Interest in Clinton's personal life turns government into circus

Have we forgotten the concept of privacy? Many would argue that the president's life and times are a matter of national security, and he gives up the right to privacy when he is sworn in. Well, for anyone who adheres to such a theory, congratulations!

This type of thinking has successfully turned our nation's government into a three-ring circus, with the accuser and the accused in one ring, the media in another and Kenneth Starr and his dirt-digging cronies in the third.

It all began when the story broke, and "broke" it did. It exploded. It gushed. It splattered. Word began circulating on the Internet weeks ago, triggered by Matt Drudge -- who, in an ironic twist, gets his scoop from sources within the traditional media. How apropos that the man who launched the scandal of the year got his information, not from the people involved, or even those surrounding the actual story, but from the very roving reporters who were too unsure to print it themselves.

Finally, after a quick trip around cyber-space, the account of the allegations reached TV and headline news. Programs were pre-empted right and left, as network news broadcasters questioned everything from the president's morals to his sanity. The race was on, and everywhere you looked, images of a sex-starved, philandering president filled your eyes. Newspapers, magazines, television --everyone was getting in on the action.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the free press, but it seemed as though every medium was adopting a tabloid format. I was waiting for a station to advertise its intent to air a play-by-play reenactment of the alleged encounters. Most stories were more concerned with presentation and shock value than with information. Hasn't this type of thing gotten us into trouble before? Does the CNN Persian Gulf War coverage ring any bells?

The story must have been music to prosecutor Kenneth Starr's ears. After all, it was probably getting pretty boring down there in Arkansas, fruitlessly searching for clues on last year's scandal (Whitewater).

Two conclusions can be drawn from the fact that, while most presidents can only boast of one, or maybe two scandals in a term, Clinton has averaged one a year. The first is that he is a no-good, underhanded, failure of a president. The other is that Starr has made it his purpose in life to play Javert to Clinton's Valjean.

In all likelihood the truth lies somewhere in between, but let's face it folks, the man got elected. Even if you didn't vote for him, the majority of your fellow citizens did. In a recent TIME Magazine poll, 54 percent of Americans questioned believed that Clinton's actions were not much different from those of the average married man. You do the math.

I would like to close with a statement of my own ambivalence in regard to the whole mess. While I stand by my view that we should be more interested in Clinton's State of the Union Address, than the state of his libido, I am never one to quickly dismiss sexual allegations made by women.

All too often women (Anita Hill) who bring suit against powerful men are deemed star-struck, or promiscuous and depicted as nymphomaniac sociopaths. I think this is wrong.

I'm not saying that I believe Monica Lewinsky, or that I believe she is lying. What I am saying is that the circus must end. Let's hope that Saddam Hussein doesn't try anything tricky while the president is stuck in court.

Finally, I propose a solution. We've seen what testosterone can do, and un-do, in the White House. Why not put some estrogen in the Oval Office and see what happens? Lewinsky has certainly shaken things up.