The media’s unhealthy obsession with the Clintons’ personal life

About a year ago, the New York Times ran a 2,000-word, front-page article with salacious speculation about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage. Two days later, David Broder devoted a column to the Clintons’ marriage, describing it as “a hot topic.”

Since then, the media seems to have let their interest in the Clintons’ relationship die down a bit. That is, until this piece ran on the front page of USA Today.

The possibility of Bill Clinton returning to the White House he left six years ago raises some questions that are far touchier than whether Americans are ready for a “first gentleman.” As an ex-president, how much influence would he have in his wife’s administration? Will memories of the Monica Lewinsky scandal haunt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and drive away voters? What’s the status of the Clintons’ marriage — and does it matter?

In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 70% of Americans say Bill Clinton will do more good than harm for his wife’s campaign. Yet questions about their marriage — as well as the Lewinsky sex saga that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment by the U.S. House in 1998 — remain close to the surface. The reminders include a stream of jokes on late-night TV and even Hillary Clinton’s own words, such as her recent joking reference to her experience with “evil and bad men.”

Please. This is entirely self-fulfilling — the media obsesses over the Clintons’ personal lives and then tells the public that the issue “remains close the surface” a decade after the Lewinsky matter. Why? Because the media says so.

I can appreciate the fact that Hillary Clinton is the most credible woman presidential candidate in American history, and it’s only natural for some to wonder what role a “First Husband” might take on. But this article appears to be much more than that — it’s an excuse to delve into the Clintons’ personal lives and rehash old speculation from 1998.

The undercurrents are worrisome to some Democrats intent on winning back the White House, even those who say they don’t care what kind of relationship the Clintons have. Bill Clinton is “a net plus,” says Todd Gitlin, a sociologist and writer at Columbia University. “But any remnants of the old stuff about his sex life” could be “an impediment on the electability front.”

In the new poll, taken last weekend, 42% said Bill Clinton has “learned his lessons” from past scandals. But 51% said he is “the same person he always was.” Nearly 70% predicted that Democrats supporting other candidates for the nomination will try to make “past Clinton scandals” an issue, and 85% said Republicans will try to do so in the general election if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Three-quarters said the state of the Clintons’ marriage shouldn’t matter to voters — but six in 10 predicted it will.

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich, a law professor at the University of Southern California, says Democratic “elites” on both coasts are concerned about Bill Clinton, but typical voters aren’t. “There’s all this talk out there,” she says, but it won’t matter unless “a smoking gun in a blue dress” steps forward.

All of this seems like an excuse to run salacious quotes about the Clintons’ personal lives. But even if we put that aside, here’s a question I have for USA Today: why did the poll only include Clinton?

By that I mean, even if we give USA Today the benefit of the doubt and concede that a presidential candidate’s personal life is pertinent, and the possibility of infidelity in a couple’s relationship is worth both a poll and a front-page story, then why focus on one candidate who’s never been accused of adultery … when there are three Republican candidates who are admitted adulterers.

Why would USA Today focus on what kind of person Bill Clinton is, rehashing decade-old speculation, but ignore the fact (in the article and in the poll) that several of the leading GOP candidates are guilty of the same sin?

Note to the media: if you’re desperate for salacious stories about presidential candidates with scandalous pasts, there are plenty of candidates to choose from. None of them are named Clinton.

They would only be happier if the widowed husband of Princess Diana were running for president. It’s all about re-working a story that has a history of selling copy.

  • Just further proof that sex (Big Dog) sells better than violence (Bush). And the media’s corporatist masters insist on the diversion as a win/win for them–sells papers/viewers and helps keep the Rethugs in power.

  • Must be a slow news day. And how about all those Republican presidential hopefuls. Aren’t they the ethical bunch. I’ll bet none of them would get a blowjob and then lie about it.

    And USA Today… any publication that highlights Jay Leno jokes as some kind of important political statement is a joke in itself. Is that now the standard for front page news? Jay Leno jokes???

    Luckily, a lot of the article is pretty hard on folks who live to hate the Clintons:

    Republican Gerald Benjamin, a former county official who is now a dean at the State University of New York at New Paltz, says Clinton’s fiscal and foreign policies “look a lot better in the context of Bush.”

    The Lewinsky scandal “enraged me at the time,” he says. Now there are thousands of dead and injured in a war that was “at minimum deceptively rationalized and perhaps purposely and willfully entered.” (emphasis added)

    Benjamin adds: “I think the country will take a different perspective. I am taking a different perspective on that, and I am a good measure because I was really anti-Bill Clinton.”

    Got that, wingnuts? Presidents who get blown matter a lot less than Presidents who get people blown up. Even Clinton haters think he looks good compared to the Liar In Chief we have now.

    Suck on that, Rush.

  • I oppose Hillary Clinton’s candidacy on, basically, all possible grounds… so all I have to say here is just think how delightful it will be to put up with four more years of this irrelevant crap.

    Bill’s a good philanthropist/advocate. Hillary *could* be a good Senator. Why can’t they leave it at that, instead of being hell-bent on saving the Republicans (both in the presidential race and, very possibly, the House, where our defending first-term Reps would have to run away from her) in 2008?

  • dajafi, it sounds as if you believe the Republicans (and their press handmaidens) will treat Nominee Edwards or Obama or Gore or Wesley Clark better than Hillary. If that’s what you believe, wanna buy a bridge?

  • It’s just more evidence of Wrong Wing influence in the MSM and that the Republics are still trying to run against Bill Clinton because it’s all they have left and all they ever had, really.

    As Racerx’s quote of former Clinton-hater Gerald Benjamin points out, even Republics are getting fed up with all the BS.

    Seriously, compared to the tens of thousands of people killed, environmental damage on a global scale, looming economic disaster and the horrendous damage to our democratic system of government, a few illicit blowjobs really don’t seem like much, now do they?

    Good to know that some people are finally starting to figure that out.

  • “… the Lewinsky sex saga that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment….”

    Andrew Johnson was impeached, after an earlier shotgun scatter of charges failed, on the charge of removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. This violated the Tenure of Office Act (1867) which said, “…every person holding any civil office, to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate … shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified”. Before that the President had unlimited power to remove any of his Cabinet members at will.

    Though the law was later (1926) found to be unconstitutional, Johnson’s impeachment was at least based on competing theories of government, not moral prejudice and hypocritical prudery.

    The Republican Party might want to reconsider their constant reference to Clinton’s sex scandal. Oh, I forgot. Americans have no interest in history or governmental philosophy anymore. Just sex. Silly me. Remind me: when’s the next Saturnalia celebration at the Coliseum? And how are our overseas Legions doing?

  • “This is entirely self-fulfilling.” — CB

    And, I might add, sick. I ‘m one of those “anybody but HC” folks and no BC apologist, but this kind of story is rotten regardless of who the object(s) may be. Until Bill gets caught with his you-know where it doesn’t belong, this is character assassination by implication and association.

    On the other hand, how much discussion was there about the implications of electing a recovering alcoholic and recidivist.business failure to the WH? Or an ex-Director of the CIA? Or an actor?

    Liberal media my butt.

  • We need a pres that at least has a chance of uniting the country. About a third of the populatiion flat out hate her. I have Republican friends who go off on Hillary rants that make my Bush rants look mild.

    She’s an over-consulted machine pol from Illinois and she’s not electable against anybody except Dick Cheney.

  • Well, I agree with Amused, above. I will vote for and work for Hillary IF she’s nominated, but I don’t like her. Way too timid and over-programmed. Also, since 1980, this country has had either a Bush or a Clinton as either POTUS or VPOTUS. That’s 28 years, and add on more if Clinton is elected in 2008.

    Surely, in a country of over 300,000,000 citizens, there are others who are capable of being President.

    Plus, I don’t think I’ll be able to spend another 4/8 years of speculation about Big Dog’s sex life. Now, if it was BILL who was running, I could stand the coverage, but not Hillary. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, “I know Bill Clinton, and Senator, you’re no Bill Clinton”!

  • What phoebes said.

    I’m a little tired of both of them, and the media circus they seem to engender.

  • such as her recent joking reference to her experience with “evil and bad men.”

    I thought this was more vague than all that. It doesn’t seem likely to me that Hillary would off-the-top-of-her-head joke about her husband this way in front of so many people. It seemed she could have been thinking of Ken Starr, or Limbaugh, and saw the smiles on the audience’s face, and just let the words come out. Afterwards her staff may have decided it was for the best to let it remain ambiguous.

  • Can you imagine how much Bill Clinton could accomplish as first spouse? They will have to build an annex on to the WH to hold the crowds he will attract. He would be an international representative almost without parallel(Franklin maybe?).

  • Gotta agree with #14. Bill Clinton would be an amazingly positive force as First Mister or whatever he’d be called. Imagine the diplomacy he could accomplish and the goodwill he could deliver. Despite these ridiculous drooling articles, the Clintons and Bill in particular would be a dynamic first couple in the White House–I think even more so than the first time around (becuase SHE would be the Pres!). I’d vote for her knowing he’s part of the deal. To a large part of the world he’s still a rock star and everyone knows it!

  • If Hillary falls, she will fall on her own merits, or lack therof. Bill, as demonstrated at the recent MLK celebrations in Alabama and at every public apperance he puts in, is no drag on the Democratic ticket, much less his wife’s.

    USA Today shoots themselves in the foot when they say,”In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 70% of Americans say Bill Clinton will do more good than harm for his wife’s campaign. Yet questions about their marriage — as well as the Lewinsky sex saga that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment by the U.S. House in 1998 — remain close to the surface.” Who is doing the questioning? Not the 70% that said Bill is an asset. Bill Cllinton has good politial instincts and managed to surround himslef with a great number of very qualified apointees (remember FEMA under Clinton?)

    I doubt I’m in the minority when I firmly believe that incompetence and blind loyalty in governement is more likely to result in my death that a damn blowjob to a high-ranking public official. Will I worry if Bill gets blowjob from another woman if he becomes First Husband? That won’t be my hill to die on, but one in the Middle East very well could be.

  • Comments are closed.