Tim Belshe Columnist

I made it a point to watch at least some of the Democratic Convention every night last week. Predictably enough, Bill Clinton had a primetime spot.

You'll have to excuse me for dredging up the past, but there are a few things we need to remember before we go on.

I can accept that many people think Bill Clinton had some good policies during his presidency.

I can accept that people think that in terms of his management of the country, he did a decent, if not good, job.

But none of that changes the fact that he is a lying, cheating and therefore disgusting person.

The fact is that Bill Clinton had at least one extramarital affair, and probably many more.

Then, when this information began to come to the public's attention, he lied about it.

We have unquestionable evidence of both those things, so nobody should even think about sending me an angry letter, at least not yet.

So when the president was telling everyone one thing, and investigators were uncovering another, further investigations were needed to resolve the discrepancy.

This required quite a lot of money. According to a report by USA Today, the total cost for the investigation into Clinton's various tomfooleries was over $40 million.

Think of all the things we could have done with that money.

We could have used to help fund the government's defense in frivolous environmental lawsuits.

Or, in order to keep ASUA from trying to bilk us out of more money, we could have put the money into a student activity fund.

Assuming that there were about 272 million people in the country in 1999, we could have bought every man, woman and child a stick of gum.

If you ask me, any one of those would have been a better use of $40 million.

So not only is Clinton a cheater and a liar, but he wasted a significant amount of taxpayer money trying to cover up his cheating and lying.

Even if you think that it's acceptable for the president to carry out an affair in the Oval Office, you have to admit that the money issue alone is enough to put him in the "not the best president ever" category.

And I doubt anyone not living in Colorado City would ever say that it's acceptable for him, or any spouse, for that matter, to have an extramarital affair.

Americans certainly aren't the most stringent when it comes to family values, but we usually think people ought to at least get a divorce before they move on.

So you can imagine my shock and surprise when John Kerry took to the same podium that Bill Clinton had spoken at only days earlier and started lecturing the country on the need for more family values during his acceptance speech.

I suppose we could take this several different ways:

1. John Kerry is dumber than he looks (though not much) and didn't even consider that it might be a little hypocritical to speak on family values only days after the country's most famous adulterer took the same stage.

I know that Bill Clinton is still the Democratic Party's poster boy.

Frankly, as a Republican, it's reassuring.

If that's the best they have, we don't have much to worry about.

But if Kerry can't be objective enough to even consider that there might be people in this country that frown on Clinton's personal behavior, he's unfit for the White House.

2. Kerry considered that people might find the comments hypocritical, but didn't care.

In this case, he was just providing lip service for the minority of Democrats out there that still believe in actual family values.

3. Kerry considered that people might find the comments hypocritical, and didn't want Clinton to speak, but was pressured into it because of Clinton's popularity.

It's only fair to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does care about family values, that he realized the conflict with this and Clinton, and therefore didn't want the former president to speak.

In this case, he must have caved into pressure from DNC officials or campaign staff and dropped his objections.

This would only display a lack of convictions on Kerry's part.

If he really believed in family values, he would have asked Clinton not to speak, and he probably would have scored points for it with the public.

Clinton may be the most popular figure in recent Democratic history, but he's still in the past, and Kerry is the Democratic Party's future.

I'm not quite sure what Kerry proved with his remarks last week, but I know it wasn't good.

Tim Belshe would like to remind anyone sending in an angry letter that they need a more reliable source than "The Daily Show." He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.