Back in May, the New York Times ran a breathless 2,000-word, front-page dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage, suggesting that the subject of intense media obsession in the 1990s continues to be fascinating to reporters who should probably find a new hobby. Alas, as a 2,500-word article in yesterday’s Washington Post reminds us, very little has changed.
The article suggests the “other Bill” is a problem for Sen. Clinton — and the subject the media can’t tear itself away from.
[T]here’s the other Bill, the one who could be a massive and messy distraction. That Bill is the ex-president known for his outsize appetites and indiscipline, the Bill who still revels in the limelight, who runs with global jet-setters. He is prone to pop up in the press for even the smallest of curiosities, like being spotted at dinner with another woman — bad news for an ex-president already infamous for marital infidelity.
If she runs, will voters focus too much on him? Will they remember too much of the national trauma known as “that woman” (Monica Lewinsky) — and the presidential prevaricating, hair-splitting (what is”is,” anyway?) and impeachment that followed? Can voters look at Bill without thinking of sex? […]
From now until Election Day 2008, the national fascination with the Clintons and their marriage will be central to the race. The media-industrial complex will again feed like hungry hounds on the Clintons, their past and future; on the Clintons and their mysteries; on power and politics as the Clinton lifeblood propelling her run against all odds.
She will face haters. She’ll face sexists. There’ll be folks who think she’s power-mad, including some still queasy about what she knew and when she knew it when it came to Bill’s marital indiscretions.
The unusually-long article — it was the Post’s longest piece in yesterday’s edition — is oddly self-fulfilling: the Clintons’ marriage is the subject of “national fascination.” Why? Because the Washington Post is fascinated and it’s conveying that fascination onto the rest of us. Sen. Clinton, if she runs for president, will face all kinds of questions about her marriage. Why? Because the Post needs to feed the “national fascination” that it helped create with articles like this one.
But there will be questions aplenty. How could there not be? The Clinton marriage fell into political soap opera with the troubles of Bill’s White House years, with nothing but question marks hovering overhead, for a time. Was he contrite? Had she forgiven him? Would she stay? The woman whose earlier assertiveness as first lady rankled some now was tagged with a new set of labels: Hillary the martyr. Hillary the steadfast, for sticking with her man. Hillary as Machiavelli, accepting marital humiliation as the price of power.
Complained someone who worked on her White House staff, who requested anonymity to speak freely: “If your husband has an affair and you forgive him, you get to turn the corner and move on. She never does.” Not in the public mind, at least.
I’m beginning to think the media is in desperate need of an intervention. In what universe is this considered reasoned political analysis in advance of a presidential election? For that matter, why not similar analysis of the adultery common among the Republican frontrunners?
Bill Clinton is widely considered one of the greatest political minds of our time, is one of the most popular leaders on earth, and is one of the most sought after Democratic speakers in the country. After six years of Bush, Clinton’s presidency is generally considered a sterling success — which in part fuels interest in Sen. Clinton’s candidacy.
And yet, the media finds itself stuck in 1998. Once again, the press corps is manufacturing an issue where one doesn’t exist. The public isn’t clamoring for more details about the Clintons’ relationship — media personalities are.
Note to reporters: the ’90s are over. We’ve moved on; you should too.