On a rainy day in Arkansas, the 42nd president of the United States dedicated his presidential library. Even though Bush I and Bush II showed up to honor Bill Clinton’s presidency in a manner I’ll happily say was both gracious and admirable, the right-wing press apparently didn’t get the unity memo.
At issue is not his record of economic prosperity, the long-standing reign of peace and bold reforms in government programs. No, the mainstream media is more interested in those aspects of a presidency that truly matter: scandals and character vulnerability.
As a former president, Bill Clinton can put anything he wants in his library — he is not bound by any particular rule to degrade himself as the media would see fit. He did not omit his impeachment, but its mention was brief and contained an acknowledgment that power struggles with the Republican Party ultimately led to this excessive blight on his record.
Anyone who argues this point should wonder if the Republicans would have spent so much money slamming a Republican president for not being forthcoming about something as inconsequential and private as an affair.
In fact, the effort has not stopped. A Counter Clinton Library is in the works to more fully accentuate Clinton’s limited faults and small scandals. Yes, there’s going to be an actual building to insult a former leader of our country. These are likely the same people who think criticism of President George W. Bush’s policies is unpatriotic and off-limits. They will, however, readily equate extramarital fellatio to presidential failure.
Peter Jennings’ exclusive interview with Clinton did not go well. Eager to draw grief from a man trying to celebrate the high points of a successful life of public service, Jennings prodded him to be more remorseful. Clinton responded very appropriately — with anger.
Why do people focus on a political figure’s personal record more than his public one? I was more than willing to note that Bush’s questionable military service had nothing to do with his success as a president. I wondered about the practicality of trashing the Clinton legacy when it is legally impossible for him to reenter office.
Then I turned on Rupert Murdoch’s neoconservative playpen, Fox News. Already itching to smear Sen. Hillary Clinton in case of a presidential run, the parasitic network brought in token analysts, experts and authors to make the Clinton legacy a tawdry caricature of eight years of achievement.
It was the usual anti-Clinton feeding frenzy — a hateful, factually incoherent potpourri of outspoken conservatives and timid liberals.
I’ve always mused that the most sure-fire way to make a staunch Republican seethe with baseless, almost humorous anger is to ask him why he hates Hillary Clinton. The most frequent reasons elicited by this line of questioning either involve her championing an unpopular healthcare bill or her moving to New York to run for Senate.
Since neither of these reasons is actually worthy of the level of hatred she inspires, let’s get the real reason in print.
There’s a popular talking point in which the presidency of Bill Clinton was a co-presidency between the two of them. But this obtuse attack quickly becomes schizophrenic. The charge is either that the first lady was secretly in charge or that a Hillary presidency would mean another term for Bill. It’s not conceivable that it can be both — they can’t actually be pawns of each other.
Isn’t it possible that they are both capable, talented statesmen?
In any case, if we are subjected to another eight years just like those from 1993-2001, I think I’ll suffer through it.