🚀 go-pugleaf

mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) 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!!

Mark,

I can see that you're very irate at Clinton on this, but both Bill and Hillary
said that Chelsea had a major say in what school she wanted to attend.  I
would give (and will, in the future) the same choice to my boys.  It would
not be right to *force* a child to go to a school they don't want to. 
Besides, at the private school, Chelsea won't necessarily be under the
microscope of her classmates and the press since many of the politicians'
children attend classes at the private school.

I don't demean FOR A SECOND public schools and I think that public
school officials in D.C. are being incredibly unrealistic and shortsighted
in not respecting the Clinton family decision.  I think one thing that's
quite clear about the Clinton family is that major decisions seem to be
discussed and shared amongst family members.  This is another case.

allen