USA Today failed to challenge claim Clinton presidency was "extraordinarily fatiguing"
In a March 29 front-page USA Today article -- bearing the headline "Question for Hillary: What will Bill's impact be?" -- reporter Jill Lawrence, after noting that a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that "70% of Americans say Bill Clinton will do more good than harm for his wife's campaign" and that "[t]hree-quarters said the state of the Clintons' marriage shouldn't matter to voters," went on to write an 1,800-word article that purported to examine the question of whether the former president harms or helps Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential candidacy.
In reporting comments by political psychologist Stanley Renshon, who wrote a book about President Bill Clinton in 1998, Lawrence noted without challenge Renshon's false suggestion that the public's views of the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies are comparable and his claim that the public suffers from "extraordinar[y]" Clinton "fatigu[e]." Lawrence reported: "Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center, says the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been 'extraordinarily fatiguing' for Americans, who may be seeking 'a somewhat calmer presidency.' " In fact, according to USA Today's own polling, Clinton's approval ratings remained in the 50s and 60s through most of his presidency; in the wake of 1998 impeachment proceedings, Clinton's approval rating jumped to 73 percent. Lawrence noted earlier in the article that Clinton's current approval rating is 60 percent and that "[i]n the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 71% said he was a good president -- more than double Bush's 34% approval in the poll."
Lawrence also reported that Clinton "revived talk of her husband's past" when she "made the comment about having dealt with 'evil and bad men' to an Iowa audience in January, with a smile on her face." Lawrence continued, "The crowd laughed knowingly for a full half-minute, assuming it was a joke about her husband." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted at the time, claims about the meaning of Clinton's joke and about what the crowd understood her to have meant varied widely. According to a January 29 McClatchy Newspapers report: "Some [in the audience] said afterward they thought she was referring to her suffering with a philandering husband. Others thought it was meant to conjure up people such as President Bush or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich." Clinton dismissed the idea that the crowd thought she was referring to her husband: "Oh, come on. I don't think anybody in there thought that."
From Lawrence's March 29 USA Today article:
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."
[...]
That hasn't deterred late-night comics, who continue to joke about the Clintons and their marriage. Hillary Clinton herself has revived talk of her husband's past at least twice this year.
She made the comment about having dealt with "evil and bad men" to an Iowa audience in January, with a smile on her face. The crowd laughed knowingly for a full half-minute, assuming it was a joke about her husband.
[...]
Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center, says the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been "extraordinarily fatiguing" for Americans, who may be seeking "a somewhat calmer presidency."
Whether the Clintons can deliver that is unclear, says Renshon, a psychoanalyst who wrote a book about Bill Clinton. Renshon says people "hardly ever turn on a dime" if they've thought and acted a certain way through middle age. "The best she can do is make good use of him," Renshon says of Hillary Clinton. "She's riding the tiger."















Yep, all that Clinton-era peace and prosperity flat wore me out. Thank goodness Bush came along and put an end to all that.
Exactly, the Clinton years were horrible between the wars, the assault on our personal freedom and the disregard for the will of the American People. You are right, thanks Bush for restoring faith in government.
Amazing how progressives forget Clinton put us in a war in Kosovo.
Darn us absent-minded progressives. Would you remind us how long that war lasted, and the extent of America's involvement in it? I just want to compare it to the Iraq debacle. Thanks.
The information that I have found regarding the Kosovo involvement was as follows:
DURATION IN DAYS: 77 DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000 U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0 TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2
Thanks, Thomas. Kind of makes Leatherhead's "point" look a little silly, doesn't it?
Forgot a couple stats, there, Keester....
REASON FOR MILITARY ACTION: STOP GENOCIDE
EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE: ZERO
CONSEQUENCES TO CLINTON: ZERO
REASON FOR NO CONSEQUENCES: ?
Real students of history you are Keester, Rusty Doris, and the restaya.
"EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE: ZERO"
Tell that to the families of the massacred Albanians. Don't forget to wear your tennies.
no evidence of a genocide--funny I remember that time period pretty well and had family in the militray involved in it. Your partisan BS shows here just because you choose to acknowledge the events of the intenational world soen't mean that they do not happen. The US involvement there may not have a good thing but the reasons for it were not distorted nor were we lied to as to why we were there unlike today. Problem then was the rest of the country was to interested in finding out how long the stupid cigar was instead of the real details in an international military conflict.
OK, I'm waiting for the numbers. Just deliver some substantive info. We were going to find 225,000 Albanians in mass graves. I'm waiting to hear your info re: how many mass graves were found, and how many in 'em. You can't back up your statements.
You said there was ZERO evidence of genocide. That's a pretty high standard. You're saying no Albanians were killed?
Granted, "genocide" is an extreme standard to meet as well. War crimes, ethnic cleansing, etc. fall short. However, although genocide was never proven does not mean that there was ZERO evidence that it was going on.
Was it enough to bomb the dog**** out of our friends?
and the larger balkan conflict?
how many of the american people even remember the "war in kosovo"? most don't. and the fact that you could even make a comparison between that and iraq shows your total partisanship.
Welllll...
If they can't remember the event, then it didn't happen, DID it?
Hey, Leatherhelmnut, can you tell us how many combat deaths the U.S. had in Kosovo? Look it up and get back to us.
That's nice, of course. Who it wasn't nice for was the people who had the dogsh*t bombed out of 'em, for a trumped-up reason
Do something about that myopia.
So, LEMOC
What was the real reason we went into Kosovo?
Did we just need to get rid of some inventory - i.e. bombs?
There's no comparison between Iraq & Kosovo. NONE.
Your suggestion that we needed to get rid of some bomb inventory sounds like the most obvious explanation.
So it sounds like Clinton was part of the military/industrial complex, by your way of reasoning.
Oh please, the War in Kosovo was like Grenada, the War in Iraq is worse than Vietnam. Get real.
Tell the people we bombed that "it was just like Grenada". And make sure you have your tenny-runners on.
Give me a break.
Let's be frank - the 'fatiguing' part about both the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been ther Republicans. Period. And, they will CONTINUE to the fatiguing part of our gov't the next Presidency.
well said!
the longer this disgraceful period continues, the more I realize that the republican noise machine only hits one note, over and over.
Let's get this period of disgrace over with, and start a new one.
What, Clinton was, like, the Weimar Republic? Is that what they're saying?
I don't think this guy would know the Weimar Republic from a skinny grey dog.
bill clinton said there were WMD in iraq
but guess what HE DID NOT START A WAR OVER IT.
the left wing never brings that up on these shows to counter the ultra right wing that clinto said there were wmd.
LIBERAL PUNDITS WAKE UP . WHEN HANNITY SAYS IT SHOOT HIM DOWN WITH THAT RESPONSE.
CLINTON was feeling less aggressive, since he totally missed it in Kosovo, having participated in bombing the hell out of the Serbians, on the pretext of a "genocide" going on there (false).
I don't think you KNOW that.
MMFA HEADLINE:
USA Today failed to challenge claim Clinton presidency was "extraordinarily fatiguing"
ACTUAL QUOTE:
the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been "extraordinarily fatiguing" for Americans, who may be seeking "a somewhat calmer presidency."
Both are/were "extraordinarily fatiguing" BUT for much different reasons.
Clinton's sexual escapades & the Republican Attack squad were tiring.
Bush, the arrogant incompetent starter of an unnecessary war is even more exhausting.
As much as I liked Bill & thought he was a good President [despite the distractions], and have thought it might be great to have him back in the White House, if only as First Gentleman....I think we can be pretty certain the Attack Squad would be back in action.
Do we really want that?
I think we can be pretty certain the Attack Squad would be back in action.
Yeah, but for what candidate would that not be the case?
True enough Rusty, but I think the Clintons would be the most appetizing target for the Far-Right. Try to picture Limbaugh & Hannity just for starters.
Scandals, real or imagined being sniffed out by the media or Republican leadership. I'm just not in the mood...
If I were a huge Hillary backer, which I'm not, I might think it's worth it the distraction.
I agree. No doubt Hillary would be their choicest target, probably followed by (in order) Obama and, in distant third place, Edwards.
J,
I agree with you - what was so fatiguing during the Clinton years were the endless attacks on him and one investigation after another, all done by jealous and spiteful Republicans.....to destroy him. It was shameful.
And who can deny the Bush years have been fatiguing as well.
There are over 300 million people in this country, surely we must have someone other than a "Bush" or a "Clinton" in residence who can be our president.
I don't think the Clinton-Bush wars have been as much about Clinton or Bush per se as they have been about the divisions in the country. However, there is something cute about it being boiled down into a sort of Capulet/Montague thing. Maybe Chelsea and George P. could hook up, that's be picturesque.
Except... I forgot how that story ended. Never mind.
Valentinian
If you want to recast that romance to Chelsea & the Bush twins... well, NOW you got me on board.
There are over 300 million people in this country, surely we must have someone other than a "Bush" or a "Clinton" in residence who can be our president.
Exactly Tommy!
We need a break...maybe a permanent one from both the Bushies & Clintons.
No one on the Republican side interests me yet [I'm still hoping Hagel might get in the race]
But if I were to vote Democratic, I'd take Biden ahead of the 3 frontrunners..
Agreed. Lets get Nader in office!
What is more fatiguing? A president who was hounded for 6 years by Congress then, when all the legitimate charges collapsed under scrutiny, was impeached for lying about a non-crime, or a president who had Congress in his hip pocket for 6 years and, as one scandal after another surfaces, seems ripe for impeachment?
Well, it depends on one's willingness to tap into the slipstream of what is commonly called reality.
I, for one, liked the Clinton years. The economy was solid, few conflicts, ended with a surplus. Yes, there were a couple of bombings, which were not too bad when compared to 6 years of unprecidented attacks, preemptive wars, flaccid stock markets, rising debt and a revisiting of the 1970s malaise that made the USA the laughing stock of the world.
Bush fatigue, absolutely. Clinton, not so much.
Randy
How many times I gotta tellya--there was NO Clinton surplus.
Son, tellya what I'm, tellya what I'm gonna do forya. Got this bridge in Brooklyn, and I have got a DEAL for YOU....
whatever democrat should win will be hounded the same way. let's not forget the pre-monica era. it was all the same garbage. limbaugh with his "day 429 of america held hostage". investigations every month that lead to nothing.
Besides, it is not fair - the Clintons only get two terms, but the Bushies get three? Wah-wah-wah!
Russ for President - or Dennis - or some as yet unidentified non-Repugnant or ABBB (anybody but Bungle).
Dennis Miller--OK--ya got my vote.
"Amazing how progressives forget Clinton put us in a war in Kosovo." - Leatherhead
OK, Leather . . . repeat after me:
Kosovo was a NATO action - not a unilateral preemptive strike like Iraq . . .
Kosovo was a NATO action - not a unilateral preemptive strkie like Iraq . . .
Kosovo was a NATO action - not a unilateral preemptive strike like Iraq . . .
Keep repeating until it begins to sink in . . . you'll know when it replaces the tired talking point you keep repeating above {you may want to take the helmet off first . . .
Yeah, NATO all the way. THEREFORE we have no culpability.
Kinda like when your kid tells you that it was his friend that made the mess in your kitchen.
That was some choice wiggling.
Nice straw man, Lemoc.
The salient point here is that you keep trying to compare Kosovo to Iraq, without coming out and saying so.
Do you really think Clinton's involvement in Kosovo is in any way comparable in scale, cost, justification. origin, outcome or effect on the nation to Bush's adventure in Iraq?
If so, please explain how.
Nope, I don't. I also think it wasn't all that risky for Clinton to bomb an aspirin factory in No. Africa, just in case they were making wmd's there.
What started my comment was somebody talking about what a pastoral scene it was during Clinton's tenure. A modern-day rennaissance, if you will.....except for a few (quite a few, actually) poor b@*t@rds who got the hell bombed out of 'em by mistake.
By the way, your claim that there was no Clinton surplus is a bad right-wing talking point, a real loser:
[link to www.econstats.com]
The first federal surplus since FY 1969 occurred in 1998. Those surpluses continued through FY 2001, which was Clinton's final budget. At the time projections were for teh national debt to be paid off by 2013 "if prudent policies were to be followed".
Doesn't look like that's gonna happen now, does it?
Try convincing people who have to live by established accounting rules (CPA's) that this country had a surplus even in 1969, and they will die laughing.
When you present a balance sheet, your LIABILITIES go on one side, and your ASSETS go on the other. Long-term liabilities of this country are in the tens of trillions, and when current portion of long-term liabilities is considered, and not hidden by sleight of hand, we could not show a surplus in 1969 or in any year since.
Thanks, Archfiend, you saved me the trouble of looking that up . . .
And never mind Lemoc, he's one of the "30 percenters" . . .