🚀 go-pugleaf

In <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
>great and gradiose promises.

>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
>lot happens there, but not very much education.

>It's very nice for the Clintons that they can afford to send their child to an
>expensive private school.  Too bad their supposed constituency -- the poor and
>middle class -- don't have the same luxury.  Too bad liberals have vehemently
>opposed giving the poor and middle class that luxury.

>I wonder if it's time for a Constitutional Amendment forcing all children of
>government officials to attend public school?  That'd get changes made!!

Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit
in public, but it's not unreasonable for a President's child.  As a govenor,
there was nothing to fear...now there could be.

One can still understand educational values, even if they don't go to the
same schools.  I think someone may be putting the cart before the horse here,
let's wait and see what comments he makes about education.  (Personally, I
see no hypocrisy, just common sense safety for the Presidential children).
 
Crystal
  :>
BTW, I tend to stay out of political arguments.  I don't follow the gossip of
others...  ;>