Clinton Past Tenses Enough Already

It is so easy to do and so many do. I'm referring to the Clinton opponents, as well as commentator critics who invariably lapse into snarky remarks about Bill and Hillary's marital past. When all else fails, make some sly reference to the shenanigans and melodrama that dominated the headlines in the 90's.

It's time to get over it. Even in this campaign battle , where cheap shots seem to be the only shots, it's gotten to be too much. The only way Monica Lewinsky should be an issue this time around is if she endorses and campaigns for someone. Otherwise she and that other stuff are ancient history, refuges for those who have nothing else to contribute.

There is plenty to chew over about the Hillary Clinton campaign. How she's run it and what she says are fair game. So are the charges she may or may not bring an arrogant non-inclusive approach to the way she governs. So are the complaints that her staff operates behind a bunker where it has seriously bungled everything. All of that may be true, some of it, or none of it. All of it is relevant. The private Clinton family relationship 10-20 years ago definitely is not.

I spent several years as a reporter, back then, covering the various Clinton "scandals" from Gennifer Flowers to "Troopergate" to Whitewater to Monica. We can debate whether these stories were frivolous, nasty sensationalism. Of course they were. We can also debate whether they should have gotten so much attention. I felt then and do now that they should have, that the media prominence was journalistically appropriate. Sadly, there was a lot of bad reporting too, fueled by disgraceful conservative rumor-mongering. But as one of those who struggled to present the facts, I contend I was doing the right thing presenting an important issue of the day.

That day has come and long gone.

Those who insist on still dredging up this muck show how small-minded they can be. There is plenty to say about Hillary Clinton today and for that matter Bill.

Yes, I know the "Past is Prologue" but that doesn't mean we're condemned to live in that past. What's the future in that?

Comments

[KarenZipdrive]

Bill's a philanderer. Bill's not running.
Hillary chose to keep her marriage & family together. I would have divorced him myself, but I can't fault Hillary for her decision- because ultimately it's none of my business.
It's not fair to blame her for something he did.

I've talked with people who make hateful references to Obama's Muslim father and his middle name. They go on to say he will take the oath of office on the Koran and that he refuses to say the pledge of Allegiance.
It's obnoxious to hear.
McCain dumped his first wife and ran off with a woman 20 years younger who has admitted to a past addiction on painkillers. They adopted a Bangladeshian orphan who unfortunately grew up to be unattractive. They pose for official portraits without the kid in the photo.
Not my cuppa tea, but not my business, either.

In short, NONE of the candidates are without baggage. Who among us is without baggage?

Citing any candidates' unfortunate personal issues is the last bastion of ignorant desperation.
If we cannot choose a candidate for his or her merits and instead choose the one we hate the least, it's not them who are fucked up, it's us.

[Moncar]

What's really frightening here isn't what Bill did or didn't do 10 to 20 years ago, it's the vulgar and crude comments of people arguing for Barack's nomination. He would be ashamed of them, knowing full well that if elected they would soon abandon him for someone with even more glitter. Mr. Franken's plea to civilize the debate, not among the candidates but rather the booboosie, is doomed not by the depth of its argument but by the shallowness of the many - far too many - that respond daily in these columns.

[westseattle]

"We can debate whether these stories were frivolous, nasty sensationalism." I disagree, Bob. Character has to matter, so you can try to say Monica shouldn't be in the discussion, but such a lack of integrity that leads to having your license to practice law stripped (not to mention impeachment) certainly does pertain to character. And character DOES matter. That is why if Hillary is the nominee, roughly half the country will be against her from the beginning. Even you can't deny that.

[antaeus]

If "roughly" half of America will be against Clinton on the basis of a decade-old affair her husband had, then how many, roughly, will be against Obama on the basis Michelle I've-never-been-proud-of Amercia-before Obama's comments from last week?

[CornellRedneck]

Yes, I don't think we will have to concern ourselves with Whitehouse "bimbo erruptions" if Obama wins. But Hillary? Hmm...

[SEQUOIABISON]

I am sure that most democrats would be willing to forget all of Bills past indiscretions and Hillary working against unions when she served on the board for Walmart and the only first lady coming very close to being the indicted, but will the republicans forget?

Quite frankly do we need to go through another version of Ground Hog Day, replaying; "I did not have sex with that woman" over and over again?

Do we have to relive whether impeaching Bill was wrong or not and whether investigating White Water was necessary?

Do we have to listen to endless excuses as to why they were unable to get Universal Health Care passed?

I personally like Hillary but think it is really time for the country to move on, we have much more important issues to deal with than to start defending the Clinton scandals all over again.

Undoubtedly the republican hit machine will go after Obama with the same intensity that they did against Clinton, Gore and Kerry but at least it will not be the unbearably boring never ending talking points the republicans will throw at us about Clinton dishonoring the oval office.

[westseattle]

And maybe if we have Obama as our candidate, the conversation will be on an illegal war, wiretapping, hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, renditions, torture, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, outing of CIA operative and the largest deficit in U.S. history instead of the blue dress and whitewater, etc. etc..

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

So, lets forget the crap Hillary did during her 35 years of experience and focus on her Iraq vote where she didn't even read the NIE.

You have a lot of gall asking that we don't scrutinize her to the core. She is not vetted and your whining about it shows us that she is not vetted. More of the same Clintonite strategy. She did the good stuff and Bill did the bad stuff.

The Republicans will be ten times worse and they have good reason to be on a lot of it.

[westseattle]

Thanks for not voting against FISA, Hillary. Nice work giving into the GOP!

[LeeFromVA]

Where was your anger when Hillary brought up Obama's Kindergarten essay? I suppose that has more relevance than Monica? "Don't bring up the Clinton's past" I'm sure the Republicans will abide by your request in a general election.

[standforpeace]

I think the problem is that the Clintons are trying to have it both ways. When Hillary and Bill go out campaigning by harkening back to the "good old days," it is only fair to point out that all of the old days weren't that good. And this isn't about their private relationship and the way in which Bill's cheating affected that. Instead it's about the fact that he lied and lied and lied for months giving false depositions and lying to the American people, throwing Monica Lewinsky under the bus, and pulling members of his cabinet in to unknowingly propagate his lies.

It's about the fact that his wife moved her own involvement out of the private realm of husband/wife business when she went on national tv to assert that this was all just a baseless vast right wing conspiracy. I think this and her decision to "trust" that George Bush would use the military authorization that she gave him differently than he did, speak either to her willingness to trade principles for political gain OR to her total lack of good judgement in the face of powerful men (funny I never believed Bill or George). In either case, I think that these are legitimate issues for the voters to consider.

[AnninCA]

I agree 100%. Whenever I read something that references junk that remains unproven from 20 years ago, I just know I'm listening to someone who has no real sense of fairness.

If anything had been proven, that would be one thing. But how many millions were spent which uncovered absolutely nothing?

It's shocking that so many people don't care about that aspect and would join the mongerers in repeating malicious gossip.

I have even less respect for those who think Bill's infidelities are their business, nevermind appropriate to be discussing when Hillary is running. It is completely disheartening to read from women who believe that his mistakes in this aspect of life are her fault somehow. The sexism in that perspective is shocking.

I agree with you that current problems....fair game.

What isn't fair is when it piles up.

The most absurd is Obama's tactic of making her responsible for NAFTA. Good golly, the woman couldn't even vote on that! LOL*

This type of dirty politics sure doesn't look one bit different from the slimy politics I've always seen out of Chicago politicians.

And the press who do bring up the old tired stuff from long ago really aren't much more respectable than the paparazzi.

[westseattle]

So Monica was unproven? No DNA on the dress? When "Bill's infidelities" happen in the whitehouse, OUR HOUSE, then, yes, it is our business. But keep overlooking facts to support your claim to Hillary. Oh, Clinton signed NAFTA into law, and if Hillary is going to take the credit for the good in the Clinton presidency, then she has to take the bad as well.

[JimR]

"The most absurd is Obama's tactic of making her responsible for NAFTA. Good golly, the woman couldn't even vote on that!"

Did she or did she not serve as an adviser to the president on policy matters?

[CaptainObvious]

"Did she or did she not serve as an adviser to the president on policy matters?"

It would seem to depend on whether the American people are still in favor of the particular policy.

[eddiestardust]

What should be an issue is what the Republican Party did to all of us by frying...Impeaching Bill Clinton!

All the while they were up to no good..Bin Laden and his Al Queda with the help of The Taliban, were quietly and effectively drawing up their plans against us.

And that Republican controlled Congress was

PROTECTING US?

That's what should matter!

[Independent voter]

Dear Bob

It is the clintons who want us all to re-experience the 1990's. bill clinton and his wandering weenie were certainly part of those times.

For you to suggest that we should have partial recall and only remember little bits of the 1990's (not bill's little bits) is disingenuous

[Independent voter]

Sorry Bob, but I have to disagree.

The huge number of scandals involving the clintons speaks directly to the character of these people - and it tellsa sad story.

You try to make the case that one old affair doesn't matter. But it's not just one old affair. bill clinton is a serial adulterer, a sexual predator. There are eight documented extra-marital affairs.

Now when bill tries to tell us that hillary is the best, brightest, warmest, most lovable woman on the planet, you have to ask the obvious. If she is truly so marvelous, why did bill screw around with eight other women (that we know of).

Either:
1. bill is lying and hillary is not all of those things
2. bill has no self control

Neither of these options inpires confidence in a wannabe leader of the free world.

Sorry Bob.

[antaeus]

Thanks for making Franken's point. When is your book on sexual happiness within marriage coming out?

[westseattle]

Thanks for making the point that Clinton supporters are willing to overlook anything to support their candidate. Lack of integrity, lying and moral ineptitude is exactly what we need after 15 years of Clinton/Bush!

[AgathaX]

I've thought of Monica a lot lately. It started when Hillary went off on David Schuster after he made a smarmy comment about 28 year old Chelsea. Oh, the outrage. Not from Chelsea, but from Hillary.

I then thought of a 22 year old Monica who was subjected not to a smarmy comment but the charming dysfunctional leader of the free world who wanted to put his penis in her mouth. Who called her late at night and listened to her talk about her childhood. Then explained to the world that she wasn't s--t him. Where was all the feminist outrage then? I don't remember it; if it ever existed it doesn't seem to have lingered.

Every time old-line feminists disect language that they argue belittles Hillary, I think of Monica. How brave everyone is coming to the rescue of one of the most powerful women in the world.

And I think of how interns and other staff would fair in an Obama White House. That's not a roll of the dice at all.

[LeeFromVA]

Excellent point and very well stated.

[BlueAsh]

One can learn a lot from the past.

If Bob bothers to watch some of the interviews with Monica Lewinsky, he'll find out how the Clintons used their power in office to try to silence Monica. Many have asked, why did she save the dress? Well, perhaps she had seen enough during the brief period in the White House to know what those in power could do to someone like her.

Had she not saved the dress, the Clintons would have totally discredited her and trashed her to save their own image.

They will continue this pattern of behavior of silencing opponents.

In this sense, the Clintons are no different from W. and his cronies.

When you think of it, the Clintons aren't very different from W. in other respects as well. Look who are the staunches supporters of Hillary: The uneducated, poor, and white--those most susceptible to manipulation because they are in desperate need of help.

[ndolomar]

i second lee from va -- well said, indeed. i hope all the anti-obama feminists will take what you wrote to heart before putting forth a "holier than thou" scribe about hillary and how obama is belittling her because of her gender. those feminists seem to have forgotten lewinsky mighty quickly -- very effictively cutting their noses to spite their faces.

[StephenDedalus82]

Yeah the only people who care about Monica Lewinsky are Obama supporters. So it's ironic that they're the ones blowing all this hot air about not going back to the past, yet they keep bringing the past up. Republicans don't get anywhere bringing up Monica--it just makes people hate them more.

[jade7243]

Here is the problem with your analysis or request, Bob Franken:

At the heart of the muck of the 90s is are lies, half-truths and prevarications. Lies about Castel Grande, cattle futures, Madison Guaranty, Whitewater, and all of the other scandals. Why are the Clintons the only ones who didn't end up in jail, when the string of their friends and associates did? It can't just be coincidence.

It is lies that are at the heart of impeachment. And that is why looking back at the 90s is so important. Because the Clintons lied not just about young, impressionable Ms. Lewinsky, but so much more.

And they continue to lie today: about their opposition to the war, support for NAFTA, foreign poliy decisions (like Rwanda), campaign finances, business dealings that look way too much like quid pro quo.

We made a mistake in the 90s and we didn't question this behavior then. That brought impeachment. We must question all of this now.

Do we settle for a candidate who is stained and tainted and damaged goods? Or do we "roll the dice" with the new guy, who might have a little something on his tie, but otherwise clean, earnest and forthcoming?

The past matters. Failure to reckon with it, leaves us to repeat it: Bush Clinton Bush Clinton?