted to her. *THAT* is what I have a problem with. That led to the lie about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky. Take the denial of justice and the lie to the court, and you've got the entirety of what I have a problem with in the scenario. The stuff about cheating on his wife is a personal matter which lies outside the scope of my concern (although it does raise a question about the man's morals).
In essensce, I'm with Paula Jones on this one. The lady deserved her day in court, and settling was an ill-advised decision based off of financial concerns. And, as they say, "The love of money...."
There are alot of other things more demanding of my attention than clearing up the public past on an innapropriate sexual encounter.
Perhaps. Then again, trampling Paula Jones's rights is the first step to allowing people to trample your rights. I'm the idealist here; I think the lady deserves to be heard, and that the public should know the truth. If one is lying and one isn't, I think it's important to know which is which.
