It comes as a big surprise that Hillary Clinton is about to be defeated in her quest for becoming the presidential nominee. Just as vice president Al Gore should have been a shoe-in in 2000 when the country was at peace and enjoyed prolonged prosperity and lost, Hillary is meeting the same fate. What happened?
The obvious common denominator in both is of course Bill Clinton. There are two narratives of his presidency one being the democratic success story serving two terms and leaving the ship of state in good working order and all that mess with Ken Starr the independent counsel investigating Clinton, well, that was all partisan Republican sour grapes who didn't "get it" that lying about sex is something understandable and Republicans found a reason to ostracize a popular democrat they hated for being successful.
The other narrative is that of the electorate. Since they have the final say on matters it could be that it wasn't just lying about sex. In fact the story was much more involved. Clinton didn't just lie under oath he tried to fix a civil action in the Paula Jones case by sojourning perjury. So not only was it perjury but also obstruction of justice. After all the fuss over impeachment was done Clinton still faced legal action in the whole mess once his term ended. It was then that Clinton struck a deal whereby he would forfeit his law license, admit guilt and quietly move on.
It could be that the public didn't quite grasp all the nuances of the legal entanglements but simply thought that no it's not okay to lie about sex and forget the lying but the act of adultery itself. Lewinski wasn't some contemporary of his but a intern young enough to be his daughter. Certainly this is a narrative that didn't escape the minds of what was once called the silent majority particularly in the bible belt. This moral backlash could have been a reason for denying Al Gore the presidency we may never know, but just two years after in the 2002 mid-term elections when a sitting president ought to lose seats for his party in congress actually gained seats and become the majority party in the senate. In the aftermath of that electoral trouncing it came as a surprise that what concerned the electorate most were "moral" issues. So the immediate legacy of Bill Clinton was the loss of the presidency and a majority of congress, if the later is attributed to morality (as a reaction to immorality) then it could be assumed that the presidency was lost for the same reason two years previous.
In hindsight for the good of the country and the democratic party the best course of action would have been resignation once all the facts were in. Al Gore would have taken over and more than likely defeated the Republicans in 2000. Not knowing how he would have handled post 9/11, if for the sake of argument he had toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan at a minimum then Hillary would have a better chance as a successor. Why? Because a resignation would have given the country a sense of closure to husband Bills actions. Without it there is a perception of getting away with it. Martha Stewart could be sent to prison for lying under oath but the president of the United States who ought to be held to a higher standard shouldn't simply skate by because he's a big lovable lug of a guy.
As of this writing votes in Ohio, Texas and Vermont are being cast. The outcome looks grim for Hillary and to make matters worse she may never drop out of the race unless she is beaten by big margins and even then she may not leave. Democrats had defended Bill Clinton perhaps because it was a defense against Republicans whom they could not concede an upper hand. But Hillary is not up against a Republican this time around and it may be time for the Democrats to shed the excuses and once and for all not turn a blind eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment