Why Is Barack Obama More Mired In Scandals Than Bill Clinton?
By J.T. Young
It is ironic that Obama could be more endangered by scandals than Clinton was. How could a president who never seemed to have endured scandal, be more threatened than a president who seemed perpetually facing one? The answer lies with America’s expectations and each presidency’s strength. Clinton’s image helped insulate him from scandal, while Obama’s leaves him dangerously exposed to his current scandals’ potential.
Obama and his Democratic predecessor have many similarities. Both were young and cool when first elected. Both lost congressional majorities and then fought congressional Republicans over fiscal issues. Both raised taxes. However one difference has become glaringly obvious of late: their relation to scandals.
Clinton was seemingly born in them politically. They dogged him in the presidential primaries – his most memorable early moment being a primetime explanation of an affair. They followed into the White House and throughout his presidency – culminating in his impeachment. Yet while continual and serious, they were contained.
Contrastingly, Obama has had relatively few brushes with scandal for so public a figure. Certainly, that can be somewhat attributed to favorable media treatment. However, Clinton too was a liberal Democrat favored by the media. Perhaps, Clinton was unprotectable, while Obama’s scandals – past and present – lacked the salacious details of Clinton’s.
However all this returns us to the paradox: despite being continuously surrounded by scandals, Clinton’s proportional political threat was not as great as Obama’s could be now – despite his relatively scandal-free career. Why?
Syrin's Blog 
Jun 06, 2013 @ 12:06:01
I can’t see that Obama is endangered by scandals. I think repugs need to read the story of the boy who cried wolf. They’ve been crying wolf for years now, and so far, there’s no wolf. In fact, the President’s popular appeal is rising as more and more people get fed up with repugs. It’s so obvious that they’re deliberately blocking anything he wants to get done, and it’s so obvious that in many cases, they’re flat-out lying. And, as their popularity is dropping, they’re desperately trying to figure out how to voice their policies in a way that won’t offend decent people.
If they had any intelligence, they’d figure out that their policies offend people- not the way they express them. I thank the gods I have lived to see the day where the demographics tip the repugs into oblivion. They’re just starting the fall now, and I’m here with my popcorn, enjoying it. It’s been a long time coming.
Jun 06, 2013 @ 18:17:30
I looked at a recent Pew Poll on the so-called scandals. It revealed that the only Americans who are truly convinced that they are real are republicans. The poll also revealed that a majority of Americans, @71%, want Congress to work on jobs and the economy instead of holding investigations into “scandals.” Republicans in Congress received their marching orders from the Heritage Foundation a few weeks ago, and the order was to focus on investigations, not on legislating. IMO, this is a very poor recommendation for republicans to adopt since millions of Americans are still unemployed and our economy is still struggling to recover, but for some reason, they seem to think that this is their path to electoral victory in 2014 and 2016. All I want is for congress-members to focus on the concerns of Americans, and I don’t think that is too much to ask for. Congress-members on both sides of the aisle did it in the past, and it doesn’t make sense to me that today’s republicans keep getting pay and benefits at taxpayers’ expense and ignoring what we want them to do. For a group that likes to tout its’ fiscal conservative bona fides, refusing to address our very real problems and getting paid not to doesn’t support their claim of being fiscally conservative. They’re blatantly wasting our money and the government’s money, while they complain about government spending and the deficit being so high. I understand how they can oppose some things, but opposing everything isn’t reasonable, and it isn’t good governance.
Jun 07, 2013 @ 07:08:27
Saying Obama is “endangered” by scandals is about as delusional as Sarah running in 2012.
Jun 08, 2013 @ 14:59:38
I guess the only endangering I see is the American people getting fed up with the GOP for not working. President Obama will be President for eight years. And believe me a democrat will most probably be in the WH after him because of this idiocy now.
Jun 09, 2013 @ 08:00:52
Yawn, I got over “President endangered by scandals” headlines while Bush/Cheney were running the country into the ground with all their illegal activities. Presidential scandals? Old news and a sad commentary on our politics. I’ll get excited about scandals when Bush/Cheney are wearing orange jumpsuits and serving prison terms.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 13:47:32
I don’t understand this. The entire last decade under Bush was a great time for the country. That is when I, a modest 35 yr old with a full and part time job, made enough money to purchase a home and a vacation home with cash and went on a lovely 3 month vacation with my family of 5. Most of my friends lived equally well. I don’t understand why people complain about things when times were good on our soil.
Jun 11, 2013 @ 07:33:11
First, it wasn’t a decade. Second, the shit hit the fan for his egregiously careless policies at the end of his second term which made it look like it was all President Obama’s fault when the economy tanked. The lie is put to your comments when I remember the comment by the multi-millionaire friend of my parents who said in 2008, and I quote, “We will never see the full recovery of our investments in our lifetime. It might happen in the lifetime of our children.” The policies of George Bush not only destroyed the American economy but also the economies of nations worldwide. You not only are lying, but you also have not been paying attention. In addition to that, you apparently have no understanding of economics.
As for your transparent remark about tabloids, why does the public need tabloids when we have you to create and spread absolutely fabricated lies? You obviously have a deep-seated and abiding hatred of President Obama that is driving your irrational obsession with him. Stick to the facts and provide links if you want to play on this playground. While Syrin is a conservative and most of us are liberals, she doesn’t spread rumor or innuendo with her blog. Show some respect.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 13:44:24
The difference is, Clinton actually led a life and made decisions as a person and professional. He is a leader, and is able to work with anyone for the good of a group. NOTHING about Obama is transparent. He literally had no accomplishment and since Presidents don’t do much but sign things, what has he done now but give weird answers and evade intelligent reporters?
People are human and we all have our skeletons. I couldn’t care less if the hugely prevalent rumors are true that Obama is gay or the lawsuit against his once gay lover was dropped by a judge which adds up to him being gay. THAT isn’t important to anything. I’ve never seen ONE republican insult Mr Obama as a man and fellow human. All WE do is remark on his many obfuscations, bullying of the media to tow his political line, and lies.
More and more democrats are seeing this.
I sincerely wish all tabloids would sink into oblivion. They are the reason people have no perspective.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 14:13:28
Uuuummm Rosie, why would you repeat the “tabloidy” gay stuff from Newsmax
and then say you wished all the tabloids would sink into oblivion. Newsmax is considered reading for paste eaters. I love how many of you republicans NOW think Bill Clinton is accomplished and amazing. Not just a hick who slept with a whole lot of women and you all wanted to impeach—eh? President Obama was a Harvard Law Review Editor, wrote his own bestselling book, was a state representative for Illinois for nine years, a US Senator, a professor, President and even picked up a Nobel Prize. Not accomplished enough for you?
Now I know that as a conservative you would think calling the president gay is the worse thing that you could say about him. I don’t. If he was gay that would be fine by me. Also, Rosie, did you put cotton in your ears when the story leaked out that on Inauguration day 2009 GOP bigwig congressmen and senators and other operatives got together and said that the most important thing they would be doing is not co-operating with Barack Obama—? Bet you skipped over that in the Fox report–huh? You know ’cause how could a president work with people who refused to work with him before he was even president?
So give up the silliness about him not working with those idiots. He actually got his own party angry trying to work with republicans. They’d just move the bar and shrug.
Now why would these people decide not to work with a man who was not even president yet? Any answers? Any at all? No? Of course you don’t know the answer—because you are living in a delusional world where all the republicans are nice and would be appalled to bring this country down because they hate the black man in charge–which is what they have been doing.
Do you know whose idea the ACA (Obamacare) originally was? The Heritage Foundation–very rightwing think tank. Now . . . .because Barack Obama got it passed, they are calling their own idea socialism and the worse thing ever. Conservatives are just embarrassing at this point.
Jun 11, 2013 @ 07:40:31
Well said, Dragonpuff!
Right you are that Newsmax is the news of paste eaters. “News Distorted to the Max” would be a better name for that dog fart factory (no disrespect meant to dogs).
Jun 10, 2013 @ 22:02:23
Thanks for your comment, Rosie! I appreciate your perspective. Especially the part that you’ve not seen ONE Republican insult President Obama as a man and fellow human.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 23:29:50
Rosie, your ignorance and bias are astounding. Nuff said.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 18:49:29
Rosie doesn’t understand economics. Bush lived on massive credit for 7 years – might have been great in Rosie’s version of the US – those fighting wars and dying for no good reason probably don’t agree. At the end of those 7 years – the financial industry imploded – as it should have – so much for the great times under Bush
Jun 10, 2013 @ 22:21:14
My friends I know some of you might feel obligated in defending President Obama through his many scandals and problems. But like I tell someone very close to me.. Obama pays people for that! We (anyone opposed or may feel negativly towards Obama) can disagree with policy and point out errors as we see them concerning his leadership… Still legal! I hang with Great minds! Whom discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Jun 10, 2013 @ 23:35:45
It’s all perspective. Look at the presidents starting with Nixon. Anything to do with Obama is pretty benign in comparison. I can’t think of anything that has come up that was new with this administration. When all this poo was going on in the last administration what did we hear from conservatives? Crickets. This isn’t a Democrat thing; it’s an everybody thing.
The IRS deal is a yawner as is Benghazi. However, the phone tapping pisses me off. I knew Obama inherited the policy, but I hoped he would end it.
The treachery of politics is just the same-o same-o corrupt bullshit. It’s disheartening and apparently also here to stay regardless of which party is in the White House.