Tweet
415 views Why Is Barack Obama More Mired In Scandals Than Bill Clinton?
: Yes, We Should Be Worried
Capital Flows Contributor
Will President Obama's Sequester Overreach Undermine His Second Term? Capital Flows Contributor
The 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton and 44th President of the United States Barack Obama. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
It is ironic that Obama could be more endangered by scandals than Clinton was. How could a president who never seemed to have endured scandal, be more threatened than a president who seemed perpetually facing one? The answer lies with America’s expectations and each presidency’s strength. Clinton’s image helped insulate him from scandal, while Obama’s leaves him dangerously exposed to his current scandals’ potential.
Obama and his Democratic predecessor have many similarities. Both were young and cool when first elected. Both lost congressional majorities and then fought congressional Republicans over fiscal issues. Both raised taxes. However one difference has become glaringly obvious of late: their relation to scandals.
Clinton was seemingly born in them politically. They dogged him in the presidential primaries – his most memorable early moment being a primetime explanation of an affair. They followed into the White House and throughout his presidency – culminating in his impeachment. Yet while continual and serious, they were contained.
Contrastingly, Obama has had relatively few brushes with scandal for so public a figure. Certainly, that can be somewhat attributed to favorable media treatment. However, Clinton too was a liberal Democrat favored by the media. Perhaps, Clinton was unprotectable, while Obama’s scandals – past and present – lacked the salacious details of Clinton’s.
However all this returns us to the paradox: despite being continuously surrounded by scandals, Clinton’s proportional political threat was not as great as Obama’s could be now – despite his relatively scandal-free career. Why?
Clinton was perversely self-innoculated by scandal. He did not receive the nicknames Slick Willie and The Comeback Kid for nothing. Yes, scandals held his numbers down – his highest presidential popular vote percenatge (49.2%) never equaled Obama’s lowest (51%). Yet, his scandals did not conflict with America’s expectations of him.
More importantly, Clinton’s scandals struck at his presidency’s weakness, while Obama’s current ones could be striking at his presidential strength.
All presidencies embrace dual roles: symbolic and substantive.
Clinton’s perceived strength as president was substantive. Although forced there by a Republican Congress, he reaped political benefits from their demanded fiscal discipline. In his eight years, the economy was strong and the deficit low. Contrast that with Obama’s.
Clinton’s average annual GDP growth was 3.9%. Obama’s thus far has been (even assuming 2013′s Q1 2.5% rate was the annual rate) has been 1.2%. Clinton’s average annual federal deficit was 0.8%. Obama’s thus far has been (assuming the Congressional Budget Office’s 2013 4% estimate) 7.8%.
On the legislative front, Clinton signed welfare reform, which liberals hated, but America loved. Obama signed Obamacare, which liberals love, but America opposed then, and increasingly does today.
Obama’s presidential strength is symbolic. His presidency stands for more than the man. From the beginning, he sought to embody the change his campaign professed to offer. That has helped propel him to two solid presidential wins and is still felt among many.
Clinton was just the opposite. Scandals plagued him from the beginning, capping his presidency’s symbolic reach. Certainly he had his moments – notably following the Oklahoma City bombing – but they remained isolated. These moments could not extend beyond the limitations of the man himself – a self-imposition from his scandals.
Each of these presidents has used his presidency’s strength to overcome its weakness. Clinton’s substantive strength – in the money issues – made America willing to overlook its severe symbolic limitations. Obama’s symbolic strength – in the embodiment of promised change – has made America willing to overlook its substantive results, which are far less well received than the president himself
The difference in scandals’ threats to their presidencies – the ones Clinton actually faced and the ones Obama now potentially could – is this: Clinton’s scandals were directed at his presidency’s weakness, while Obama’s are potentially directed at his presidency’s strength.
Clinton’s scandals simply reinforced the perception America already had of him, without changing it. In contrast, the potential for the scandals Obama now faces is their targeting of his presidency’s strength. If any of these are more than just mistakes, reaching beyond their departments back into the White House, then they are far from simple errors.
They would strike directly at America’s expectations of Obama, at his presidency’s strength. He was supposed to be different – “Change We Can Believe In” – but instead could seem all too familiar. If linked to his Administration, these scandals would not be personal failures – as Clinton’s were, and made somehow more forgivable. Rather than Clintonian, they could be Nixonian: premeditated and nefarious.
When faced with scandal, Clinton had his presidency’s strength – its substance – to fall back on. If linked to the White House, the scandals which Obama now faces would force him back on his presidency’s weakness – its substance. So similar in so many ways, these two presidencies are fundamentally different here.
Assuredly there is a caveat for Republicans – to not overplay their hand, as they did with Clinton – and instead let the scandals follow their own facts to America’s own conclusions. But the far bigger caveat they hold is for Obama’s presidency.
J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...ill-clinton/2/
: Yes, We Should Be Worried
Capital Flows Contributor Will President Obama's Sequester Overreach Undermine His Second Term? Capital Flows Contributor The 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton and 44th President of the United States Barack Obama. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)It is ironic that Obama could be more endangered by scandals than Clinton was. How could a president who never seemed to have endured scandal, be more threatened than a president who seemed perpetually facing one? The answer lies with America’s expectations and each presidency’s strength. Clinton’s image helped insulate him from scandal, while Obama’s leaves him dangerously exposed to his current scandals’ potential.
Obama and his Democratic predecessor have many similarities. Both were young and cool when first elected. Both lost congressional majorities and then fought congressional Republicans over fiscal issues. Both raised taxes. However one difference has become glaringly obvious of late: their relation to scandals.
Clinton was seemingly born in them politically. They dogged him in the presidential primaries – his most memorable early moment being a primetime explanation of an affair. They followed into the White House and throughout his presidency – culminating in his impeachment. Yet while continual and serious, they were contained.
Contrastingly, Obama has had relatively few brushes with scandal for so public a figure. Certainly, that can be somewhat attributed to favorable media treatment. However, Clinton too was a liberal Democrat favored by the media. Perhaps, Clinton was unprotectable, while Obama’s scandals – past and present – lacked the salacious details of Clinton’s.
However all this returns us to the paradox: despite being continuously surrounded by scandals, Clinton’s proportional political threat was not as great as Obama’s could be now – despite his relatively scandal-free career. Why?
Clinton was perversely self-innoculated by scandal. He did not receive the nicknames Slick Willie and The Comeback Kid for nothing. Yes, scandals held his numbers down – his highest presidential popular vote percenatge (49.2%) never equaled Obama’s lowest (51%). Yet, his scandals did not conflict with America’s expectations of him.
More importantly, Clinton’s scandals struck at his presidency’s weakness, while Obama’s current ones could be striking at his presidential strength.
All presidencies embrace dual roles: symbolic and substantive.
Clinton’s perceived strength as president was substantive. Although forced there by a Republican Congress, he reaped political benefits from their demanded fiscal discipline. In his eight years, the economy was strong and the deficit low. Contrast that with Obama’s.
Clinton’s average annual GDP growth was 3.9%. Obama’s thus far has been (even assuming 2013′s Q1 2.5% rate was the annual rate) has been 1.2%. Clinton’s average annual federal deficit was 0.8%. Obama’s thus far has been (assuming the Congressional Budget Office’s 2013 4% estimate) 7.8%.
On the legislative front, Clinton signed welfare reform, which liberals hated, but America loved. Obama signed Obamacare, which liberals love, but America opposed then, and increasingly does today.
Obama’s presidential strength is symbolic. His presidency stands for more than the man. From the beginning, he sought to embody the change his campaign professed to offer. That has helped propel him to two solid presidential wins and is still felt among many.
Clinton was just the opposite. Scandals plagued him from the beginning, capping his presidency’s symbolic reach. Certainly he had his moments – notably following the Oklahoma City bombing – but they remained isolated. These moments could not extend beyond the limitations of the man himself – a self-imposition from his scandals.
Each of these presidents has used his presidency’s strength to overcome its weakness. Clinton’s substantive strength – in the money issues – made America willing to overlook its severe symbolic limitations. Obama’s symbolic strength – in the embodiment of promised change – has made America willing to overlook its substantive results, which are far less well received than the president himself
The difference in scandals’ threats to their presidencies – the ones Clinton actually faced and the ones Obama now potentially could – is this: Clinton’s scandals were directed at his presidency’s weakness, while Obama’s are potentially directed at his presidency’s strength.
Clinton’s scandals simply reinforced the perception America already had of him, without changing it. In contrast, the potential for the scandals Obama now faces is their targeting of his presidency’s strength. If any of these are more than just mistakes, reaching beyond their departments back into the White House, then they are far from simple errors.
They would strike directly at America’s expectations of Obama, at his presidency’s strength. He was supposed to be different – “Change We Can Believe In” – but instead could seem all too familiar. If linked to his Administration, these scandals would not be personal failures – as Clinton’s were, and made somehow more forgivable. Rather than Clintonian, they could be Nixonian: premeditated and nefarious.
When faced with scandal, Clinton had his presidency’s strength – its substance – to fall back on. If linked to the White House, the scandals which Obama now faces would force him back on his presidency’s weakness – its substance. So similar in so many ways, these two presidencies are fundamentally different here.
Assuredly there is a caveat for Republicans – to not overplay their hand, as they did with Clinton – and instead let the scandals follow their own facts to America’s own conclusions. But the far bigger caveat they hold is for Obama’s presidency.
J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...ill-clinton/2/
Really Lonewolf....more mired in scandal huh? 
Even if a woman likes a guy and she is just dating him and she find im doing dis wid another ooman she should run NOT walk to the nearest exit.
Comment