Clinton scandals' effects still unfolding: "The battles of the '90s"

Boston Globe: Clinton scandals' effects still unfolding
By Peter S. Canellos
Globe Staff / December 4, 2007

WASHINGTON - The death last week of former Illinois representative Henry Hyde, the patriarchal Republican who led the impeachment of President Clinton, brought back memories of what Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama calls "the battles of the '90s." Those battles are at the heart of today's political dialogue, as Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards argue that electing Hillary Clinton as president would revive the resentments of the '90s.

But it's far from clear what people think of those battles in hindsight. In a decade marked by weightier concerns - and weightier battles - the so-called "Clinton scandals" can seem trivial. And while the Clintons were the focus of the battles, they were not the instigators: The question for the current campaign is whether they nonetheless deserve some blame because of their behavior or their style of politics. It's an open question, and how it gets answered could be the key to Hillary Clinton's fate.

Strictly by the poll numbers, none of the alleged scandals - from the Whitewater land deal to the travel office firings to the fund-raising in the Lincoln bedroom to the perjury claim at the heart of the Monica Lewinsky business - succeeded in the turning the public against the Clintons. Bill Clinton's favorability ratings were high during his impeachment and stayed high for the remainder of his presidency. Nor were the scandals an impediment to Hillary's ability to pull off the difficult political maneuver of winning a Senate seat in a place where she hadn't previously lived....

The second President Bush defined himself as the anti-Clinton, a straight-talker, a leader guided by values more than political instincts, a CEO-type decision-maker who didn't sweat the details. It was refreshing for a while, but soon enough the Iraq war exposed weaknesses in Bush's style that cast the Clinton years in a more favorable light. Moreover, on substance, many Americans yearned for the centrist politics of the Clinton years, attributing Bush's flaws to an excess of ideology and an unwillingness to meet his opponents halfway. Bush is likely to end his presidency with far lower approval ratings than his predecessor....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/04/clinton_scandals_effects_still_unfolding/

"The second President Bush defined himself as the anti-Clinton, a straight-talker, a leader guided by values more than political instincts,"
Sounds just like a quote from Obama or Edwards, doesn't it?

edit: added an s

Is everyone who deviates from the narrow line of pseudo-centrism automatically just like the GOP?

ymmv.

Actually this is itself an obfuscation. It is not "far from clear...."
The vast majority of voters think that the Republicans way overplayed the "Clinton scandals".

And it is only a few diehard Republican shills that think there was anything to the "Whitewater scandal" - the only "Clinton scandal" which involved Hillary to any extent.

I was about to post much the same thing.

These fake scandals were brought up and dissected ad nauseum 10 years ago, and were dismissed by the general public.

I think most of the country sees it for what it was. Voters will roll their eyes and change the channel. But there will be some real problems from that era, I expect, in terms of financial security as an issue, trade deals, financial services reform, etc., which have played out very perilously for the American public. There are several of our candidates on thin ice regarding financial security and it won't help Democrats to say well, the other side did this or that, too. It's not the Republican Party's job to protect Americans from the predatory rich and powerful. And we know how capable they are of making exaggerated claims of what Democratic candidates are responsible for, anyway. I think financial security is going to be a very tough nut.