What I think Mark Penn is missing in his piece at The Hill tut-tutting over how illiberal the Democrats are becoming is the role he played in the process. He was instrumental in maintaining Bill Clinton’s popularity and ensuring that Hillary Clinton was some sort of feminist icon when the reality was that she was anything but and remained a viable presidential contender herself.
You don’t get to be cynical in your 30s and then suddenly discover the value of our institutions in your 60s. They had value 25 years ago, too, Mark. If you don’t like having a low character as president you should have thought of it then.
I get the sense he’s confusing liberal with democratic, unaware these two forces are historically antagonistic.
Life is a dynamic process. Most people don’t just stagnate in the same place they started out in. In fact, it’s through the ebb and flow of varying experiences that we often end up more mature, measured in our passions, wiser and altogether different than we once were. This is how I read Mark Penn’s posted piece.
If that were the case, he’d’ve named names and acknowledged that his actions of 25 years ago laid the framework for where we are now.
Was Bill Clinton of abnormally low character for a President?
We’ve had Presidents who were skirt chasers going back to the early days for the Republic. Jefferson had a child with his slave. Clinton was just the first to get a lot of scrutiny and judgement.
Every other accusation against him has merged into the great big right wing ball of crazy accusations, so it’s impossible to know whether he murdered Vince Foster, raped 12 women, ran a drug smuggling operation out of a small airport in Arkansas, patronized a child sex ring run out of a DC pizza restaurant’s secret basement, etc.
I also categorically reject the “well, you guys had a low character President, so we get to have one too, please enjoy Trump†argument.
You can have a president, of either major party, to be considered “low character” by the oppositional party.
You can have a president, of either major party, to be considered, in the eyes of their own party, to have generated good policies leading to a good economy.
And, both statements can be true at the same time.
People of low character do great things, and people of high character do terrible things — all the time. Regardless of party.
Partly it depends on how you define character. Skirt chasers can view the people in the skirt as people, rather than objects, and then it generally doesn’t affect their policies. It’s when they start thinking of people as somewhat less that they start making terrible shortcuts in morality that affect everyone they have control over.
Bill Clinton is scum — a view I have held since he was campaigning for president and returned to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded man who saved the dessert from his last meal for later. Bill Clinton was also a good President by most measures for most people — unemployment, deficit, standing up to genocide in the Balkans.
Never voted for the scumbag, but I’ve lived in safe states, so it didn’t matter. I would have voted for him if it would have made a difference. I don’t begrudge those in Alabama who believe abortion is murder and voted for Roy Moore despite his creepy behavior involving his school girls when he was in his thirties.
I’d rather have a good president than a good man.