No Regrets

I think Ross must be forgetting the context if he really thinks Democrats would have been better off had they pressured Bill Clinton to resign when Monicagate broke. Recall that Ken Starr was, at the time, engaged in an investigation of the Clintons that had no defined legal scope an unlimited budget, and an indefinite period of time. And he wasn't the only such independent counsel operating at the time. Had that farce been legitimated by Democratic acquiescence in the cynical manipulation of the law to hound Clinton from office, there would have been no end to the investigations of President Gore or into whoever Gore wound up nominating for Vice President.

At the worst, while VP-designate Lieberman was tied up in confirmation hearings new articles of impeachment would have been drawn up against Gore referring to something or other (most likely something related to '96 campaign fundraising) aimed at putting Newt Gingrich in the White House. But even under more likely scenarios, we would have been plunged into an endless nightmare of prosecutions. Recall that the members of congress we perpetrated the inquisition were basically the exact same people who from 2001-2006 sat on their hands and launched not a single serious inquiry into anything the Bush administration did -- from routinized torture to casual lying to congress about Medicaid reforms to destruction of videotaped evidence to politicization of the US Attorneys' offices to corruption in contracting all the rest.

Ultimately, the whole thing was a political matter and the only viable remedy to it was politics. The Democrats stood tall, called bullshit on the Republicans' bullshit, and picked up seats in 1998. Their problems started when people started seeking the ex post facto approval of the Quinn-Broder axis

Comments

Ah, the old slippery slope argument rears its ugly head. Of course, there is a distinction that can be drawn here. Any impeachment charges against Gore would have been tenuous at best and surely the public would have seen through them. Even given this, a political defense of Gore would have been more appropriate. Such a defense would also have been far more pleasant -- that is, defending Gore against whatever charges that came up surely would have been more principled and more in tune with feminism than defending a president who had received several BJs from a 21-year-old intern in the Oval Office.

Posted by jonm | January 22, 2008 10:03 AM

I agree 100%. The only option was to fight the zealots to the bitter end. The real problem was that Al Gore bought into the Quinn-Broder axis to a certain extent, witness his choosing the execrable Lieberman for VP and not using Bill in his election campaign.

Posted by Jim W | January 22, 2008 10:04 AM

Any impeachment charges against Gore would have been tenuous at best and surely the public would have seen through them.

And impeaching a guy for a blowjob was somehow rock-solid and unassailable?

You don't have to defend Clinton's behavior to note that it didn't exactly rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Republicans are constantly pulling this bullshit, as if noting that fellatio shouldn't be an impeachable offense is somehow driving a stake into the heart of feminism. Give it a rest already.

Posted by Jay Andrew Allen | January 22, 2008 10:08 AM

At the worst, while VP-designate Lieberman was tied up in confirmation hearings new articles of impeachment would have been drawn up against Gore referring to something or other (most likely something related to '96 campaign fundraising) aimed at putting Newt Gingrich in the White House.

Wasn't Gingrinch already out by the time of impeachment?

Posted by Freddie | January 22, 2008 10:09 AM

If Clinton had resigned, the right-wing alternate reality would have become actual reality. Not a good thing.

Posted by MattF | January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Matt, some of your timelines are a little off.

Remember that leading Democrats paid a visit to Bill, in '98, to assert their support in any impeachment scenario, was contingent on his testifying. That's why he testified. In no way to excuse the right wing or Starr, the Democrats would have retained the White House under Gore in 2000. Nine Eleven would have been entirely different.

I just wish Bill would go away. If Hilary divorces him, I might vote for her.

Posted by MaxGowan | January 22, 2008 10:21 AM

This may be the single stupidest thing I've ever read from Matt. Let me spell something out for any idiots out there.

Bill Clinton could only have been impeached if Democrats went along with it. If enough Democrats went along with removing Clinton for office, WHY THE HELL WOULD THAT EVER MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY OR WILLING TO REMOVE GORE FROM OFFICE?

Yes, it's possible that after getting Clinton the GOP would have immediately started another jihad to oust Gore. But there's absolutely no reason to think that Democrats would go along with that. And it's far more likely that removing Clinton would have lanced the boil of GOP hate and let everyone in Washington calm the hell down.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 10:22 AM

MY is right here. However self-serving you see Clinton's assertion to be that his resignation would've been constitutionally dangerous, it also happens to be completely true. That whole deal was a political game all the way, and his resignation would've been either check or checkmate for the GOP.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 22, 2008 10:31 AM

Jay Andrew Allen,

Perhaps you should actually read the Douthout blog post before you dive into comments. That post was about Democratic leaders going to Clinton and telling him he should resign; it explicitly did NOT support the impeachment itself.

In retrospect, this is a no-brainer. Rallying behind Clinton did nothing to help the party and nothing to forward a progressive policy agenda. The only beneficiary was the Clinton family itself. Defending Clinton out of gratitude for his policies (school uniforms, V-chip) is addle-brained at best.

Backing Clinton wasted three years of a Democratic presidency and contributed to the coronation on Bush in 2000.

Posted by jonm | January 22, 2008 10:43 AM

the notion that bill clinton should have resigned because he received seem blowjobs from an intern is outrageous: had he resigned, it would have emboldened the right wing even further, not "lanced the boil" or any of the other silly things that fantasists are offering in this thread.

Posted by howard | January 22, 2008 10:44 AM

God, I really wish the Democratic Party would just grow up and dump its Clinton daddy complex. The 90s-era GOP was right about one thing, and that was that Bill Clinton really was a lying sack of shit. He promised us populism and he gave us warmed over Reaganism instead, gutting the welfare state while handing out generous subsidies and tax breaks to the increasingly deregulated corporations that were lining his pockets. And yes, he really was corrupt and dirty and grossly flaunted existing campaign finance law, and he did lie under oath, and I would've happily voted to convict him if I were a Democrat in the Senate. The bar for removing a president from office has never been low enough.

Matt, let me ask you a question: it keeps being asserted, here and elsewhere, that the Clintons' dirty campaign tactics should be seen as a point in their favor, because it'll make it easier for them to beat the GOP candidate. What makes you think that these kinds of corrupt tactics will end with the campaign? You're fond of pointing out that someone who runs as a hawk will inevitably govern as a hawk. Why wouldn't someone who ran a corrupt campaign run a corrupt presidency?

Posted by Christmas | January 22, 2008 10:46 AM

This is true to some extent, Matt. But, I do think in some ways to not have had some kind of punishment for Clinton has worked out for the worst.
He is now running for a third term with Hillary as the frontman. And no one seems to have the guts to stand up to him.
We allow his out of bounds behavior to go unchecked and turn the other way until it is so outrageous and out of control that even if he was to be reigned in the damage has already been done and deep.
There is no doubt that the Clintons have been very bad for our party. They weakened it to a shell of a party while in office. And the fallout is a bunch of whiny and spineless legislators unwilling to even face down a lameduck president.
Obama is right in the sense that our party is devoid of energy, ideas and creativity. This happened under the Clintons watch.
Now we have them thumbing their nose at the constitution just like Bush has. And they are making a mockery of our primary.
Yet, aside from a few old bulls who are secure in their positions who have said for them to stop, they will not because the party as a whole and including the voters, are not willing to say enough.
We are just as bad as the gop has been with Bush.
We allow the Clintons to destroy our party and cause deep and possibly irrepairable rifts, to mock the primary, to stomp on the constitution and to do whatever the hell they want and yet no one is putting the breaks on them.
We all know they see this as a game and they will conduct the most odious things with the voters and the party not willing to stand up to them.
So, are we better off with the selfish and destructive Clintons running wild? Are we any better for saving his ass and letting things go without any kind of warning or breaks? Are we any different from the republicans who refused to do the same with Bush?
Went are we going to stop copying the republicans and chuck the Clintons - go into detox if needed, and start being a real party again.

Posted by vwcat | January 22, 2008 10:49 AM

If Al Gore had been president in 2000, would he have been more or less likely to get the slim margin he needed to decisively beat Bush and avoid having it go to the courts?

I'm not sure any other question matters, as "a political matter."

Posted by marc h. | January 22, 2008 10:54 AM

I also think this is another case where the strategy Matthew mentioned yesterday is in effect: The Clintons are counting on winning this one and getting away with being partly in the wrong, because supporting them is the liberal position and the other side is even worse. It's kind of funny how flexible the Clintons are about opposing "the liberal position" when it's politically inconvenient (hawkishness, Third Way politics, executing mentally retarded people for political convenience)-- except when the liberal position is to stand by them.

In other words, a lot of what vwcat said.

Posted by marc h. | January 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Not sure what Ross is smoking. The whole impeachment thing was a net positive for us; we picked up Congressional seats in 1998 and 2000, and Gore could have avoided the problem Ross points to by simply not distancing himself from Clinton, which was really extraordinarily stupid. Gore's pitch ought to have been, essentially: I'm Clinton without the raging libido, which was exactly what people wanted.

Look at opinion polls circa 2000: people overwhelmingly approved of Clinton's job performance, but weren't all that enamored with him personally. "Same policies, less drama" would have been impossible to beat. But Gore fucked it up.

Posted by Jason C. | January 22, 2008 11:08 AM

I haven't before ever seen so many liberals agree that sexual harrasement legislation between a man and his employee is so absurd that perjury on it should be ignored legally-so injust and unconstitutional the law is.

Seriously Matt (if you're serious) you should write a post with your perspective on sexual harrasment law and how this fits in with the Clinton Impeachment.

The notion that the R's would have a hope of impeaching or getting Gore in legal trouble after Clinton for anythg short of ordering a hit is so utterly and completely absurd that to state it is to to show it's absurdity- how much bigger do you think impeachment backlash would have been then enough to win the D's Idaho or just Texas?

and Gore's ratings were tied to Clinton personal ones not his job ones- the desire to distance himself was very wise and explais why he won the poular vote and if a few D's in Florida had had a higher IQ would have won the presidency.

Posted by edmund | January 22, 2008 11:12 AM

Gore could have avoided the problem Ross points to by simply not distancing himself from Clinton, which was really extraordinarily stupid.

Oh, whatever. Maybe Gore made a misjudgment in distancing himself from Clinton, but it certainly wasn't "extraordinarily stupid" - it was a perfectly plausible choice, given the political situation in 2000, and it is, so far as I can tell, unclear whether or not it hurt him.

And Gore as an incumbent in 2000 a) would certainly not have been impeached; and b) would most likely have won election to a term of his own.

Posted by John | January 22, 2008 11:15 AM

it was a perfectly plausible choice, given the political situation in 2000

How so? I remember at the time thinking it was stupid, and not being alone in that regard by any stretch.

Al Gore in 2000 had essentially one selling point: he was Bill Clinton's VP. It was the only reason he got the nomination, it was the only reason he had a chance at all. He decided to relinquish that advantage, and instead just offer himself on his own terms to the American people, who predictably didn't respond that favorably.

Posted by Jason C. | January 22, 2008 11:26 AM

The whole impeachment thing was a net positive for us; we picked up Congressional seats in 1998 and 2000, and Gore could have avoided the problem Ross points to by simply not distancing himself from Clinton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, it was a net positive if you ignore the fact that Clinton's behavior contributed to Bush's election and then you ignore every Republican piece of legislation passed over the last 7 years.

Pointing to Clinton's overall approval rating in 2000 is misleading. What mattered for Gore was WHERE Clinton was unpopular. For example, Clinton begged to campaign for Gore in Iowa, but the polls showed that Clinton was very unpopular there and the Gore campaign didn't allow it. Gore ended up winning Iowa by 1%; Clinton appearances there would have lost at least that state for Gore.

Posted by jonm | January 22, 2008 11:44 AM

"And impeaching a guy for a blowjob was somehow rock-solid and unassailable?"

Many people who detest Bush said at the time that the problem was that no corporate officer, no professor, really nobody with a real job could have gotten off without being fired for having sex a) with an intern 2) at work. They were right.

Any attempt to tie Gore in would have backfired, big time. Whatever people thought of him, he was clean on that and, really, all substantive fronts. With a year+ in the WH, running as an incumbent, he'd have wiped the floor with Bush; the R's knew it, and never intended to 'win' the impeachment fight.

As well, the resignation would have backfired big time; Clinton would have been a master at selling the idea that he was being run out of office.

"The whole impeachment thing was a net positive for us; we picked up Congressional seats in 1998 and 2000."

And impeachment / resignation could have produced even more.

Posted by drinkof | January 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Sure, it was a net positive if you ignore the fact that Clinton's behavior contributed to Bush's election and then you ignore every Republican piece of legislation passed over the last 7 years.

You're begging the question. This remark assumes that Clinton was responsible for Gore's loss.

In a roundabout way, I guess, he might have been, since the sex scandal spooked Gore out of running on Clinton's legacy, but Clinton can hardly be blamed for Gore's mistake.

Look, this is all basically unprovable, counterfactual stuff. So I'm not going to go to great lengths to defend Matt's thesis. But I had thought it was more or less a consensus that the White House was Gore's for the taking in 2000, and that he basically fucked it up by generally running a shitty campaign. Even if you think he was right to run away from Clinton, the race was still eminently winnable.

Posted by Jason C. | January 22, 2008 11:51 AM

"the notion that bill clinton should have resigned because he received seem blowjobs from an intern is outrageous:"

While it really was about the blowjobs to conservatives, that's not why Clinton should have resigned. He should have resigned because...

1. He boldfaced lied to the entire country to cover his ass.

2. He whored out his entire administration to support that lie. Remember when he lied to members of his cabinet and sent them out on the White House lawn to repeat that lie to the country?

3. He committed perjury.

If you say it was okay for Clinton to lie and break the law, then I sure as heck hope you haven't gotten at all upset at Bush and Cheney lying and breaking the law.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 11:51 AM

It is not clear if Clinton's refusal to resign in the face of scandal helped or hurt the democratic party. But it was clearly the right thing to do for the country. Having a President resign over a sex scandal would have been a horrible precedent for the country. Fortunately an electorate that was stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004, at least recognized that it did not like to see the President it elected removed from office on such patently partisan terms.

Matt is certainly right that had Clinton resigned we would have seen impeachment proceedings started whenever the Congress was of the other party than the President however flimsy the excuse.

It is an interesting question if we have gone too far in the other direction. After all impeaching Bush has been a non-starter largely because of the backfire of impeaching Clinton. But then the first cries of impeaching Bush were silly. And they would have given him protection for the later cries which were more substantive.

Republicans made clear enough that even they didn't believe their charges against Clinton when most of the people who declared that perjury was an impeachable offense, then decried prosecuting Scooter Libby because perjury and obstruction of justice aren't real crimes.

Posted by Lon | January 22, 2008 12:07 PM

"Having a President resign over a sex scandal would have been a horrible precedent for the country."

Why? If Clinton had resigned, the economy wouldn't have collapsed and war wouldn't have broken out around the world. What exactly would have been so gosh darn awful about the precedent that sitting Presidents shouldn't have adulterous sex with interns young enough to be their daughter?

I can understand folks who think impeachment and removal would have been wrong. But what exactly would have been the damage done to anyone but Bill and Hillary Clinton if Bill had resigned?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 12:28 PM

Mike,

As a legal matter, whether Clinton committed perjury is far from clear. Assuming he did, however, I disagree that he should have resigned the presidency over perjury that consisted of lying about his private sexual activities with a consenting adult, in response to a wholly irrelevant "gotcha" question, asked for purely political purposes, in a deposition that was part of a legally frivolous lawsuit that was instigated, funded, and litigated by his political enemies.

As for lying to the public, well yes, Clinton did seek to mislead us about his private sexual activities with a consenting adult. BUSH AND CHENEY LIED SO THEY COULD START A WAR THAT HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. I reject the contention that I am a hypocrite for being more indignant about the latter than the former.

Posted by Gator90 | January 22, 2008 12:39 PM

"I disagree that he should have resigned the presidency over perjury that consisted of lying about his private sexual activities with a consenting adult, in response to a wholly irrelevant "gotcha" question, asked for purely political purposes, in a deposition that was part of a legally frivolous lawsuit that was instigated, funded, and litigated by his political enemies."

So, people are entitled to lie under oath if they don't like why their being prosecuted or being suied? Boy, that's a real interesting standard you got there.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 12:55 PM

"I disagree that he should have resigned the presidency over perjury that consisted of lying about his private sexual activities with a consenting adult, in response to a wholly irrelevant "gotcha" question, asked for purely political purposes, in a deposition that was part of a legally frivolous lawsuit that was instigated, funded, and litigated by his political enemies."

So, people are entitled to lie under oath if they don't like why their being prosecuted or being sued? Boy, that's a real interesting standard you got there.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 12:56 PM

"But what exactly would have been the damage done to anyone but Bill and Hillary Clinton if Bill had resigned?" --Mike

The answer depends on what you think was the greater evil, Clinton's alleged wrongdoing or the process that made it a public matter.

The way I see it, the Republicans undertook a sustained assault on his preidency by creating a permanent, freewheeling investigative apparatus, with unlimited jurisdiction and unlimited funding (from our tax dollars), to look for any dirt they could find and manufacture any "scandal" they could gin up. The best they could manage was a few extramarital blowjobs, which they then asked him about so they could publicly humiliate him, get him to lie, or both.

To me, the Republican campaign of scandal-mongering was an absolute disgrace. For Clinton to reward that behavior by resigning, thus giving his tormentors the ultimate prize, would have enormously damaged our already shaky democracy. It would have been a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who voted for him because they wanted him to be the president until January 2000, as well as the majority of citizens who, at the time you say he should have resigned, wanted him to stay in office and do the job he was elected to do.

Posted by Gator90 | January 22, 2008 1:00 PM

"So, people are entitled to lie under oath if they don't like why their being prosecuted or being sued? Boy, that's a real interesting standard you got there." --Mike

I didn't say Clinton was "entitled to lie under oath," or that anyone is so entitled. I said that, assuming Clinton did lie under oath, I don't believe he should have resigned the presidency.

Posted by Gator90 | January 22, 2008 1:09 PM

I didn't say Clinton was "entitled to lie under oath," or that anyone is so entitled. I said that, assuming Clinton did lie under oath, I don't believe he should have resigned the presidency.

I think if you've lied under oath, you've committed perjury. I think perjury is a crime. I think presidents get impeached and removed for office for crimes. I don't think any president is above the law.

Posted by Christmas | January 22, 2008 1:13 PM

"The answer depends on what you think was the greater evil, Clinton's alleged wrongdoing or the process that made it a public matter."

1. One of the things that made it a public matter was Bill Clinton not settling with Paula Jones.

2. To my knowledge, everything the Republicans did was legal. They didn't kidnap Bill Clinton, drug him and then take a picture of his penis in Monica's mouth. No matter how horrible you or I may have consider their actions, they were playing by the rules.

3. It was Bill Clinton who broke the rules, and he didn't do it for the best interests of the country of the best interests of the party. He did it to cover his own sorry ass and he whored out his entire administration and most of the Democratic Party for that same purpose.

4. The lesson of Nixon was that if a President got caught doing something bad, he should come clean. The lesson of Clinton is that if a President is caught doing something bad, lie and stonewall and maybe you can get away with it. It's the lesson of Clinton that the Bush administration has applied to Iraq and just about everything else.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 1:13 PM

"I didn't say Clinton was "entitled to lie under oath," or that anyone is so entitled. I said that, assuming Clinton did lie under oath, I don't believe he should have resigned the presidency."

So, your position is that a President should be allowed to commit CERTAIN crimes? Please produce a list of said permissable crimes, because I'm sure George W. Bush wants to know which of his misbehaviors you would tolerate and excuse.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 1:17 PM

Odd. No mention here at all that Clinton was disbarred. For lying. Under oath.

The Lewinsky scandal was hardly a good thing for the Democratic party. It did cost Gore a few points (and, yes, thanks again, Ralph), for those independents who felt used, who could be manipulated into believing that Drunken Frat Boy could restore dignity to the White House. Anyone who expects you to believe that Monica didn't hurt Gore is in serious denial.

And speaking of the Democratic Party, funny how so few people who post here forget:

1993: Democratic President, Democratic Congress, a Democratic party infrastructure working its Mojo.

2001: Republican President, Republican Congress, a Democratic party infrastructure in shambles.

And the Clintonistas expect you to believe this was all, somehow, someone else's fault.

Posted by MaxGowan | January 22, 2008 1:24 PM

At the worst, while VP-designate Lieberman was tied up in confirmation hearings new articles of impeachment would have been drawn up against Gore referring to something or other (most likely something related to '96 campaign fundraising) aimed at putting Newt Gingrich in the White House.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't Gingrich replaced mid-impeachment because of his own affair?

Posted by Shinyk | January 22, 2008 1:37 PM

So, your position is that a President should be allowed to commit CERTAIN crimes? Please produce a list of said permissable crimes, because I'm sure George W. Bush wants to know which of his misbehaviors you would tolerate and excuse.

Are you asking for a list or just guidelines? Cause it's pretty damn easy, really. Crimes influencing the political process or policy making of the United States are good impeachable offenses. This includedsillegaly spying on your political opponents, illegally torturing people, illegally arresting people and doing illegal shit to make it easier to sell a war. Things that should not be impeachable include crimes with no actual victims that do not have any real political consequences. One good example: getting caught cruising in a public bathroom should not evict your from office.

I think the best argument you could make against Clinton is sexual harrassment. Its still inconsequential politically, but there is a legitimate victim. Of course, the Republicans don't really think this is wrong, so that's not what they were talking about.

If you wish to continue to insinuate that anyone is suggesting that various crimes are actually _permissable_ instead of just not good impeachment offenses, you are only going to make an ass out of yourself. Any idiot can see the difference.

Posted by mpowell | January 22, 2008 1:39 PM

"So, your position is that a President should be allowed to commit CERTAIN crimes? Please produce a list of said permissable crimes, because I'm sure George W. Bush wants to know which of his misbehaviors you would tolerate and excuse."

So, your position is that a President should resign if he or she is found to have violated ANY law? If the President is filmed jaywalking, resignation or impeachment is the only remedy!! Right?

Obviously, there are some violations of law that merit presidential impeachment or resignation, and some that do not. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they intentionally kept the impeachment standard vague (the undefined phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in addition to treason and bribery) for the precise purpose of allowing Congress the flexibility to make that judgment in accordance with the circumstances. If they had intended to make any violation of any law under any circumstances an impeachable offense, they would have said so.

Posted by Gator90 | January 22, 2008 1:43 PM

While I don't agree that the Democrats would have been better off if Clinton had resigned, they certainly would have been better off if he had simply fessed up to the affair, appologized for it, and not perjured himself in his deposition testimony. Or if he had actually refrained from messing around with the intern while in office.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Bill acted like a total douche bag just because the Republicans overplayed their hand.

Posted by blah | January 22, 2008 1:47 PM

MPowell,

Although Clinton may have (repeat: may have) committed perjury, there was no allegation of conduct that could be considered sexual harassment under the law, which is why the Paula Jones lawsuit was legally frivolous. (Politically, of course, it was genius.)

There are 2 types of sexual harassment: "hostile environment" sexual harassment, in which an employee is repeatedly subjected to sexual behavior or sex-related speech in a manner so inappropriate that the workplace becomes a hostile environment for the employee; and "quid pro quo" harassment, in which the employee is either offered inducements for sexual favors or is subjected to actual or threatened reprisals for refusing sexual advances. Ms. Jones made no allegations that could satisfy either definition. The whole point of the lawsuit was to embarrass Clinton and use the discovery process to dig up dirt, take his deposition, make him talk about his entire sexual history under oath, etc.

Posted by Gator90 | January 22, 2008 1:59 PM

So, your position is that a President should resign if he or she is found to have violated ANY law? If the President is filmed jaywalking, resignation or impeachment is the only remedy!! Right?

What about domestic violence? That has nothing to do with a President being able to perform his duties or the functioning of the political process or American. So, if Bill had beaten Hillary until the Secret Service had to break it up...there would have been no reason for him to resign for that?

By the way, perjury is not the equivalent of jaywalking. It's really closer to being hit-and-run driving.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 2:11 PM

"If you wish to continue to insinuate that anyone is suggesting that various crimes are actually _permissable_ instead of just not good impeachment offenses, you are only going to make an ass out of yourself. Any idiot can see the difference."

The asses here are the people trying to pretend that the only thing at issue is a few sentences Bill Clinton spoke under oath. If he had come out early on and said, "I did something terrible. I felt my political enemies were using the legal system to attack me and in my anger and frustration I did something wrong. I did not tell the whole truth under oath, and I am deepy sorry for that,", that would have been one thing.

But that's not what he did. Bll Clinton abused his office to turn his entire administration to defending his lies, both in court and to the public. That seems like a pretty impeachment worthy offense to me.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 22, 2008 2:17 PM

In the role of Commander-in-Chief, let's take a look: Anyone, ANYONE, from Buck Private to Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky (let along lying under oath, being disbarred, etc.): Immediate dismissal. Period. Funny how the Clinton apologists gloss over that one. Just for the record: The current Commander-in-Chief: War criminal. As is his Vice President, current Secretary of State, Rumsfeld and the rest of those swine. But take heart, slightly agnostic lefties who fear Bush is the Anti-Christ. He's not. He's too lazy.

Posted by MaxGowan | January 22, 2008 2:20 PM

So, your position is that a President should resign if he or she is found to have violated ANY law? If the President is filmed jaywalking, resignation or impeachment is the only remedy!! Right?

I don't necessarily think that impeaching Clinton was the proper thing to do considering that the perjury was in a civil case, but...

1. Perjury is far, far more serious than jaywalking. Perjury represents a challenge to the State's authority--something that should not be taken lightly and normally isn't. If perjury were treated like jaywalking, as you would have it, the entire justice system would collapse.

2. You seem to be ignoring the Obstruction of Justice charge, which was far more troubling. Clinton turned the tax-payer funded White House into an entity whose sole goal was to block the perjury investigation in the interests of saving the Clintonian skin. Nixon did much the same in Watergate and eventually removed himself (if memory serves, Nixon was not complicit in the original crime). It's always the cover-up.

Posted by Shinyk | January 22, 2008 2:51 PM

As for point 2, you'll note that many Senators who voted "not guilty" on Perjury, voted "guilty" on the Obstruction of Justice charge.

Posted by Shinyk | January 22, 2008 2:57 PM

wow, are we rehashing this ten year-old stuff all over again?

My feeling is that Bill should have settled the damned lawsuit, the minute the Supreme Court let it go forward. Failing that, he should have told the truth and let the chips fall where they may ( He would have survived and would not have had to commit perjury). Since he lied, he probably should have resigned.
I think if he resigned, Gore wins going away (Hell, he virtually won anyway, if you remember). Interesting counter-factual to consider, really.

Posted by stonetools | January 22, 2008 6:39 PM

Re: Sure, it was a net positive if you ignore the fact that Clinton's behavior contributed to Bush's election

How? As someone else has pointed out the GOP lost seats in Congress in 1998 and 2000 and lost the popular vote for the presidency in 2000. Bush was nominated precisely because he was an outsider who had no connection with the impeachment fiasco and never mentioned it. And even that wasn't enough to earn him a true majority.

Re: If Clinton had resigned, the economy wouldn't have collapsed and war wouldn't have broken out around the world.

Huh? You can make an easy (and probably true) case that 9-11 would have been handled much better by Gore, but it's hard to see how the recession of 2000-01 would have been one bit different.

Posted by Jonf | January 22, 2008 7:35 PM

"Same policies, less drama" would have been impossible to beat. But Gore fucked it up.

Jason C, you're forgetting about the media here. And it's not your fault, because Matthew always forgets to mention the role of the media in the 2000 campaign, too (as does every major liberal pundit except, on occasion, Paul Krugman). There's always a chance that those liberal pundits could be keeping mum because they work for (or hope someday to work for) the publications that trashed Gore in 1999 and 2000, but that's just speculation on my part.

Anyway, here's what's not speculation: The Washington press corps wanted to make Gore pay for Clinton's sins. They didn't just make up the "invented the Internet" canard, which we're now all allowed to acknowledge is bullshit. They also invented "earth tones," "alpha male," Gore's supposed lie about being the subject of "Love Story" (the author says he WAS the subject of "Love Story"), Gore's supposed lie about Love Canal, Gore's supposed lie about doggie pills, etc., etc. He wasn't going to get better treatment by sticking closer to Clinton, a man they hated just as much.

Here's the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, on June 25, 1999:

" The tone of the early interviews [with Candidate Gore] is revealing. While the vice president has stressed specifics, such as improving education and health care for the elderly and curbing suburban sprawl, the media have pursued other subjects....

" Roger Simon, chief political writer for U.S. News & World Report, defended the focus on Lewinsky: 'It's still the story that has shaped our time. We want to hear him say what a terrible reprobate the president was, while defending his record. We're going to make him jump through the hoops. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.'"

It gets worse. In a historically unprecedented instance of professional misconduct that YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT, the press corps even booed Gore during a debate with Bradley at Dartmouth College in October 1999.

Here's Salon's Jake Tapper on C-SPAN after the debate:
"The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event."

Here's Eric Pooley's account in the Nov. 8, 1999 Time magazine:
"...the 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it. Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd."

You can learn a whole lot more about this stuff at Media Matters or Daily Howler.com, because apparently you aren't ever going to read it on Matthew's otherwise consistently excellent blog.

Posted by marc h. | January 22, 2008 8:01 PM

Clinton lied under oath. Worse, he deliberately and directly lied to the American people, wagging his finger at them, no less.

In fact, I don't even care that it was a perjury case. If he hadn't lied under oath, but merely lied to the public, he STILL should have been impeached.

It's that simple.

Any elected politician who lies to the American people should be impeached. Any appointed official who lies to the American people should be fired immediately.

But, no, Matt believes "if lying helps, I say lie" (to quote a prominent Libertarian Party member from back in the 70's.)

This demonstrates Matt's "situational ethics". He has no problem making moral judgements on other people, however. Bush lies, Matt hates him; Clinton lies, Matt ignores it.

It's simple common sense that no democracy can function when its elected officials lie to the people who elected them.

If Clinton had simply gone on TV - and in court - and said, "Yes, I had an inappropriate affair with an intern in the Oval Office, and a half dozen others as well. So sue me. Now let's get on with business." - nobody but the right wing nuts would have cared. Impeachment would have gone no where.

Instead, he lied. That reveals his basic character.

And Matt's notion that just because Starr had unlimited funds to investigate (what does "unlimited" mean, anyway? A billion? Ten billion?), he could have brought impeachment cases against every Democrat in existence is just a bizarre fantasy.

Matt, again, leave the crack pipe at home before you end up in the same place as Amy Winehouse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 8:04 PM

P.S. In real time, certainly nobody was suggesting Gore link himself more closely with Clinton.

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes, explaining the Bush campaign's outlook in September 1999:

"So, eight weeks out, the presidential race comes down to a single question: Will Gore’s separation from Clinton endure? Bush and his advisers recognize how difficult Gore will be to defeat if he’s no longer seen as an extension of Clinton, indeed as the vehicle for a third Clinton term in the White House. Their goal is, in [Karl] Rove’s words, to 're-link Gore to Clinton.'"

Immediately thereafter, as it happens, the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly began following Rove's marching orders by re-linking Gore to Clinton in a front-page story. From the Sept. 10 Post:

"There was something very familiar about the Al Gore campaign this past week. Traveling across the country, the vice president was looking and sounding remarkably like the Bill Clinton of 1992, co-opting the language, tactics and themes of a man he once feared would cost him the election...

"Even Gore’s visit to Comerica Park in Detroit, where he pitched to the pros during batting practice, conjured images of the football tossing of the summer of ’92...

"Gore’s rhetoric now focuses on middle class 'working families', reminiscent of Clinton’s battle cry eight years ago on behalf of the 'forgotten middle class.' The taciturn Gore has taken to frequent hugging and has dropped into a more colloquial, southern-tinted speaking style turning 'schools' into 'skuuuls' and alerting crowds that 'I’ll tell ya.'"

This is all from here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080202.shtml

There's a great wealth of information on this subject, but everybody who should be sharing it with you has a professional incentive not to do so.

Posted by marc h. | January 22, 2008 8:08 PM

the author says he WAS the subject of "Love Story

The author (TNR owner Marty Peretz, isn't it?) says Tommy Lee Jones was the subject of "Love Story," though Al Gore was Jones's roommate.

Any elected politician who lies to the American people should be impeached. Any appointed official who lies to the American people should be fired immediately.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Posted by Shinyk | January 23, 2008 2:49 AM

Ah, Shinyk, you have so much faith in Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich! We don't know what Gore said, because it was on an an airplane, and the reporters present (Karen Tumulty and Richard Berke) would later dispute accounts of it in the press.

In any event, the offhand comment first surfaced in one sentence in a seven-page Time magazine profile in December 1997. Tumulty and co-writer Eric Pooley wrote that the author, Gore friend Eric Segal, "used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story," according to Time.

The New York Times seized on this single sentence, describing an offhand comment for which none of its reporters had been present, and, focusing on the big issues... wrote an entire story about it. The NYT article, by Melinda Henneberger, included these passages illuminating what Gore actually said:

"'[Gore] said [the author] Segal had told some reporters in Tennessee that it was based on him and Tipper,' Ms. Tumulty said. 'He said all I know is that's what he told reporters in Tennessee.'...

" [A] reporter for The Nashville Tennessean who knew that Mr. Gore and the author were friends had asked if there was not a little bit of Al Gore in Oliver Barrett. Mr. Segal said yes, there was, but the reporter 'just exaggerated,' Mr. Segal said. 'He made it out to be the local-hero angle...

So, Gore said on an an airplane that the author of "Love Story", an old college friend, had told reporters in Tennessee that "Love Story" was based on Al and Tipper. The author "Love Story" said that the reporters in Tennessee exaggerated a bit.

The reason you think Gore lied about this is because Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, neither of whom were present on that airplane, turned the one sentence in the seven-page Time magazine profile into a subject for their columns, incorrectly asserting that Gore had made a false claim in order to make himself look better. This fit their script of Gore as a compulsive liar-- a script that would've been better applied to themselves.

It's lies like this that every liberal believes that help explain why Democrats keep losing elections. Can you imagine how much noise Republicans would be making if the press did this to one of their guys?

Posted by marc h. | January 23, 2008 8:06 AM

The reason you think Gore lied about this is because Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, neither of whom were present on that airplane, turned the one sentence in the seven-page Time magazine profile into a subject for their columns, incorrectly asserting that Gore had made a false claim in order to make himself look better

You're way ahead of yourself. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether Gore lied about being the subject of a movie or not. That wasn't my point.

You stated that "Love Story," according to the author, Peretz, "WAS" about Gore. That's false, and those are my only thoughts on the matter.

Posted by Shinyk | January 23, 2008 1:35 PM