Talk:Impeachment of Bill Clinton/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is a spin-off of the main Clinton biography. At present, it is identical to the section there. I copied it here to give it room to grow into a full article in its own right. Wolfman 20:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
Just a little biased
I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a political blog. Obstruction by the national media? Democrats haunted for years and associated with corruption? Do I even need to ask the political affiliation of the person who wrote that?
Tarnished by bias
The earlier parts of the article do a (mostly) good job of explaining the facts of the impeachment and trial. However, the author shows bias by:
1) stating that the Democrats "voted in lockstep" against impeachment (even though he/she then immediately notes that five Democrats voted for at least one of the provisions),
2) asserting that Democrats who voted against the impeachment or against conviction were voting "to ignore the evidence," and
3) as noted by the previous commentator, accusing Clinton's "supporters in the national media" of committing "obstruction" to inquiry into the list of issues given by the author.
The conclusion of the article is written in a manner that I find inappropriate for a reference source. The Democrats who voted against impeachment and conviction were making a "short term, purely political decision" which would "haunt them" for "decades" in the eyes of the public, which "forever associated the Democratic Party with scandal and abuse of power"? Also the author attributes motives to the Democrats who opposed impeachment and conviction by saying they were "refusing to punish his scandals for fear of losing even more power to the Republicans." I think these statements should be removed; and they are so egregious that they cast doubt on the rest of the article, which should probably be reviewed by other people familiar with the case.
Context of The Clinton Scandals is needed to understand the impeachment
The impeachment trial was the tip of the “bimbo eruptions” scandals.
The “bimbo eruptions” was the tip of the entire Clinton Scandals.
A good defense attorney would, by necessity, try to compartmentalize the various scandals to stymie the prosecution by keeping the trial focused narrowly only on one, narrowly defined crime. (Remember how we were always reminded of Clinton’s skill at “compartmentalizing” his life, the “private” from the “public”? That was legalistic jargon for his ability to minimize, deny, rationalize and obstruct his behavior against the overwhelming evidence against him.)
However, an objective rendering of history need not accept his defense strategy of pretending that the entire universe of scandals – and therefore his impeachment – was merely about a single, stained, blue dress. The context of the entire list of scandals is needed to understand the full scope of the scandals, to understand why he was impeached (even the Juanita Broadderick testimony was available for review by then), and to understand one of the primary reasons the Republicans continue to gain politically, every political cycle since 1994. (By that election we already had witnessed Gary Aldrich’s book, “Unlimited Access,” the White House travel office and Filegate scandals, in addition to Hillary’s health care panel fiasco.)
Or, do you also subscribe to the theory that the Clinton Scandals were only about a stained, blue dress?
And five House Democrats voting each for a single article of impeachment does not refute that, as a body, the Democrats in Congress exhibited historical unanimity. Many did ignore the evidence. One example was the pressure put on Democratic members to avoid the Broadderick testimony for fear of retribution from the Democratic leadership. Further evidence was the pep rally they held on the White House lawn at the height of the impeachment proceeding. And the complete unanimity of the Senate Democrats.
If you want to learn about the impeachment itself, I suggest the House committee hearings and the House managers’ speeches on the floor of the Senate. They were inspiring.
Finally, to refer to my political leanings without acknowledging your own, does not negate them. If you present the impeachment in isolation, without the larger context, you simply continue Clinton’s own defense strategy of compartmentalization.
Objectivity restored
The bias evinced earlier has been edited out and the tag should be removed. As an aside, considering that Clinton is only the second president ever to have been impeached, this article is woefully short and should probably be considered a stub.
Paula Jones payment
In Paula Jones: The lawsuit was eventually dismissed without proceeding to trial, since Jones was unable to demonstrate any damages; the possibility of an appeal was disposed of by Clinton's paying Jones an out-of-court settlement of $850,000. He was also fined $91,000 for a contempt of court citation for evasive and misleading answers;
here, it's an "over $900,000 fine"... which is true? Jules.LT 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"Politically weakend"?
A recent edit said that Clinton was "politically weakened" by the impeachment ordeal. While he was certainly distracted by the scandal for much of 1998, can he really be said to have been weakened by it? As I recall, going into his trial his approval numbers were hovering around 70 percent. Moreover, Republicans suffered significant losses in the 1998 midterm elections at the height of the impeachment scandal, which impelled Newt Gingrich, who had been Clinton's nemesis for most of his presidency, to resign. The scandal also somewhat paradoxically made a more sympathetic figure out of Hillary Clinton, which helped her start her own Senate career two years later.
I'm not saying Clinton was pleased about the scandal or the impeachment; I'm just saying that he wasn't exactly politically crippled by it all either, and that it actually helped him shore up support in his base. --Jfruh 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Anon is spreading misinformation
This anon User:68.209.2.94 is getting people bogged down in arguments about semantics and distracting attention from attempts to put actively incorrect information into articles on this topic. The Senate votes were 50-50 on the perjury charge and 55-45 to acquit on the obstruction charge, as this very article says later on in the body. See here, for instance, for the correct account. I've fixed this article and the Bill Clinton article. --Jfruh 05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
