Of Course They Have To Bring Up Lewinsky

So, the character assassins are already jumping all over Hillary Clinton's recently published schedules as First Lady. They are saying, in essence, Hillary's schedules don't show any evidence for or against her claims of experience. What is clearly illuminated is her driver's seat role in early health care policy initiatives. It is also noted that after the failure of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform to get Clinton's reforms passed into law, Hillary's schedules become much more discreet.

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton was harshly criticized for granting a key position to the First Lady, and Billary was born. Hillary had to step back into a more traditional role publicly to stave off undermining effects. Bill Clinton's approval ratings hit an all time low of 36% in mid-1993, in part due to allegations that Hillary was the "shadow president." This was further underscored by a ruling of the D.C. Circuit court that the First Lady can be considered a government official. I believe it is clear that Bill and Hillary have always been close political partners, and in order to preserve that partnership, Hillary had to look more traditional and keep her advisory role strictly private.

Hateful little twists are being thrown out as well, chiefly the revelation that Hillary was in the White House at the same time as Bill Clinton was having sex with Monica Lewinsky. I fail to see how that has anything to do with it, as Hillary has said in her own memoirs that she heard it from Bill first, and that it was a difficult time that she persevered through. This is little more than mud slinging, fueled by American love of reality-TV style politics.

This brings me to my point. What if Hillary stayed with Bill because she loves him? The idea that infidelity is a deal breaker in what was already a 20+ year relationship, that has yielded great successes for both of them, is pretty narrow minded. Infidelity ranks fairly low in divorce causes, 4 out of 10 marriages in America end in divorce, and yet, the moral voice condemns the Clintons for staying together. The definition of marriage and partnership is reduced to one single defining factor: physical monogamy. The Lewinsky scandal was latched onto by a GOP-controlled Congress and spin control was entirely in the hands of Bill Clinton's political adversaries. It was used as a smoke screen by both sides. I find the public butchering of Bill and Hillary's marriage ridiculous, and I don't see anything wrong with them deciding to stay together based on shared values, shared goals, and shared success. So what if it is a business partnership? It's a very potent one. The whole issue of the sincerity of their commitment to each other has been focussed on Bill's sexual appetites, when it is clear that those are not a top shelf issue to either of them. And why does it have to be? Plenty of people make politically or financially motivated marriages, and never look back. Marriage itself began as a form of barter, of coalition building, and of financial partnering. Moral pontifications aside, marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults that legally and financially binds them to each other. Prenuptial contracts would not exist if this were not the basis of marriage. The fact that marriages are often solemnized by a religious authority does not alter the very visceral reality of marriage schematics. Marriage is a partnership that, while it often implies sexual exclusivity, is not solely defined by it. Bill and Hillary made a decision that their marriage was more beneficial to them than separation. What's wrong with that?

The gender schematic is in play here, too. Bill gets street credit for his sexual adventures. Hillary gets slammed for excusing it. Anyone who listened to the radio in 1997-99 heard DJs and radio commentators chuckling about Bill "getting some" and endless pontification about the play-by-play of his encounters with Lewinsky. People were salivating over the scandal. Meanwhile Hillary was getting called on left and right to condemn Bill, called troglodytic by feminists, and painted as the dishonest one. Excuse me? Bill was the one screwing around. Hillary's "stand by your man" stance on the matter was portrayed as tacit approval of his philandering, when in reality, it was probably the only viable choice. I believe what it shows is that Hillary was more committed to preserving Bill's presidency than making a point. Harshly dragging the private details of their marriage into the public light was a mean and intentional ploy by Clinton haters. Hillary has been fairly candid that it was a difficult decision, but it was hers to make. I find it hard to believe that love, or at least an intense respect for each other, was not a determining factor.

Really, what if Hillary actually loves Bill? Is that so hard to believe? I think that the Clinton marriage and how it played out in the Clinton administration drew a sharp contrast to traditional views on both marriage and the presidency. Hillary challenged the traditional role of First Lady. She was a symbol of a strong woman in a strong partnership. What politician would openly say they expected their wife to confine herself to arranging flowers, staying home, and entertaining guests? And yet, that is the model we expect the premier couple in America to emulate. Hillary broke out of that model, and the world went crazy. In spite of his damaging effect on the Democratic campaign, Bill Clinton would be an asset to Hillary's presidency. The balancing act involved is that every president has been hesitant to seem like they are taking direction from another president. And Hillary is married to one of them, who would be back in the daily grind. Even now, when Hillary's image is getting smeared all over the place, people still like Bill. I can't count how many people I have heard and read saying, "I'd vote for Bill Clinton again." This is where gender comes into it, where the double standard of gender politics is playing a key role. Everyone knows Hillary had Bill's ear during his presidency, but because her schedules as First Lady show she did her job, that means she didn't do anything else? The schedules may not prove anything, but they don't disprove it, either.