Paul Waldman sure loves to worry. He's now telling us something we don't know-that the media would love the chance to talk about Bill Clinton's pants again.
"Get ready, America: We're about to take a long and unpleasant journey back down Bill Clinton's pants.
"If the idea sounds ridiculous to you, it's probably for one of two reasons. Either you're too young to remember what happened in 1998, the year-long frenzy that culminated in Clinton's impeachment, or you've underestimated the desire in conservative circles to dive right back into that miserable pool of muck."
"You could be forgiven for the latter. After all, it was a political debacle for Republicans the first time around. When it was revealed that Clinton had had an affair with a young White House staffer, they thought, "We've finally got him now!" But they didn't—they failed to convict him, they lost the 1998 off-year elections (when the pattern of history would suggest a big year for the opposition party), the public became more disgusted with the Republicans' combination of puritanism and prurience than with Clinton himself (don't forget the vulgarity of the Starr Report, where nearly every sexual contact between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was chronicled in obsessive, pornographic detail), and the target of their wrath left office with approval ratings in the 60s. Why would they want to revisit all that?"
"The answer is that this isn't the product of some kind of rational strategic judgment. To a degree, Republicans are casting about for anything that might hurt Hillary. But at its heart this is a product of their emotions. For 18 years they've been holding on to their disappointment that Clinton slipped away from them, their disgust at him, their anger over the whole episode, their outright hatred of everything that he represented. So when Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton can't call him sexist because of what her husband has done, it was as though a bandage had been ripped off. All the blood and pus of their loathing for Bill, particularly around the issue of who he slept with, is going to begin pouring out all over again. Just you wait."
http://prospect.org/article/time-party-its-1998
But why will it be more effective this time? As for the press:
"And make no mistake: There is almost nothing the news media, particularly cable news but other media as well, would love more than to spend months talking about sexual scandals. They do it all with a moralizing shake of the head and insincere words testifying to their discomfort with such an uncomfortable subject, but let them talk about sex and the president (even a former one), and they're in heaven. As you watch the endless cable news hours and newspaper column inches devoted to this topic, you might remind yourself how laughable the right's charges of endemic liberal media bias are."
Yes, I too remember the 90s. But again, it didn't work. I do agree that the media might like it. But this isn't the 90s when the GOP had a huge media advantage-they dominated talk radio and had the first cable tv channel and Matt Drudge was the first to discover the power of the Internet.
That was then, this is now. It didn't work then either. But now we have a much larger media space, with the liberal blogosphere and David Brock. The media had wanted to destroy Hillary last year over the news flash that she like most high ranking government officials-including it turns out the current Defense Secretary, Ash Carter-has used private email.
But that fizzled. I agree, that the media would like to do Monica Lewinsky again I Just don't agree it will work or even have much legs.
No question though the media is still frustrated that it never was able to take the Clintons down. This is why a Hillary-Trump race is in a way very intriguing. Trump has made the media nuts by nothing bringing him down and the same thing in a way has always been true of the Clintons. The media resents it when proof of their own impotence is presented to them.
As far as Trump goes, lets get this straight.
1. He can't go 'too far' in the primary as the GOP voters love 'going too far' the further better.
2. However, the GOP base reacts in a largely inverse way to the general electorate. So the beauty of Trump is that when he says these wild things it both increases his chances in the primary while making them worse in the general.
So him going after Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky in no way hurts Hillary but it does help Trump at least in the primary.
This is why Bill Clinton again showed himself the master politician yesterday by simply saying it's up to the GOP to choose their candidate.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/bill-clinton-had-best-answer-to-donald.html
I read this answer as basically: If the GOP wants to select Trump as their candidate, it's not for me to stand in their way.
"If the idea sounds ridiculous to you, it's probably for one of two reasons. Either you're too young to remember what happened in 1998, the year-long frenzy that culminated in Clinton's impeachment, or you've underestimated the desire in conservative circles to dive right back into that miserable pool of muck."
"You could be forgiven for the latter. After all, it was a political debacle for Republicans the first time around. When it was revealed that Clinton had had an affair with a young White House staffer, they thought, "We've finally got him now!" But they didn't—they failed to convict him, they lost the 1998 off-year elections (when the pattern of history would suggest a big year for the opposition party), the public became more disgusted with the Republicans' combination of puritanism and prurience than with Clinton himself (don't forget the vulgarity of the Starr Report, where nearly every sexual contact between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was chronicled in obsessive, pornographic detail), and the target of their wrath left office with approval ratings in the 60s. Why would they want to revisit all that?"
"The answer is that this isn't the product of some kind of rational strategic judgment. To a degree, Republicans are casting about for anything that might hurt Hillary. But at its heart this is a product of their emotions. For 18 years they've been holding on to their disappointment that Clinton slipped away from them, their disgust at him, their anger over the whole episode, their outright hatred of everything that he represented. So when Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton can't call him sexist because of what her husband has done, it was as though a bandage had been ripped off. All the blood and pus of their loathing for Bill, particularly around the issue of who he slept with, is going to begin pouring out all over again. Just you wait."
http://prospect.org/article/time-party-its-1998
But why will it be more effective this time? As for the press:
"And make no mistake: There is almost nothing the news media, particularly cable news but other media as well, would love more than to spend months talking about sexual scandals. They do it all with a moralizing shake of the head and insincere words testifying to their discomfort with such an uncomfortable subject, but let them talk about sex and the president (even a former one), and they're in heaven. As you watch the endless cable news hours and newspaper column inches devoted to this topic, you might remind yourself how laughable the right's charges of endemic liberal media bias are."
Yes, I too remember the 90s. But again, it didn't work. I do agree that the media might like it. But this isn't the 90s when the GOP had a huge media advantage-they dominated talk radio and had the first cable tv channel and Matt Drudge was the first to discover the power of the Internet.
That was then, this is now. It didn't work then either. But now we have a much larger media space, with the liberal blogosphere and David Brock. The media had wanted to destroy Hillary last year over the news flash that she like most high ranking government officials-including it turns out the current Defense Secretary, Ash Carter-has used private email.
But that fizzled. I agree, that the media would like to do Monica Lewinsky again I Just don't agree it will work or even have much legs.
No question though the media is still frustrated that it never was able to take the Clintons down. This is why a Hillary-Trump race is in a way very intriguing. Trump has made the media nuts by nothing bringing him down and the same thing in a way has always been true of the Clintons. The media resents it when proof of their own impotence is presented to them.
As far as Trump goes, lets get this straight.
1. He can't go 'too far' in the primary as the GOP voters love 'going too far' the further better.
2. However, the GOP base reacts in a largely inverse way to the general electorate. So the beauty of Trump is that when he says these wild things it both increases his chances in the primary while making them worse in the general.
So him going after Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky in no way hurts Hillary but it does help Trump at least in the primary.
This is why Bill Clinton again showed himself the master politician yesterday by simply saying it's up to the GOP to choose their candidate.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/bill-clinton-had-best-answer-to-donald.html
I read this answer as basically: If the GOP wants to select Trump as their candidate, it's not for me to stand in their way.
No comments:
Post a Comment