Will scandals simply overwhelm Hillary Clinton?

January 13, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gestures as she walks on stage at a Democratic fundraising dinner featuring all three candidates in Las Vegas, Nevada January 6, 2016.  REUTERS/Rick Wilking      TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Hillary Clinton walks on stage at a Democratic fundraising dinner in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 6, 2016. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

As the 2016 presidential campaign got underway, it looked as if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the clear, scandal-wise. Whatever accusations had chomped at her heels and her husband’s, former President Bill Clinton, over the years, she had outrun them.

For one thing, some of the scandals weren’t even hers: She wasn’t the perpetrator but the wronged party. In other cases, she wasn’t officially involved. Even where the scandals were indeed hers, the accusations didn’t get far enough to support an indictment, let alone a conviction.

Still, she seemed to be a part of that web of private law firms, private fees, private investments and private connections that gives politics-as-usual a bad name. Yet, Hillary Clinton had survived, in good part because she just plain barreled through the scandals with stunning resolve. She did not hide, panic or act like anything except the self-confident figure we see before us today — most of the time.

It puts me in mind of David Begelman. Now, stay with me here. In the late 1970s, Begelman, then head of Columbia Pictures and a major Hollywood mogul, was accused of embezzling $10,000 from the studio. On the day the story broke, it was a bombshell. But the next day, as all Hollywood sat eating lunch at its favorite restaurant, Begelman walked through the door — tailored, barbered, buffed, shined and looking like a million bucks.

That performance helped keep Begelman afloat, in the short-to-medium run. He was eventually fired from the studio, but for some years he did return to a career producing movies. Begelman’s reaction to the accusations became a part of our family lore. When my daughter was embarrassed by something and didn’t want to show up, I would tell her that she had to “do a Begelman.”

There hasn’t been anything like Begelman’s proven misdeeds in Clinton’s story, though some of the accusations against her have been worse. Yet, in the face of them all, she has done a magnificent Begelman.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes a "selfie" photograph with a supporter at a campaign event in Sioux City, Iowa, United States, January 5, 2016.  REUTERS/Jim Young

Hillary Clinton takes a selfie photograph with a supporter at a campaign event in Sioux City, Iowa, January 5, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young

But can she keep doing it? Keep toughing it out, sticking to her script, answering uncomfortable questions with her tight smile, and moving on? Can Clinton build herself a second act that transcends the past scandals and the question of trust that they raise?

We all remember F. Scott Fitzgerald’s dictum that there are “no second acts in American lives.” Maybe he was talking about the country’s propensity to see a life as a single arc of success or failure. Once you’re tarnished by public scandal, Fitzgerald seemed to be asserting, you are permanently damaged goods.

That principle has been challenged and even discredited in recent years. It has become conventional wisdom that there are many second acts. People fall. They confess error and claim redemption or pay what we think is a big enough price. Then, they rise again.

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, for example, topped the scandal charts when his walk along the Appalachian Trail led to a very public declaration of an extramarital affair. He seemed politically disgraced, but he now represents South Carolina in the House of Representatives. Martha Stewart, after being sent to the slammer, is back on TV. Perhaps the harbinger of all this was Charles Colson, an architect of President Richard M. Nixon’s Watergate break-in, who found religion and became a force for reform in the U.S. prison system.

But Colson had to go to prison before he could assume his role as a prison reformer. Sanford had to suffer public humiliation. Stewart did her time in jail. Without such an event, can someone who has been called a liar again and again, rightly or wrongly, drive this kind of accusation far enough from public consciousness to gain the presidency — one of whose chief qualifications, we are told, is trustworthiness?

It may be that people have second acts when they have somehow undergone a break with the person who was the protagonist in the first act.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton (L) and Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton take the stage at the Central Iowa Democrats Fall Barbecue in Ames, Iowa November 15, 2015. REUTERS/Mark Kauzlarich

Former President Bill Clinton (L) and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the Central Iowa Democrats Fall Barbecue in Ames, Iowa, November 15, 2015. REUTERS/Mark Kauzlarich

Once in a while, they are clever enough to engineer their own successful mea culpas. The prototype is New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was once ripping into a local judge when LaGuardia was reminded that he himself had appointed the judge. Missing hardly a beat, LaGuardia answered, “When I make a mistake, it’s a beaut.”

I once had a colleague at the Wall Street Journal who wrote an editorial that turned out to be totally and irrefutably wrong. I wondered how he would try to squirrel out of it. He didn’t. The next day, he produced a piece titled, “We Eat Crow.” It was genius. The controversy was over.

Sometimes, for people who have transgressed, a third party does the job — with prisons or fines or just major embarrassment. These people may never openly accept blame, but the consensus is that they have paid. New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady may have escaped the worst consequences of Deflategate, for example, but many believe that he was definitively caught out. It may be too much to say that these people emerge chastened and transformed, but they benefit from the sense that there has at least been some kind of public accounting.

If there is no such break, however — if someone has surmounted scandals by just barreling through them — Fitzgerald may be right: The past will make itself felt. People will not forget.

Bill Clinton recently took to the campaign trail on his wife’s behalf. He appeared in New Hampshire and talked with his sincerely furrowed brow about how her longstanding pursuit of social justice makes her the best-qualified candidate he ever saw to “restore prosperity” to the country.

Enter Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton had attacked Trump as sexist, a plausible enough accusation. Trump answered that his behavior was nothing compared to the sexism of Hillary’s husband. He also declared that Hillary Clinton herself did not exactly embody the progress of women in politics – because she was her husband’s enabler-in-chief during his presidency when he was accused of exploitative sexual conduct toward a number of women.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gestures during a campaign rally at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, November 20, 2015.  REUTERS/Harrison McClary

Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, November 20, 2015. REUTERS/Harrison McClary

You’ve got to hand it to Trump: He has a gift. The news coverage of Bill Clinton’s New Hampshire appearance focused on the women who, not so accidently, stood behind him as he spoke. As one headline put it, the women “scowl, grimace and look like they’d rather be anywhere else.” A few were interviewed. They said they knew about Clinton’s reputation as a womanizer, and worse. But private life was separate from public life, one of them said. It was not an enthusiastic defense.

Trump knows that the passage of years has not diminished the power of his accusations. His new video on the issue is a collection of hammer blows. The voice-over is Hillary Clinton’s: “Women’s rights are human rights”; “We must keep fighting for opportunity and dignity.” Her words punctuate a succession of images: Bill Clinton leering at a plump and glowing Monica Lewinsky in her cute little beret. A Daily News front-page headline of the time: “Liar, Liar.” A photo of Hillary Clinton attended by Anthony Weiner, who is married to one of her key aides. A New York Post front-page headline on “Weiner’s Rise and Fall” — about, in case you miss the import, Weiner’s sexting scandal. Hillary on a podium with Bill Cosby, who looks as grotesque in the photo as he seems today.

The whole Trump video takes maybe 10 seconds. But it indelibly calls to mind the memory of the country’s embarrassment at Bill Clinton’s behavior, at the same time when the U.S. public was largely supporting him through the political struggle that accompanied the scandal.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s “good wife” response — she declared that she wasn’t some Tammy Wynette “little woman standing by her man,” but that was exactly what she was — still sticks in the collective craw of precisely those women who most deeply want to support what Clinton represents in American politics. The cloud of these scandals may still have the power to commandeer the campaign narrative.

The same may be said for the other Clinton scandals that have re-emerged. First came Benghazi, intimating that Clinton, as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, participated in lying about American deaths. Then the House Benghazi committee uncovered her private email server, raising questions about her handling of classified information. There were accusations of conflicts of interest involving top Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Even the name of her famously partisan adviser Sidney Blumenthal reappeared to cast a pall of further scandal over the campaign.

There were the persisting questions about the Clinton Foundation, which has taken lots of money from people with axes to grind, spent it on a diffuse set of projects and paid hefty salaries and fees to Clinton associates. These questions called up still-older memories. We’re hearing again about the Whitewater scandal, which occupied most of the Clinton presidential years, until it merged with the more salacious Lewinsky story.

For those of us old enough to remember, it all comes back. Those years were marked by relative (relative) peace and prosperity, by some notable policy initiatives — and by the ever-present smell of scandal that always seemed to portend some criminal prosecution or other.

Will the smell of old, unexhumed scandal catch up with Hillary Clinton?

This election may not turn out to be a real test case. The Republicans may nominate a candidate so implausible that the question of Clinton’s trustworthiness will seem trivial. But if the Republican candidate does turn out to be plausible, we will see how deep a layer of mistrust has been left on the shore after a generation of accusations against Clinton has receded.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Sure, Clinton was not popular. But neither was Lady Thatcher. If the Republicans got nothing better to offer than Clinton’s scandals, they will lose, because she is more experienced than all of them.

Posted by pbgd | Report as abusive

Republicans crying about Benghazi again. Because the last 38 times were so successful for them.

GOP is a sell. They have no new ideas.

Posted by Solidar | Report as abusive

How would you like to have this woman as your boss? If no, then why would you want her as your President?

1. From the book “The First Partner” page259- Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident… QUOTE:”If you want to remain on this cushy detail, get your Trucking (A.S.S.) over here and grab those bags!”

Surely the people of the United States of America can do better than this “toilet-mouth” woman.

2. QUOTE: from the book ” America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, page 90. Hillary To her State Trooper body guards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.
QUOTE: “Truck off!- It’s enough I have to see you sh/t kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your “*G*’ dam” trucking job and keep your trucking mouth shut.”

3. From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton’s (F.B.I.) Agent In Charge Gary Aldrige, page One Thirty Nine (139). QUOTE: ”Stay the truck back. Stay the truck back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just ‘trucking’ do as I say, Okay!!?”

4. From the book “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein, p.5- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. QUOTE: “Where is that miserable ‘crock’-sucker!”

5. From the book “Crossfire” page Eight Four(84)-Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an even. QUOTE: “You ‘trucking’ idiot”

6. From the book “Dereliction of Duty” p.71-72– Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One. QUOTE: “Put this on the ‘trucking’ ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those ‘trucking’ sunglasses. We need to go back – NOW!”

7. Hillary to Bill when she sees him talking with an attractive female guest. QUOTE: “Come on Bill. Put your Rick away! You can’t -Truck her here!!” Cite: “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p.243

This trailer trash woman is NOT Presidential material, people. Pick someone else, PLEASE! She’s not only an incompetent liar, she an embarrassment to the country.

Posted by BiasedStudy | Report as abusive

Remind me in a few years to pick up a copy of “Scandal: The Culture of Mistrust in American Politics.”

Posted by Laster | Report as abusive

If the Republicans don’t want Hillary in the White House…. they should vote for someone other than Trump or Cruz. But they can’t help themselves. And they WILL lose in the general election. Again.

Posted by Solidar | Report as abusive

censored again?

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have deep and positive connections to the American media establishment. As such they have access to individuals who appear facilitate coverage that at the very least is not critical enough. The whole notion that the Clinton’s are gong to try, yet again, to capture the White House,considering Mr.and Mrs.Clinton’s questionable behavior from: Monica to Bengazi, missing e-mails and the use of private e-mail accounts, the alleged use of her State Department position to obtain donations to the Clinton foundation speaks to the fact, that as far as the Clinton’s are concerned, American media has treated them with a very light-touch indeed. What we have here are two professional political parasites who seek political office, not to serve the American people, but to gratify their greed for power. Considering the problems that America and indeed the world faces today; we need leaders who are moral ethical and are intelligent enough to understand and offer real solutions to real issues. The Clinton’s by any objective measure do not qualify

Posted by Castle007 | Report as abusive

Reading the posts below I had to verify that I wasn’t on HuffPo by accident; I must have missed Reuters morphing into a MSNBC/HuffPo site. I can only say this in regards to Madam Hillary and her quest to be the first woman POTUS, the first First Lady to become POTUS, and the first wife of a former POTUS to be elected POTUS; the FBI is dogged in their determination and relentless in their pursuit of those who have broken the law. And with what is estimated at just under one-hundred agents and ‘special agents’ investigating any & everything Clinton, her lengthy resume, her candidacy, and even her future residency could be forever changed with just one ever so small indictment! Time will tell.

Posted by elloyd_tunt | Report as abusive

Yes, Clinton is experienced in lying cheating and getting people killed!

Posted by jjjm | Report as abusive

Well…the Clinton scandals are enough to put most people in jail. How did they raise $100,000,000 for their non-profit (wink,,wink)foundations after Bill left office? The FBI is investigating this and other curious doings.

Posted by BoatmanBil | Report as abusive

Now is not a good time to be a Democrat. Hillary will most likely be indicted and the fallback plan is Bernie Sanders????? Welcome to the world Obama created for the Democrats. It might be 50 years before the party recovers which is what happened about 100 years ago.

Posted by lovemusicals | Report as abusive

She looks possessed in that photo!!

Posted by lovemusicals | Report as abusive

Your “generation of accusations” was initiated and fed by a concerted Republican campaign to discredit Hillary Clinton. All the ‘scandals’ have been Republican driven and exploited using public money for bogus committee investigations.

Hillary Clinton is being held to a higher standard than all the current candidates, including Sanders. None of the accusations stick because all the accusations are baseless. The Republican decades long campaign to attack her integrity has been so successful that the false accusations have become Late Night entertainment cliches.

While she’s been under constant attack from a corrupt and very real scandal-ridden Republican Party, she’s managed to enhance and thrive in every professional position she’s held.

The deranged right-wing mind is rumbling in anticipation of imploding when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated.

Posted by EmmaLazarus | Report as abusive

This article is premised on the idea that she actually did something wrong. The author is merely buying into mindless smear.

Posted by nutjob3 | Report as abusive

Always interesting to see articles written by Suzanne Garment, the partner of Leonard Garment famous for facilitating some of Nixon’s most miscreant behavior. Inevitably, her articles are Republican hit pieces, long on innuendo and suggestion and very short on actual facts, always aiming at discrediting one or another Democrat by repeating discredited rumors and conservative talking points.

Given her husband’s history of evil doing, her hypocrisy in criticizing Hilary is amazing.

Posted by JEE0051 | Report as abusive

I am still amazed people would even think to vote for her, with all the scandals she’s been involved in all the way back to Nixon(too many to list). But there will be some born-again(dead) voters who vote for her.

Posted by Radlour | Report as abusive

Hillary will fail because of what the scandals reveal about her. She is a soulless and entitled snake. The”experience” that she has is dubious at best. She has shown very poor judgment regarding her email and Clinton foundation donations. The Clinton establishment connections also exposure her as more of the same from Washington. I would would vote for Bernie or Trump over her any day.
BTW I voted for both Bill Clinton and Obama. Bill was a good president, Obama not so much.

Posted by booradley007 | Report as abusive