Actually...that was the original question
Wharris pointed out that Clinton was glib...
In other words, is he smart or just glib? (As in the definition "2. Marked by ease and fluency of speech or writing that often suggests or stems from insincerity, superficiality, or deceitfulness.")
(This initiated the "morals" aspect - and apparently, somehow, argued that Clinton wasn't as intelligent as he sounded. How you can be glib without being intelligent is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Marlowe, on the other hand - argued (weakly) that Clinton wasn't intelligent...just Silverlock was stupid.
It's not that he's smart. It's that you're stupid.
You're like some pathetic cult member. Or Monica Lewinsky.
No shades of grey about that.
With needless attacks thereafter.
Frankly, there's no argument (in my mind) that Clinton is well educated. There is, however, sufficient cause in his actions to warrent a query into his intelligence. (It takes a real moron to stand in front of a camera and tell the world that "I did not have sex with that women" when you did and the truth is BOUND to come out in today's politics.)
But then again, it's pretty stupid for a President to not mention the fact he's been in jail 3 times (with a DUI no less) until he's called on it during a campaign.
(The real question of intelligence is a pair of daughters of a President who think that they can pass themselves off with a fake ID card. "I wanna go where everybody knows my name....")
