Posted on 05/05/2015 7:15:03 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Some of Hillary Clinton’s defenders have taken to saying that voters shouldn’t pay attention to the latest Clinton scandals — the gushing of often undisclosed millions to the Clintons and their organizations by characters seeking official favors — because the charges are just one more in a long series: Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, the Buddhist temple fundraising, the Lippo Group.
So, the theory goes, because the Clintons have been accused of so many scandalous doings before, people shouldn’t be concerned now about Secretary Clinton’s actions that helped certain donors turn over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves to a state-run Russian company.
Common sense might tend to make you more suspicious of those who attract many accusations. But the Clintons’ defenders expect and hope in their case that you will instead be suspicious of those who make so many accusations. After all, they’re always saying nasty things! In this view, even charges advanced and amplified by the New York Times may be summarily dismissed as the products of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Of course, for some voters, the just-one-more-scandal argument may cut the other way. They may decide that they’ve endured enough Clinton scandals.
Still, Clinton defenders have some basis for thinking that the just-one-more-scandal argument has worked for the Clintons before. Bill Clinton may have been interrogated and impeached, but he wasn’t removed from office. Instead, Newt Gingrich was knocked off the speaker’s chair days after Republicans lost seats in the midterm election.
But there’s a big difference between then and now. Bill Clinton was the incumbent president when he was impeached. Hillary Clinton is a private citizen who is running for president.
Most voters wanted Clinton to remain in office. He was re-elected in 1996 by an eight-point margin over Bob Dole. Before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, his job approval was in the high 50s. Once he was threatened with removal, that bounced up to 70 percent.
In effect, a crucial number of Americans were saying not to boot him from office. He’s been elected to two terms; he’s been performing tolerably well — so what if he lies under oath about conduct that is personal and outside his official duties?
(That doesn’t mean that Clinton’s conduct didn’t have political consequences. The Lewinsky revelations put an end to negotiations between Clinton and Gingrich on serious entitlement reforms. They’ve been delayed now going on 20 years.)
But that doesn’t mean voters were necessarily buying the Clintons’ defenses. Even as his job approval rose, Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable ratings declined. People thought less of him personally, but they also couldn’t accept the idea of pushing him aside.
Hillary Clinton is in a different position. She is a candidate, not an incumbent. Candidates are easily dispensed with, as former senator Gary Hart learned when the photos of him sailing on the Monkey Business appeared in May 1987 when he was seeking the Democratic nomination for president. His staffers vowed he would hold onto his support, but it wasn’t his to hold on to. He quickly withdrew and faded from view.
Hart’s position in 1987 was weaker than Clinton’s position today. His lead in Democratic primary polls was not overwhelming, and there were other serious active or potential candidates in the field or just over the horizon. That’s because even in Ronald Reagan’s 1980s, Democrats of varying ideological stripes were winning major offices around the country. Democrats had reason to think they had a good chance of nominating a strong ticket without Hart.
Today’s Democrats fear they are not in this comfortable position. They’ve been losing most elections lately in constituencies beyond those where their core constituencies — blacks, some Hispanics, gentry liberals — are clustered. They don’t have many prominent plausible alternative candidates.
Absent Hillary Clinton, they would be faced with a choice of tax-raiser Martin O’Malley, socialist Bernie Sanders, Reagan appointee Jim Webb, former Republican scion Lincoln Chafee, or the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. None run as well as Clinton in general-election polls.
But how strong is Clinton? Her numbers have been declining, and she runs under 50 percent against lesser-known Republicans in most national and target-state polls. All voters know her, and most don’t favor her. She runs stronger in polls of all adults, not just registered voters. That gap suggests she could have a hard time inspiring maximizing turnout.
The argument that the Clintons have always faced scandal charges is intended to shore up her support. But it may have the opposite effect.
I can only WISH that were true.
After November 4, 2008, I came to the unfortunate conclusion that voters are capable of electing ANYONE to the presidency. Probably whoever promises the most goodies.
Why I detest popular mass democracy unlimited government and wish we could go back to the limited government republic intended by our Founding Fathers.
I don’t know. “Free stuff recipients” really don’t care if you’re a crook.
How appropriate .... and completely nauseating. Pray for our Country.
The Clintons love “victimhood.”
They’re counting on Republicans to overreach-— like they did when Clinton got lubed by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.
Before the lubing, Clinton’s job approval was in the high 50s. But once Republicams threatened Clinton with removal, his approvals bounced up to 70%....the impeached Clinton got reeleted handily.
Plus the fact that married, gray-haired Clinton could get a young intern to give him a BJ was enormously appealing to the genital-sniffing Planned Parenthood types who populate the Dem party.
The Clinton lubing advanced their dreams of a fully-fornicating society.
Do you think that most voters even remember the ‘Clinton scandals’? I fear that most voters have bought into the propagandan’s line that Bill’s Presidency was some kind of Utopian ideal, probably because what has followed has not been too great.
First there was 9/11 and war under Bush, and then financial ruin under Obama.
The college age folks can’t identify Reagan. Do you think they know anything about Lewinski and corruption in office?
If it came down to Fiorina v Hillary, we’d have to consider the optics of the “old hag factor.”
I don’t think this is remotely true. Americans were charmed by Bill Clinton’s lies about Monica Lewinsky (Guys wanted to be like him; women just wanted him). When he was called to answer for it, his favorability ratings shot through the roof to all-time highs.
Hillary doesn’t have the same trance-like charisma as Bubba, but she does benefit from a maddeningly vast amount of forgiveness the public grants to democrats and especially anyone named Clinton, no matter the misdeed. The high bar for behavioral standards only applies to Republicans; the dems get a free pass in that area.
But anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that 9/11 occurred because of Bill Clinton and his ‘Justice’ Dept, including Holder, building walls so that intelligence couldn’t be shared between like agencies. But maybe I am giving too much credit to the American public. Since the Left basically took over the education system in this country, the indoctrination and dumbing-down of the students has been 24/7/52. We have watched it happen and stood by while the Media has been completely corrupted, too. It is now just Dem/Pravda. I don’t know the answer, but our Republic will fail if we don’t change course SOON.
You are. I am always amazed at what my well educated,largely conservative, circle of friends and acquaintances does not know, or understand.
Well then, this is really going to ruin your day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161927/majority-wealth-evenly-distributed.aspx
Agreed Bubba could charm a cat off of a shrimp boat and HRC lacks that.
The Dem coalition as it currently assembled doesn’t really care about scandals, moral lapses, high standards, ethics, etc.
It is about keeping all of the elements of their coalition united and motivated, this includes blacks, Hispanics, Jewish voters, the LGBT crowd,young voters and the unions. Check the appropriate boxes on all of the issues important to them, they don’t care about the details.
Before the lubing, Clinton’s job approval was in the high 50s. But once Republicams threatened Clinton with removal, his approvals bounced up to 70%....the impeached Clinton got reeleted handily.
The Lewinsky scandal broke, and his impeachment happened, after his 1996 re-election.
Just saying, Bill Clinton never faced re-election after the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment.
We’ll never know if that particular scandal would have derailed his re-election. Perhaps it wouldn’t have.
College age kids and 20 something adults today don’t have any memories of the Clinton presidency. So they don’t have any memories of the scandals either.
It doesn’t really ruin my day. It has been going on with few interruptions since the days of the New Deal, truthfully since the federal income tax was implemented in 1913, during the Wilson Administration.
Forgive student loans Two years on the community college dole=President Clinton!
Remember there was a TV mini-series about the Road to 9/11?
This was years ago, and it was very critical of actions of the Clinton administration in the run up to 9/11.
I’ve heard that the Clintons and other Democrats pressured the network, I think it was ABC, to never broadcast that mini-series again.
As far as I know, that mini-series has never been broadcast again, and was also never made available to home video either.
Yup. If you dig through the boilerplate of what the Lefties are saying to one another on their blogs, they are already telegraphing the fact that a Student Loan Forgiveness proposal will be used to once again turn out Millenials in droves.
And Millenials are 59-38% in favor of wealth redistribution according to Gallup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.