Bill Clinton’s autobiography is supposed to be coming out this month. Undoubtedly, one of his major purposes in writing the book will be to redefine his ‘legacy’ and diminish the effects of the Lewinsky scandal.
How do you folks think he will try to do this? Do you think it will work?
I think Bush 2 has done enough for rescuing Clinton’s reputation. His antics have put a mere blowjob in sharp relief.
He was the best president since FDR. What need does he have to “rescue”? For getting a blowjob? Get a grip.
Hell, I’m not trying to bash the guy here. But there is absolutely no doubt that his reputation took a bashing because of that blowjob. He would certainly seek to redefine his reputation, otherwise he’ll forever be known as the guy who got a hummer in the White House. (didn’t use ‘rescue’).
The folks who measure him negatively (or positively) due to his personal affairs will probably still do so. The folks who measure him negatively (or positively) due to his merits or demerits as a president will probably still do so. On both sides folks will know more about what he thinks, and some from both sides will most likely change. Overall I don’t anticipate much change just due to the book unless something really major is revealed therein (for good or for bad).
I am reminded of the episode where Blackadder was informed that a general was looking for ways to increase morale. Blackadder remarked that the general’s resignation and suicide would do the trick.
To many conservatives, including many of those on this board, this is what it would take. A public apology, followed by a grisly suicide.
Hillary would have to do it, too.
Until then, many republicans will never consider him anything other than a complete disgrace.
Clinton was an able administrator, but I never liked him. I thought he was sleazy and self-centered.
Part of his legacy will be sh*t-poor support of Gore during his campaign (yes, I know it’s a debatable point). But it seems almost certain that Gore would have won had Clinton not had so many avoidable scandals during his term.
The “just a BJ” line doesn’t cut it. Clinton lacked self-discipline. Keeping his pants on or at least hiding the whole thing better or choosing more responsible lovers could have saved the country a lot of hassle and helped Gore’s prospects immensely.
Clinton has a lot more to overcome than a blowjob. He was a known and proven philanderer long before Lewinsky and was even caught on tape advising one of his paramours to deny they had an affair. He told her plain and clear that no one but he and she knew it for certain, and if he didn’t admit it and she didn’t admit it, no one could prove anything.
I think this is a very good illustration of his overall character. Like many lawyers, he and Hilary both seem to hold to the philosophy that if there’s any loophole that will allow shenanegans they should be exploited. If something isn’t specifically prohibited by law then by all means take advantage of it. And if you’re doing something illegal or immoral and someone tries to catch you at it, lie, obfuscate, misdirect, anything to try to weasel out of it. And most of all, deny, deny, deny, even to the point of ridiculousness: “I didn’t lie! She had sex with me, I didn’t have sex with her!” Can you imagine anyone else, even though he/she may be a lawyer, splitting hairs in this way in a legal proceeding and being allowed to get away with it? But of course he was, because after all he was the president.
This type of behavior, plus his spending his last night in office pardoning one criminal after another, including one on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list, speaks much more eloquently to the character of the man than anything else. His thinking was to wait till it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it, and until it’s too late to do his presidency any harm, and then he pulls this cheap shenanegan that I can’t imagine any other president in history doing, because he has to repay political and/or financial favors and there’s no law prohibiting him from doing it.
What a cheap, sleazy, underhanded creep.
Politically, he was similar in some ways to Reagan — the era of big government is over, welfare reform, and all that. I’m not sure what part of his reputation he wants to rescue. It’ll be almost impossible to do anything about the philandering thing, but he should be able seriously to dispell myths about his being a leftwing liberal. Maybe that’s what he’s talking about.
Yeah, no joke. What Liberal said. Lefties like myself don’t have much to apologize for in not liking Clinton, since he was virtually a conservative himself.
No no, he was a “triangulator,” which means he looked at whatever positions were staked out by the “left” and the “right” and placed himself as the third point of a triangle of viewpoints. On the plus side this led to compromises, some of which were possibly the only politically possible solutions at the time. On the minus side, the strategy lends itself to the perception that the triangulator has no true moral, ethical or political stances, but instead espouses whatever is most expedient.
Tim Robbins says Clinton is the first Republican he ever voted for.
He’ll be remembered as the guy who got the hummer everyone else WISHED they got in the White house.
And for presiding over the biggest financial boom since Idunnowhen.
As far as legacy goes, are we speaking domestically or internationally? Because I think that, from what i have seen and been told, that his legacy on the international stage is virtually secured. I still think that a tenure as UN secretary general is still in his future, but I also think that some will take that as a sign of the end times.
As far as domestically…well, I seldom understand the thought processes of his opposition, but it seems that, given the long history of presidential infidelity, his own personal weakness will fade against the backdrop of the peace and prosperity of his administration. It seems like outrage over a hummer has to pay out sometime.
Of course, in my personal experience, every man that was visibly ‘outraged’ at Clinton’s behavior was using it as cover for the fact that they were screwing around too. So maybe when they all die/ are exposed, we can move beyond it.
While I don’t understand why some people demonize Clinton I’m also confused over why people deify him as well. What did Clinton do that puts him into the Presidential Hall of Fame? I don’t remember any serious crisis faced by the United States from 1993-2000.
Marc
Let him die and then wait 20 years–that seems to do the trick. Hell, even Nixon was fully rehabilitated at his death in 1994, 20 years after he left office in disgrace.
Bingo. In comparison to the world we live in today, with crises aplenty that suddenly touch the USA, a time when things at least seemed a lot safer is going to have more than a little appeal. Thus, the President who oversaw those times is also gonna have his reputation given a little more luster by association. I think it also has something to do with the in contrast to phenomenon. The wildly different styles and personalities between Clinton and G.W. Bush place both in high relief, so that if you really don’t like Bush you’re more likely to long for Clinton and if you really didn’t like Clinton then Bush is probably gonna sound really good. Does that make any sense?
I suggest you read Blinded By The Right by David Brock. Brock gives an inside view of the right wing smear machine. If you feel outrage about Bill and Hillary Clinton, you were probably influenced by the carefully orchestrated attacks that Brock explains.
Also, check out:
http://mediamatters.org
Remember, some crises are visited upon us, no matter what we do, but some crises, we create ourselves. When you get through 8 years without any major crises, that might just be good luck, but it’s more likely to have something to do with the actions you’re taking (or not taking).
I think Otto has nailed it.