CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P O BOX 3159
ode®oregon uoregon edu Eugene. Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDfTION: vrww uoregon edu/~ode
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Carl Yeh
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
Clinton failing to build successful presidency
Clinton's second term has
been marked by scandal
rather than leadership
Abraham Lincoln was right:
You can’t fool all of the
people all of the time. But
you can fool some of the
people some of the time, and in this
country, that's more than enough to
get you reelected.
It is less than one year into his sec
OPINION
Kameron
Cole
ond term, and Presi
dent Clinton’s
“bridge to the 21st
century” is starting
to look mighty rick
ety.
The trouble be
gan with the sugges
tion that his and the
first lady's White
water dealings may
not have been en
tirely square. Several criminal con
victions, innumerable hours of in
quiry and a suicide later, public
interest in that debacle seems to be
on the wane.
Before long though, Paula Jones
resurfaced and won the Supreme
Court’s permission to sue the presi
dent for sexual harassment. She has
spent the past few months filing mo
tions, scrambling for lawyers and,
most disturbingly, telling anyone
who will listen that she can accurate
ly describe the executive penis.
And as if all this wasn't enough,
the White House continues to be
dogged by charges of fund raising im
proprieties.
Washington has never been short
on scandals, but with scarcely a week
passing without some new allegation
being leveled, the "Slick Willie” fol
lies have become the best show in
town.
Of course, Clinton is only human;
that’s not in dispute here. He puts on
his running shorts one leg at a time,
just like everyone else. And while
one would hope that as the most in
fluential political figure in the world
he would have the good sense to
draw the shades first, that’s not the
point here either.
I’m not interested in the presi
dent’s dubious land deals, his fund
raising woes or any of the intimate
parts of his anatomy. What concerns
me most about Clinton isn’t what he
may have done, but rather what I’m
certain he hasn’t.
Chalk it up to post-Cold War
malaise — the lack of a true external
enemy — or a less than desperate do
mestic economic situation, but the
president just can’t seem to find any
thing to do. His crusades to improve
health care, education and race rela
tions have stalled. New campaigns
aimed at breast cancer awareness and
child care show no signs of faring any
better.
Clinton aides have not-so-jokingly
remarked to members of the media
that the chief executive spends more
time on the golf course than in the
Oval Office.
More than one observer of presi
dential politics has argued that a
president’s first term is devoted
largely to winning the hearts of the
people, and the second aimed at win
ning the hearts of historians.
Bill Clinton was once the great
hope for change in America, but if he
falls into this status quo trap, he faces
the very real possibility of becoming
just smother fat, cynical, bitter South
ern politician. And we already have
more than enough of those.
Americans, especially young
Americans, have little faith in our
government. Vietnam, Watergate and
“The X-Files” have seen to that. But
the current crisis of political creduli
ty has less to do with any cigarette
smoking men that may be skulking in
the shadows than with what our
leaders do — or don’t do — out in
the open.
Clinton has three years to make
good on his promises to the nation,
and if he intends to do so, the first
step is to realize that there is more at
stake here than his legacy.
Despite having not yet hit the quar
ter mark of his new term, the chief is
at a crossroads, and it’s time to make
a choice. His chances of going down
in history as a shining example of
presidential integrity are long gone,
whether the allegations against him
are true or not.
The best leaders are the ones who
inspire others to take charge. Bill
Clinton did that once upon a time. A
return to form has the potential to
force the disappointed idealists who
supported him in the past to reevalu
ate their budding cynicism.
Clinton has the chance to lead
America into a new millennium, not
just come along for the ride. If he ris
es to the challenge, that will be his
legacy. If not, all he’ll leave behind
are a slew of sensational headlines, a
handful of unfulfilled promises and
one washed out bridge.
Kameron Cole is a columnist for the
Emerald. Her columns appear on alter
nate Wednesdays. Her views do not nec
essarily represent those of the Emerald.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Nike protest
I'm writing to report on an event that the Emer
ald did not. Last Saturday, Oct. 18, a group of stu
dents, known as Students for Action, Labor and
Equity, took a stand against an important issue
that many people seem to not fully understand or
want to understand. We protested Nike as part of
the International Nike Awareness Day; we passed
out leaflets and hung banners at the University’s
Homecoming game to denounce Nike’s increas
ing encroachment on the University’s freedom, as
well as its dubious labor practices abroad. While
this is indeed a highly controversial issue — and
we certainly have a stance on it — our main goal
was and will continue to be to create sensibility,
awareness and critical discussion within the cam
pus community.
Given the fact that the University has received
this "gift” of $25 million from Phil Knight, of
which Dave Frohnmayer receives about $30,000
a year. Given the fact that Nike has a $7 million
contract with the athletic department and that
Nike gave us $10 million for the renovation of the
“Knight” Library, this is what our message is:
Should we not question the true value of this
money? Should we naively assume that these
“gifts” are free of private interest? Can we safely
assume that our school president is not bound by
this money? Is it rational to assume this? Even fur
ther, should we not question where this money
comes from? Where and how is this money made?
And should a public institution accept this mon
ey considering where and how it is made?
These are important issues that we all need to
think about and that the University must address.
Furthermore, the question of public responsibility
for the adequate funding of education arises. Per
haps if schools were adequately funded, the Uni
versity would not have to resort to ethically ques
tionable practices — namely, the acceptance of
corporate dollars that restrict the University’s
freedom of speech, its independence and shadow
its integrity as a public institution. And still, dol
lars that are made out of the labor of Vietnamese
and Indonesian workers, who are surely not treat
ed like Nike workers in Beaverton, but who, as re
cently reported in the Oregonian, “have just
enough to meet basic needs."
We must deal with this issue; it is of primordial
importance, and it will set precedence for the fu
ture of this University. Can we, as privileged citi
zens, as students, faculty and staff, continue to ig
nore this because it benefits us to do so? Can we
continue to ignore all the problematic issues sur
rounding Nike’s presence in our institution be
cause our schools gets money from it and that’s
the bottom line? No, we cannot. To do so is dis
tressingly insensitive, ignorant and socially irre
sponsible.
1 would like to invite all those concerned, in
cluding President Frohnmayer, to respond and
start an effective campus-wide dialogue on this is
sue.
Claudia Villena
Sociology
Thumbs
To the Senate anti
discrimination bill:
A new proposal be
ing considered by
the U.S. Senate
would make it ille
gal to discriminate
apinst people in
the job market on
the basis of their
sexuality. Amazing
ly, when this piece
of legislation was
up fora vote in a
previoussession.it
was defeated. We
can only hope the
Senate realizes that
the legally accept
able practice some
companies and in
dividuals have of
firing or failing to
promote homosex
uals is absolutely
wrong.
To expanding
Portland's urban
growth boundary:
The Rose City may
be 100 miles away,
but growth issues
concern the entire
Northwest and the
lifestyle people will
have in the future.
Portland has won
praise from urban
planners for its ef
forts to maintain a
vital downtown and
restrain excessive
growth. While the
expansion is only
5,000 acres and
won’t destroy the
entire region, it is
an unnecessary
concession to de
velopers. Success
ful city planning in
the 21st century will
require increased
density, greater re
liance upon pedes
trian travel and
mass transit, com
pact and self-con
tained communities
and a move away
from the suburban
sprawl that defines
“communities” like
Lake Oswego,
Beaverton and Gre
sham. By maintain
ing a tight growth
boundary, Metro
could have forced
planners to create
more efficient com
munities that would
begin to move away
from the great
scourge of cities —
the car.