Clinton Defenders Advance an Unpersuasive Argument

Townhall.com ^ | May 5, 2015 | Michael Barone

[Kaslin]

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 Sen. 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.

[jwalsh07]

Same old Clintons, same old scum sucking MSM.

[molson209]

Donate to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary will make you a US Citizen

[tumblindice]

It’s a bad sign when the DemoKKKrat president is having scandals even before stealing the election.

[Truth29]

He seems to have left out Lieawatha. He should not underestimate her.

[cuban leaf]

I remember a week or two ago a quote where Hillary said something about “my campaign isn’t about me”>

I immediately thought, “Yeah, she hopes...”

[knittnmom]

Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain?

[Gaffer]

Slick and the Boozer managed to get another 4 years because of the Four Horsemen: Davis, Carville, Blumenthal and the Forehead (along with a couple dozen others like Doris Kearns Goodwin to name one). They took their marching orders and proceeded out to the very, very willing MSM (like little Georgie Stephanopolis). They got out there and campaigned about the “act” and said “A Bl@w Job” isn’t an impeachable offense and diverted attention away from Slick did - lie in a court proceeding - impeachable.

Slick is still out there “chasin’ and talkin’ p@ssy” and looking like he’s got aids (or some other STD) or some coke damage whatnot, and the Boozer is wearing Mao jackets out there on her stealth listening tours.

I just don’t see any rally-round-the-flag-boys defense like they had back then.

I think she’s toast.

[V_TWIN]

should cankles end up being the dim candidate I will not miss the debates, they should be very interesting. I hear at least one has FOX news involved..........knowing the clintoons, they’ll probably try to short circuit that one.

[arthurus]

Don’t pay any attention to the reports of the recent rapes committed by X. After all, he is a serial rapist so it is just one in a long series of such reports.

[Vaduz]

Both of them need to face treason charges but we know how the democrats protect their own.

[jwalsh07]

Your lips, God’s ears.

[upchuck]

Everyone who has the slightest inclination to do anything that will add to the Clinton's treasure chest (including being POTUS) should read these two books first. Both are by Barbara Olsen, an incredibly talented Conservative that died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the plane she was on crashed into the Pentagon:

Hell to Pay, published in 1999

and

The Final Days, published posthumously on Oct 1, 2001.

Yes, thse books are ancient history, written well ove a decade ago. But Killary's MO was established even then. Read these books and compare her criminality back then with her criminality now. Little difference.

With Killary, you always get a criminal.