RE: virus: I have returned

Gifford, Nate F (
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:45:18 -0400

Note that Nathaniel Hall is "Nateman" while Nate Gifford is "The Man Who is
Nate" . So who did you agree with: "NateMan" that Bill Clinton was elected
over Bob Dole as a non-rational choice or "The Man Who is Nate" that Bill
Clinton was elected as a rational choice for the people for whom voting is
still a rational choice?

From: chardin[]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: virus: I have returned

> From: "Gifford, Nate F" <>
> To: "" <>,
> Nathaniel Hall
> <>
> Subject: RE: virus: I have returned
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:57:02 -0400
> Reply-to:

> >It certainly worked for Bill Clinton. A prime example of why logic
> than
> >feelings should guide peoples choices.
Nateman, I agree with you. One of the most fascinating things to me
about politics is the way people make all sorts of assertions without
proof. I have some friends who are die-hard Republicans who accuse
Clinton of all manner of scandal. But I am from the old school, I
want proof. It is amazing how many people repeat things for which
there is no proof. Some people make a very good living at it, even
writing books. For example, one friend who sought me out to give me
"proof" presented me with "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the
White House." I was saved from taking the book seriously, however,
when I saw an interview with Aldrich, the author of the book. Time
and again Aldrich told Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" that he had no
proof that these were "only allegations that need to be further
investigated." Why should I read his book? Allegations, allegations,
allegations. I am sooo
tired of that. Yet the pubic can't make the distinction it seems
and offers any form of gossip up as "proof."

I agree with all of the above ...and contend that "Slick Willie" is nowhere
near as slippery as the Teflon President.