Hell, No, Bill Clinton Shouldn't Have Resigned

[DonViejo]

Nothing in the historical record supports the idea Clinton should have resigned over his affair. Saying so plays into the right’s efforts to smear and discredit both Clintons.

MICHAEL TOMASKY
11.21.17 5:00 AM ET

I see that New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who wants to run for president, has walked back her assertion last week that Bill Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Last week, The New York Times asked her if Clinton should have stepped down back in 1998. She gave a dramatic pause and then said: “Yes, I think that would have been the appropriate response.”

Sunday on MSNBC, she backed off a bit: “My point is that the tolerance that we had 25 years ago, what was allowed 25 years ago, will not be tolerated today, is not allowed today. And that we have to have the kind of oversight and accountability that society needs so that we can protect people in the workplace.”

I’m glad to see she’s pivoted, but honestly, it was an irresponsible thing to say. Some prominent liberals in the media have said it recently, too. The idea that Clinton should have resigned is insane. It’s insane from the perspective of the historical record, which in no way supports the idea that he should have quit his job. And it’s insane for political purposes today, given that it remains one of the top priorities of the right to smear and discredit both Clintons in the history books, a project that liberals should in no way, shape, or form be abetting.

Let’s start with the historical record. The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance was distasteful and inappropriate. I wrote plenty critically of what he did, both at the time and in my book on him that came out earlier this year as an entry in the American Presidents series. It was, I wrote, “unfathomably irresponsible.” He knew what kind of enemies he had, and that prosecutor Ken Starr would do anything to get him. He knew (I wrote) that “reckless behavior on his part could imperil not just his presidency, but the presidency, as well as, potentially, Democratic and progressive politics for years.”

more
https://www.thedailybeast.com/hell-no-bill-clinton-shouldnt-have-resigned

[lunamagica]

1. Great article, thanks for bringing it over, DonViejo! I find this part quite relevant:

But all that isn’t even the most important point. The most important point is that the Republican effort to remove Clinton from office was a constitutional coup d’etat. If you’re young—all this hatred you see today, this right-wing rage machine (which does have its much smaller counterpart on the left); it all started then. The right hated Bill Clinton pretty much because he was a liberal (a moderate-liberal, but as they saw him, a dangerous leftist) from the Woodstock generation who had the effrontery to beat a Republican incumbent at a time when conservatives thought the presidency was theirs for life.

I find amazing the some here on DU are saying that President Clinton should have surrender to his (and our) enemies. Taking the side of his corrupt GOP accusers. He was legitimately elected, he was popular, and he left the nation in great shape. He did the right thing by not resigning

[blueinredohio]

2. I loved and still love Bill Clinton

[Yupster]

3. He should have been formally censured

That's what Dems talked about back then. That's what they should have done.

[politicaljunkie41910]

5. He was impeached. Impeachment is more serious than censure.

Bill Clinton was not Monica's first affair with a married man. She had an affair with a college professor whose children she watched. She flashed her big ass in thong underwear at him in a hallway, in the White House. She knew what she was doing. She was looking to seduce the President and he took her up on it. She wasn't a child. She's not a victim.

[librechik]

4. Thank you. Exactly. n/t