MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

What Bill Clinton Can Teach Donald Trump About Surviving Endless Scandal

The former president radically flipped the conventional wisdom about dealing with political enemies, legal issues, and impeachment.

ReasonReasonDonald Trump is going to need a bigger barrel.

If the BuzzFeed story about him telling former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress and federal investigators holds up (a very big if, given past too-good-to-check stories), the president is definitely in deeper dog-doo than before. But if anyone has shown an ability to get out jams that would have crushed other politicians, it's Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Trump's one-time pal, Bill Clinton, not only survived being the second president to be impeached but came out smelling like a rose. Bubba's popularity soared while his dark twin, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, was effectively destroyed by the impeachment he engineered.

With that in mind, Trump—and reporters who either weren't around in the '90s or have shitty memories—would do well to peruse this Reason story from April 2000: "Secrets of the Clinton Spectacle: A five-step program for surviving endless scandal."

How, Charles Paul Freund asked, did Bill Clinton manage to rise above "bimbo eruptions" on the campaign trail, "Travelgate," the failure of "ClintonCare," a clean sweep of Congress by Republicans in 1994, the drip-drip revelations of his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, and more?

A common explanation from many frustrated conservative critics is that Clinton has been let off the hook by a "liberal" Washington press corps. But while one can argue with many aspects of the mainstream media coverage of the Clinton presidency, a demon "liberal press" has hardly let him off easy. Most of the credible damaging information about the Clinton years was developed by mainstream reporters. The reporter whom the Clintons are reputed to "fear" most is Jeff Gerth of The New York Times. The story that did the most damage to the administration—the Lewinsky matter—was developed by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. The paper that actually broke that scandal, and that put the Broaddrick story on its front page, was The Washington Post. Even the most definitive account of the apparently unjustified (but self-serving) bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory appeared in, of all places, The New Yorker, otherwise noted for its bona fide pro-Clinton slant. TV reporters likewise broke many stories damaging to Clinton, and the all-news cable services have been happy to devote their 24–7 schedules to his juicier problems....

The answer is deceptively simple: Clinton ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital's notorious scandal machine against itself. Scandal is unlikely ever to be the same. Bill Clinton's long-sought Legacy turns out to be a guide on how to rise from the dead.

Freund identifies five big strategies, many of which Donald Trump is already employing.

  1. A SCANDAL IS JUST A STORY
  2. YOU DON'T FEED A BAD STORY
  3. STORIES ARE ABOUT PEOPLE
  4. WAR IS THE BIGGEST STORY
  5. THE PRESIDENCY IS A COUNTER-STORY

That last point is worth underscoring, as it's clear that Trump is following the example set by Clinton. Far more than George W. Bush or Barack Obama, the Donald is dominating the news cycle, typically via Twitter, even (or maybe especially) when the media is leading with bad stuff about him.

Presidents command so much attention that they can make news anytime they want. A scandal-savvy president can employ this power to affect the context in which negative stories are taking shape. He can create counter-stories virtually at will, including major stories that can drive negative scandal coverage below the front-page fold, at least temporarily. He can also use the news-making power of his office to reposition himself advantageously in relation to threatening scandal stories.

Bill Clinton has chosen to make news of some sort almost every day. If he is not announcing initiatives on children's car seats or teenage smoking or some similar subject that other presidents have left to their under-assistant undersecretaries, then he is announcing the sudden deployment of the military. The little daily feel-good initiatives have served him well during his ceaseless hours of scandal, since they have provided him at least some positive coverage even on many of his worst days. As we have seen, the occasional and timely assumption of the mighty role of commander-in-chief has been his ace in the hole.

The most-disturbing point in Freund's piece is that Clinton wasn't shy about using the military to change the national conversation:

Twice in 1998, Bill Clinton deployed the military force of the United States at moments when the scandal stories threatening him were reaching their most dangerous stages. The evening before Monica Lewinsky was to appear before the grand jury, Clinton struck at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in purported revenge for the bombing of American embassies earlier that summer. In December, on the evening before the House vote on impeachment, Clinton suddenly launched an attack on Iraq, claiming the necessity of acting in advance of a fast-approaching Ramadan.

Read the whole thing. And maybe start thinking about refiling that Canadian citizenship paperwork.

Photo Credit: Reason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rockabilly||

    Unnamed sources say Buzzfeed is a gay transgender bi-sexual tri-racial lesbian with a crush on Hillary Clinton.

  • Fancylad||

    10 Shocking Ways Trump Was Owed By Buzzfeed
    1. Uncorroborated, anonymous sources
    2. Angry listicles
    3. Indictments from intersectional perspectives
    4.

  • Fancylad||

    Damn that was supposed to be "Owned", not "Owed".

  • Nardz||

    Aaaaaaaaaand the fucking Mueller team of all sources already shoots down the story

  • CptNerd||

    How dare they!

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    Clinton, unlike Trump, had a compliant media. Any and all coverage of Trump by the leftist-dominated media will be biased and even the smallest event will be spun as the end of the universe.

  • Tony||

    You sound like a whiny little bitch.

  • Sevo||

    "You sound like a whiny little bitch."

    You are stupid enough to believe he's wrong. That takes some real low-end IQ.

  • Rockabilly||

    Unnamed sources say Tony is a gay transgender bi-sexual tri-racial lesbian with a crush on Hillary Clinton.

  • FreeRadical||

    Old news. We've know that for a long time.

  • Fancylad||

    "You're a 'whiner' for complaining that the media behaves like DNC house organs" - t. Tony

    Poor Tony, so fascist, but the 30's are long gone. He missed out in all that male "comradery" he loves in the Sturmabteilung too.

  • Tony||

    Maybe the media would treat the Republican party better if the Republican party weren't so full of liars and criminals. And the Democrats definitely don't have an outright propaganda machine like FOX and talk radio, so stop whining, you stupid bitch. And stop defending the indefensible. What's the goddamn point, really?

  • BYODB||

    The media treats the Democrats with kid gloves despite all their proven liars and criminals, so I'm not sure why you would believe that.

    FOX is no better and no worse than CNN in my experience. They're both chasing ratings, although in that sense CNN has lost.

  • Tony||

    One lies constantly and serves as a propaganda outfit for the government (which libertarians should find, you know bad, if they're honest about what they're supposed to believe).

    I'm sorry Democrats are better people. It's not anything I did, it just happens to be true.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, democrats are the worst people in the world. You are a good example of that. A vicious sociopath, full of hate and evil. With a humger to dominate the lives of others.

  • Fancylad||

    The Democrats own the Washington Post and NYT outright. They are their fucking House organs for fuck sakes. Nothing gets printed without passing through DNC scrutiny. And MSNBC and CNN are killing themselves trying to be their bitches,
    Then you have Slate, Vox, Salon, HuffPo and Buzzfeed who take their daily dose directly from the DNC, and are all owned by party acolytes and their billionaire minions.

    ...And yet you have the gall to be bitching about Fox and some fucking Radio stations? Fuck, you're such a sociopathic little demagogue aren't you. Stupid fuck.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, Do you you say that because you're looking for a date?

    Seriously though, you're just angry because he's right.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The White House press corps has much less influence on public opinion than it did in 1998.

    The cable news networks' influence is way overblown. Rachel Maddow is a huge hit with 3 million viewers a night. That's 1% of the American people, and she's not preaching to swing voters, is she? Those are the true believers. Same thing with Fox News. They get a small percentage.

    Newspapers have become increasingly irrelevant since 1998.

    The broadcast networks are preaching to old people--for whatever that's worth--but they're nowhere near as influential as they were in 1998.

    The news was slanted in 1998 in favor of Clinton, but their influence was much greater then. They imagine themselves to be much more influential than they are.

  • BigT||

    The individual voices in the progressive choir may be less influential, but there are many more singing from the same progressive hymnal.

  • grb||

    Other differences :

    (1) Allegations re BJs are a little less substantive than the oceanic cesspool where DJT dog-paddles.

    (2) Aside from weakness of the flesh, Clinton was a fairly competent president and a smart guy. Compare and contrast with the petty insecure sleazy doltish buffoon now occupying the White House.

    (3) l'affaire clinton began, started, and ended with sex. We have no idea how broad Trump's corruption spreads. Giuliani has gone from saying there was no collusion with Russia, to saying collusion isn't a crime, to saying Trump personally didn't collude with an enemy power. God knows what he'll say tomorrow.

    (4) Clinton had the good sense not to screw-over his own party in Congress. Trump screws-over everyone: Small-time contractors working on his projects, the suckers who paid Trump U, the chumps who donated to his foundation, Republicans in Congress - witness this government shutdown clown-show. That'll make a difference...

  • BYODB||

    Allegations that had DNA evidence to back them up, which of course mean's he was innocent of lying about it never happening to you for some reason. Using proven instances of lying that were backed up with forensic evidence to Donny's untried corruption is amusing though. Both of them are no doubt shit heads, which is why they were and likely still are buddies. They're cut from the same bullshit cloth.


    Personally I agree that going forward with impeachment was probably a stupid idea since the Clinton's had very effectively covered up any crimes they may or may not have committed, or perhaps they were all a fever dream. All they could get him on was perjury, which mean's that trying to impeach a President like Donald Trump for only perjury is...?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Leace it to grb to mix distorted nonsense with outright lies. Trump is the one who is right and treasonous democrats plus RINOs are trying to stop him. You are a member of the former, grb.

    You are a tratori, and part of the problem. You are to blame, not Trump.

  • Tony||

    "Don't commit, actual, real, no fucking round, like, crimes."

  • Sevo||

    "Don't commit, actual, real, no fucking round, like, crimes."

    You mean 'don't get caught', shitbag.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Well, that wasn't Clinton's plan. He actually did commit actual, real, fucking round, like, rapey crimes several times. But he wasn't impeached for those. He was impeached for political reasons.

    Why the Republicans didn't straight up impeach him for rape I will never understand.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Don't commit, actual, real, no fucking round, like, crimes."

    You mean, like, perjury? Crimes like that? Or is perjury a fucking around crime?

  • Tony||

    It was one for which Bill Clinton was acquitted. Let's talk about current events now, how about?

  • BYODB||

    Clinton was never tried for perjury in a criminal trial.

  • Tony||

    He was acquitted for perjury in the only trial he faced. People aren't guilty of things they aren't even charged with.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Acquitted. LOL.

    If that's your standard then you're wasting time with Trump. Even if he's impeached, he'll be acquitted for the same reason Clinton was - his party controls more than 1/3 of the seats in the Senate.

    You could have principles and hold people you agree with to the same standards as people you don't, but I guess that's too hard.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That isn't an acquittal. Democrats had his back and democrats voted to protect him.

  • Sevo||

    1) Have a wife who is so corrupt, you look clean and shiny by comparison.
    2) Have her become even more slimy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Americans came to believe that the Clinton impeachment was all about Monica Lewinsky somehow, and Clinton himself encouraged this by going on television and saying it was all about sex. Once the American people came to believe it was all about whatever was going on in the news at the time, it stopped being about Whitewater, etc.

    This is a common phenomenon. I've often linked to a poll taken six months after we invaded Iraq showing that 69% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. There were a number of reasons for that-- statements made by the president and the anthrax attack among them. Mostly, it might have had to do with the phenomenon I'm talking about--people tend to believe that what's happening in the news right now is the explanation for what's happened in the past.

    They're impeaching Bill Clinton, huh? Must be because of that Monica Lewinsky who's been in the news! They got him for lying under oath, huh? So what? He was lying about cheating on his wife! How can that be an impeachable offense?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If Trump were being impeached right now, a majority of Americans might say it was all about the wall. So long as no interest payments on our debt are missed, Trump has a great incentive not to budge on the wall for that reason alone. If and when Trump invokes emergency powers to build a wall, most Americans are even more likely to think he's being impeached over the wall. Make a big issue out of it, and that's what people will think the impeachment is about. Impeachment isn't about what happened in 2016. It's about what's happening right now.

  • grb||

    Quote : "it stopped being about Whitewater, etc."

    But there was never anything to Whitewate, etc. Even a partisan hack like Starr had to admit that, after four long years of fruitless investigation. Don't take this personally, Ken, but don't you see the irony of lecturing us about people so ill-formed as to believe Hussein was behind 911, right after claiming there was something (ANYTHING) behind Whitewater? Anything behind any of the other dry holes Starr drilled, year after year?

    Clinton was impeached by the House for lying about an illicit affair - period. The people who think it was all about sex aren't dumber than you. Exactly the opposite; they have the facts on their side.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But there was never anything to Whitewate, etc.

    Didn't every principal in the Whitewater project went to prison--with the exception of Bill and Hillary. The sitting governor of Arkansas was even convicted of fraud.

    Convictions:

    Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
    John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
    William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
    Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds).
    Webster Hubbell: U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
    Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
    Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
    David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
    Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
    Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
    Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
    Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
    John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
    Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
    Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was never any dispute from Bill and Hillary that the taxpayer money that was intended to bail out Madison Guaranty by way of the RTC somehow made it to them. Their only defense was that they had no idea how it got there.

    If this is what you mean by "There was never anything to Whitewater", then you're being willfully obtuse.

  • grb||

    Really, Ken? That's the best you can do? The Clintons invested money in a real estate venture and lost their shirt. The reason Starr couldn't charge them with any offense was they committed no crime. Getting into a business venture with Jim McDougal may have been criminally stupid, but that's a non-crime kind of crime. I'm sure all the 911 conspiracy nuts you lord over above could also produce a tin-foil-hat wack-job response as you just did.

    But - hey - they're "ill-informed", right?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you think taxpayer money meant to bail out the "widows and orphans" that lost their life savings in Madison Guaranty by way of the RTC making its way into Bill Clinton's campaign fund by way of a partnership set up by Hillary Clinton means there was "never anything to Whitewater"--despite all the intermediaries being convicted in criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you're either being willfully obtuse or you're a fucking retard.

    Calling you "willfully obtuse" is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)"

    Never anything to Whitewater!

    Just taxpayer money being embezzled into the Clinton campaign through fraud. Big deal! Happens all the time!

    Idiot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ken, people like grb will defend the Clintons no matter what. The mental gymnastics people like him go through goes a long way to explaining why they are so hungry to be ruled by such incredibly evil people.

  • grb||

    You know Ken, I admit you have me at a disadvantage. I waded through all your bullshit over two decades ago, and in exhaustive and comprehensive detail. Just recognizing the smell is enough; I don't intend to immerse myself in this nonsense again.

    It's like the JFK assassination freaks. Reading the facts, arguments, and counterarguments in Posner's book did it for me. If I get sprayed with spittle by someone ranting on a street corner about the "grassy knoll", I'm just going to take a few steps away. The "victory" is his.....and yours. Congrats.

  • BYODB||

    Well at least you admit you're ill informed GRB, that's a start.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The McDougals were the Clinton's partners in the land deal. If you partners commit crimes then you too are guilty. At least that what I'm hearing about Trump.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There wasn't anything JFK assassination freaks about it. Apparently, you've been too elite to know the facts for 20 years. That's a long time. Why not embrace your embarrassment and let the healing begin?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Grb, you're just another lug progtard who will go to the ends for the earth to protect criminals like the Ckintoms, who would not hesitate to use you as cannon fodder for whatever leftist purpose would most enrich them.

    You are trash.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Clinton was impeached by the House for lying about an illicit affair - period. The people who think it was all about sex aren't dumber than you. Exactly the opposite; they have the facts on their side."

    Damn. I didn't know that lying about sex was a statutory exception to the perjury laws. You smart sophisticated "lying about a blow job" people are just super-duper knowledgeable about everything.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hope the point isn't getting lost that taxpayer money being embezzled into the Clinton's campaign fund was a legitimate cause for investigation and impeachment--regardless of whether Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky.

    Lewinsky was a red herring--regardless of whether Clinton perjured himself.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What Bill Clinton Can Teach Donald Trump About Surviving Endless Scandal

    Nothing.

    Trump is owning the Left, the Lefty propagandists, and what they call "scandal".

    Trump has done more to help the USA while under two years of Mueller setting perjury traps, than Bill wishes he had accomplished.

    The major difference too is that Civil War 2.0 is not what Lefties want but are pushing Americans into it. Lefties want to control us using government and they cant do that if we patriots are fighting back or take over and banish Lefty traitors from the USA.

  • blondrealist||

    I appreciate Trump's income tax cuts - but do wonder what his plan is to reduce deficit spending, which, in a growing economy, is usually a good idea. Going after China for stealing technology is good, but the tariffs seem like a stupid way to do it. The Chinese government pays no tariffs. The companies importing the goods pay the tariff - and those companies are overwhelmingly domestic - tariffs are a tax U.S. businesses and consumers. The trade deficit is the highest it's been in ten years. U.S. agriculture businesses ("farmers") have lost billions in revenue, and Trump has approved financial support for them. Trump said trade wars are "easy to win", but it looks like we're losing more than we're gaining so far. His regulatory roll-backs have been good. His new version of Nafta? Neutral at best. Foreign policy? Not confidence inspiring. Job market is robust - I'll give him that - although real wage gains have not been going to the bottom 90%.

  • BigT||

    The Chinese economy is in real trouble. The gov admits to a problem, which, since they are propagandists, means the problem is very serious. The tariffs have increased the Chinese problems - declining exports, debt exploding - so maybe Trump will get a win. The 'win' will rebound to hurt the rest of the world's economy, however, which has been driven by Chinese growth for 20 years. Whether the US will be stronger in the end is hard to predict, but China will weaken.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ken, I've been saying this for several years now. We cannot live in peace with such a large group determine to enslave or kill us. Something will have to be done to circumvent that end.

    If that results in Civil War 2.0 is entirely up to the progress, but the early indicators are they are unable tomccept anything other than total submission to their agenda.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The most-disturbing point in Freund's piece is that Clinton wasn't shy about using the military to change the national conversation

    The irony is that Clinton announced military actions while Trump announces military withdrawals.

    Imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if he said we were pulling out of Qatar.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    +1, beat me by a minute

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I find it interesting that for the most part, Trump's "scandal coverage" line up with him pulling out of wars, rather than engaging in them

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Bill got off because the general public, surprisingly, felt that you have the right to lie under oath about cheating on your wife. Sort of a jury nullification thing. Libertarians are down with that, right?

    Clinton's "wag the dog" use of the military, if indeed it happened that way, had zero impact on l'affaire Lewinsky. Clinton was deliberately maneuvered into lying about cheating on his wife by politically motivated legal processes. Paula Jones rejected Clinton's offer to settle her case on her terms--a million dollars and an apology--causing her apolitical lawyers to quit. Her new lawyers were right-wingers with zero interest in her case (the poor girl ended up posing for Penthouse, not a classy venue) and entire interest in nailing Clinton. Ken Starr and everyone in the special prosecutor's office "knew" that everyone who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear was lying and simply set out to get Clinton on whatever they could. The media generally hated the Clintons, because Bill and Hillary didn't think reporters were important, and wanted to get them as well.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Libertarians are down with that, right?"

    Clinton committed an actual crime - one that if you or I had committed we'd have been criminally punished for. And if I had been caught committing perjury during a deposition for a civil lawsuit while I was working, I'd have been fired. When the powerful can get away with stuff that regular folks can't get away with, well, no, Libertarians aren't down with that.

  • grb||

    Long term memory issues, I guess. Let me remind you : At the time Clinton was impeached by the House, people asked whether he was being treated differently. Were there examples of someone else tried for perjury after attempting to hide an illicit affair?

    The GOP talking point in response was telling in its weakness : They dug up somebody (a woman I believe) who was indeed charged for lying under oath about sex. The difference? She lied after suing someone for libel, a person who had said the affair occurred. She launched the court battle, and then perjured herself when testifying in her own lawsuit.

    I doubt you can find any better examples in the years since. Conclusion : Clinton was treated differently than everybody else in facing criminal charges.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    The whole point of "jury nullification" is refusing to convict someone of an action that is legally defined as a crime but is in fact harmless. I would not have convicted Tommy Chong of selling drug paraphernalia or whatever the charge was. I would not have convicted Martha Stewart. I would not have convicted Eliot Spitzer for having sex with a prostitute. I guess I wouldn't have convicted Clarence Thomas for lying about talking dirty to Anita Hill. I would have convicted William Rehnquist for lying about whether he thought segregation was constitutional, because he definitely did. I don't know if I'd convict Justice Scalia about lying about whether he thought the definition of "cruel and unusual" could evolve over time. (At his confirmation hearings, he agreed that punishments, generally corporal ones, that were acceptable at the time of the Constitution's enactment would be, in his judgment, unconstitutional now. Once on the court, he announced that he'd "changed his mind".)

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I'm more hardcore. If the chief executive, after swearing an oath to uphold the law, breaks the law then fuck 'em. He needs to go.

    Hey, somebody dug Nixon up. We owe him a couple of years.

  • Moderation4ever||

    I think you are right here that the public is not yet ready to impeach on the basis of adultery. It should be noted that there were a number of politician guilty of the same crime (Kennedy, Johnson, Mills, etc.) and it was difficult to single out Clinton.

    The same thing will applies to Trump if Democrats try to impeach on payments to cover up affairs. The Senate is controlled by Republicans and there is no point starting impeachment until you have something that cannot be ignored. A better approach would be a few hard hitting investigations into Trumps finances. Investigations certainly hurt Hillary Clinton in her presidential run. If Republicans had used this approach with Clinton he might have ended up a one term President.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one was ever impeached for adultrey you twat. He was impeached for PERJURY.

    What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You're forgetting the really big one, that actually saved Clinton's ass: Accumulate a lot of blackmail files on your potential enemies. Then if they start causing you trouble, take down one of those enemies in a deniable fashion; Maybe feed the info to one of your more rabid supporters, who will pretend to have obtained it independently.

    Mind you, this approach isn't available to Trump, since the FBI and intelligence services are among those enemies. On the other hand, he's better able to afford private investigators than Clinton was, so maybe that balances out.

  • Fancylad||

    People who it was hard to blackmail double-tap suiciding to the back of their heads in public parks, helped save his ass too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The most-disturbing point in Freund's piece is that Clinton wasn't shy about using the military to change the national conversation...

    Trump is poised to for a new twist on this golden oldie. He made news by withdrawing the military he didn't think should be deployed in the first place.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Starting a war, guaranteed 20 point bump in your poll numbers, sir."

    "I'm not going to start a war just boost my popularity... what can I do for ten points?"

  • BYODB||

    I think the lesson that Trump could learn from Billy Bob is you need to have a (D) after your name. As long as you have that, you're more or less bullet proof as President. Well, at least politically.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What Bill Clinton Can Teach Donald Trump About Surviving Endless Scandal

    Interesting, but my first thought was "what could have Donald Trump taught Bill Clinton about surviving endless scandals".

    Now I'll read the whole post.

  • ||

    I think I saw this article in 'Wag the Dog'.

  • Brian||

    I predict that Democrats will fall victim to the same as Republicans with Clinton.

    Ok, now that you've taken control of the house, your policy priorities are... Russia histrionics and attacking political enemies with the biggest mallet possible? Hell, Trump would probably give them half the policy goals they want, if they were actually popular.

    There's only so much knives and blood that can go around before people tend to look down on the hands wielding it all.

  • Echospinner||

    Slick Willie had his talents. Trump has others.

    What I remember from those years. Bill could get up there his aw shucks performance and pull it off. He did not respond directly and as the article points out he was good at diversion.

    Trump does something different. He creates diversions but he draws far more attention to himself. He is an entertainer more than an actor.

  • Jerry B.||

    What Clinton can tell Trump about surviving scandal?

    Be a Democrat. Your supporters will believe anything.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    I'm looking forward to the follow up article about the deep dog doo-doo that the fake news media calls home.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online