It is true, as Shafer says, that following a disasterous start in which relatively minor stories spiralled out of control, the Clintons got a better handle on "press relations".

But, he overstates the case considerably. The press kept after the Clintons right to the end, even the so-called liberal press like the NYT and the WP. Who can forget the NYT's Whitewater reporting, which was shown to be false in all important respects but which was never withdrawn? Or the extensive coverage of wholly unfounded rumors about Vince whats-his-names' suicide? I could go on, but you get the idea.

Contrast this with Clinton's predecessor (Reagan, not Bush I) and successor (Bush II). For example, the press largely ducked Reagan's peculiar behaviour and growing senility while in office. As for Bush II, where to begin? Not only did the press refuse to investigate his history of drinking, drug abuse, and failed business advantures, but it actively participated in his smears of, first, Gore (for example, buying into the Republican line that Gore was untruthful by repeatedly claiming he said things he never said) and then Kerry (notably, the ludicrous Swiftboating).

Now that is press control the Clintons could have never aspired to, except maybe in their wildest dreams!

The Clintons did this to themselves. Even though the press reported their sordid laundry, they were actually guilty of creating that laundry. They continue to do it to themselves. They show a disingenious side of their personalities, then claim foul when their true selves are divulged.

Monica Lewinsky was the perfect example of the Clinton machine manipulating the news. If you ask most people, they think Bill lied about sex, no big deal. But what he actually did was commit Perjury, and lost his law license for it. But who remembers that because the Clinton machine made it out to be some "right wing conspiracy". The right wing didnt make Bill commit perjury. He did it himself.

Lewinsky is a perfect example, all right, but not in the way you think.

Clinton did not commit perjury, because perjury is a very specific crime - you have to lie about a material fact and, in the context of a civil suit, the fact has to be part of the evidene in the case. Since the Paula Jones case was settled before trial (and after, let me note, the trial court judge granted the President's summary judgment motion), he could not have committed perjury. Still, the narrative that the press bought into was that he committed perjury. (And, as an aside, if you've actually read the transcript of the deposition, it's apparent that there was considerable confusion about what was asked and what the answer would mean.)

Second, the common belief is that Clinton was disbarred. That also is incorrect. He agreed to a settlement of the ethics complaint in which he would not practice law for a specified period of time.

You can say these things are subtleties, and they certainly are. However, there were lots of ways to report these issues, and they pretty much got reported in a manner that was least favorable to President Clinton.

I think Clinton agreed to that settlement for the nation's sake. He thought it was time to put it behind him and to give the nation an end to these interminable legal battles. He could not have been convicted if any of this had gone to trial, but he wanted to put an end to it, even if it cost him something, even if it made him appear "guilty."

I think this was a wise move on his part.

randy-khan:

Clinton did not commit perjury, because perjury is a very specific crime - you have to lie about a material fact and, in the context of a civil suit, the fact has to be part of the evidene in the case. Since the Paula Jones case was settled before trial (and after, let me note, the trial court judge granted the President's summary judgment motion), he could not have committed perjury. Still, the narrative that the press bought into was that he committed perjury.

Perjury -- the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Famous People Accused of Perjury

Well, he was under oath, and he lied. Sounds like a dead-ringer to me. I understand your intentions in splitting hairs on these issues to demonstrate your point that the press wasn't soft on him and perhaps was even unfair. But I don't think the facts support this extent of hairsplitting...

randy-khan:

(And, as an aside, if you've actually read the transcript of the deposition, it's apparent that there was considerable confusion about what was asked and what the answer would mean.)

I absolutely can not fathom the possibility that in Clinton's heart, he sincerely believed that he was telling the absolute truth and had all intentions of doing so when he claimed not to have had "sexual relations with that woman." Under oath. And what it would mean would be national embarrassment and it would have lent credibility to the women he and Hillary (with her "Bimbo-patrol") worked so, so hard to discredit and slander (including allegations of rape)

randy-khan:

Second, the common belief is that Clinton was disbarred. That also is incorrect. He agreed to a settlement of the ethics complaint in which he would not practice law for a specified period of time.

Not true. "In a separate case, Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state's bar officials.[119]The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[120] In October 2001, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and, facing disbarment from the high court as well, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November." [emphasis mine] So he was disbarred in Arkansas and narrowly avoided being disbarred by the Supreme Court in the ways you are suggesting.

So the way I see it, the Clintons are guitly as charged of manipulating media spin, and I don't feel too bad at all that the media reported his scandal the way they did. And he pretty much came out clean with a high approval rating thanks in large part to an economy he left in good shape. And full-cirlce, I have to say I agree with the original poster in that I meet way more people that see it merely as a matter of lying about his sex life, as opposed to a matter of holding a court of law in contempt by lying about something he had just taken an oath swearing he would tell the truth about.

Oops it wasn't the original post it was the second guy. My apologies.