Let me start by saying that Bill Clinton should never have been impeached. It was a vast right wing conspiracy and in my opinion there were not high crimes committed. But let’s all also admit that he did tarnish the office and lied to his family, friends, and the American people who defended him. But of course, now we have a better understanding of high crimes that should be reasons to impeach. We just don’t seem to have the political will or public desire even though the WH crimes of the last 8 years are deep and wide...
Let me start by saying that Bill Clinton should never have been impeached. It was a vast right wing conspiracy and in my opinion there were not high crimes committed. But let's all also admit that he did tarnish the office and lied to his family, friends, and the American people who defended him. But of course, now we have a better understanding of high crimes that should be reasons to impeach. We just don't seem to have the political will or public desire even though the WH crimes of the last 8 years are deep and wide.
I read an interesting post from Jake Tapper at ABC News' Political Punch. I've been thinking along the same lines and considering the question: how would the impeachment/perjury/Monica episode of the Clinton years be addressed if Hillary is the nominee? Tapper's post is titled "On Chelsea, Monica, and the Scandal that Dare Not Speak Its Name." He writes:
Clinton defenders say that's only because we live in a world with a vast right-wing media apparatus and a compliant, bottom-feeding media. Even if you buy that notion, this is the world we live in. Given that, it's nothing short of astonishing that we've made it this far in the campaign with few serious questions to Sen. Clinton about the impeachment of her husband. Obviously, Sen. Obama won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm not sure the Republicans will be that chivalrous.
I agree that Obama shouldn't and won't touch the subject. But I assume that the GOP will make this a significant issue one way or another if Hillary is on the ticket. Imagine how much FOX and CNN would love to talk about Lewinsky again, the blue dress, and intern jokes galore (i.e. will Bill Clinton be allowed to have interns?). And to be honest, the "Clinton baggage" is a big reason that a lot of Democrats I know immediately gravitated to other candidates in the primary.
I could see a Clinton-McCain debate include a question about the impeachment, perjury, or about Bill's antics. More likely, it would be people outside of the McCain campaign, the swift boaters who will be working hard to find ways to inject Bill's "that depends what is is" into all manner of the political discourse. Such as having campaign surrogates ask rhetorically "Is Hillary Clinton lying about her foreign policy credentials? That depends on what is is." My stomach turns at the thought of it because as Hillary has merged Bill's accomplishments with her own she's setting herself up for a big fall.
And this whole thing also circles back to a big problem that I have with Clinton's claim of "35 years of experience." She wants to claim the best of Bill's record (SCHIP, Bosnia, N. Ireland) and wants complete distance/insulation from the worst (NAFTA, Rwanda, and Monica). If she is on the ticket, a BIG if, shouldn't we expect an explosion of chatter and innuendos regarding the "The scandal that dare not speak its name"? And if so, isn't this a legitimate consideration for superdelegates right now, what with Ickes quietly hammering away on Obama's Rev. Wright baggage?
If electability is the issue, let's start to really consider what will happen to Hillary's poll numbers if the "scandal that dare not speak its name" (in the primary) comes to the forefront of the general election. What IF there's some other skeleton in Bill's closet (another affair, intern, etc) that becomes public before the general? We won't be able to talk about health care, the war, or the economy as the headlines and public chatter will all be about Bill and Hillary and their baggage.
Update before I could finish this post: I was finishing up this post and before I could I watched an MSNBC report about the Hillary-Bosnia story at www.jedreport.com. Chris Matthews asked his guests if Hillary's Bosnia sniper story is "a problem that dovetails into the old "what's the definition of is is?" and one of the guests responds that "People are going to start wondering if this is a family problem." So yeah, it's Chris Matthews but imagine how much this will be a joke in the general when the GOP is pushing the trustworthy/honesty issues of the Clinton's in the fall.
Author's note: I am voting for Hillary in the general if she's on the ticket. But criticizing her campaign and pondering scenarios for the general election, I am only helping to make sure she is fully vetted for the battle ahead.
If you enjoyed this post please share with other readers by clicking on the 'recommend this' link.
