>But if true, Bill is toast. This time it's not the sex, it's not lying,
>it will be the hypocrisy of Bill talking about deadbeat Dads. The public
>rightly have skewered the GOP for the sin of hypocrisy and Bill will go
>down for the same in this case.
I'll bet you that they won't give a crap. (Any suggestions for a wager?)
First, we don't know that he didn't pay her/the child any money. The deadbeat dad discourse is all about reducing men to wallets, so as long as he paid in some fashion no one will really care. Now, if people cared more about *responsibility* as some sort of meaningful relationship with a child, then maybe just maybe he'd be considered a hypocrite.
Second, she was a prostitute and so quite different from the women other politicians fathered children with. That is, she's was getting paid for it and in most folks minds she bore complete responsibility for whatever happens to her. As far as most people are concerned, she could very easily have had an abortion. That she didn't will just signify for them that she was out for money or, at the very least, her 15 minutes of fame.
Will it damage him among politicians and pundits. Oh certainly, but I'll bet again that it'll just piss people off more if they jump on his case. It's just too convenient that this story emerged now. And I just don't think they'll be able to parlay this into some sort of damaging evidence that he's a hypocrite. Indeed, I'll bet if they polled people, most of 'em will say that they already figured Clinton had sex with prostitutes and a lot of 'em would say that he probably has more than one kid out there somewhere.
Kelley