Remember when the Clinton administration was bogged down in scandal? And how Clinton's sexcapades were "personal" scandals? And how Republicans were only trying to make a public issue out of them for political reasons?
Sure. We all remember those arguments from the left -- they're still used to this day.
That's why I was intrigued when I came across this headline over at The Atlantic today contrasting Obama's current schedule of scandals with Clinton's rapsheet:
Garance Franke-Ruta argues:
The main difference is this: In contrast to the highly personal nature of the Clinton scandals, none of the so-called Obama scandals involve direct actions by the president or his wife, let alone their romantic or financial dealings before or during their time in office. Instead, the controversies swirling around the administration all involve the conduct of individuals within the federal government overseen by Obama as the head of the executive branch.
So, if I am to understand this argument correctly, Clinton's "non-scandals" were actually more scandalous because they directly implicated him and his wife (and an intern or two). But Obama's scandals are less scandalous because they merely involve the constitutional rights of American citizens, compromised national security and incompetent executive leadership?
Uh-huh. Whatever helps you sleep at night, kids.