A retrospective spotlight is being shone on former President Bill Clinton as allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior dominate the political landscape.
Democrats for the most part stood by Clinton in the wake of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s. Clinton over the years has also been the subject of several allegations of sexual assault, including rape — all of which he denies.
But these days, some Democrats are willing to take a less forgiving look at Clinton.
“When you are talking about Bill Clinton, looking at the allegations against him, some of them are credible,” said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky.
Roginsky acknowledged that, at the time, she focused on the fact that the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship was consensual. Now, she said, she is struck by how “there is a very strong power dynamic that is very out of whack.”
Other Democrats have come out even more vigorously against Clinton, most notably Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who is seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2020.
Gillibrand said last month that Clinton should have resigned the presidency over the Lewinsky affair, telling The New York Times that doing so would have been “the appropriate response.”
That drew a furious riposte from Philippe Reines, a Hillary Clinton confidant and former aide. On Twitter, Reines called Gillibrand a “hypocrite” for having accepted the Clintons’ “endorsements, money and seat.”
The row between the two camps has rumbled on, including on cable news.
Gillibrand called Reines “ridiculous” in an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt. Reines, appearing on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” this week, complained that Gillibrand hadn’t adequately explained why she did not speak out until now.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Gillibrand-Reines spat, other progressive figures have suggested the party needs to reexamine Clinton’s behavior.
Last month, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted that “as gross and cynical and hypocritical as the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is, it’s also true that Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”
That tweet captured the ambivalence that many Democrats appear to feel about delving back into Clinton’s past.
They note that Clinton has not held office for almost two decades, and that the Lewinsky matter was explored exhaustively at the time by independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
To most Democrats, Republicans and conservative outrage about Clinton has a confected quality, aimed to score partisan advantage and muddy the waters around allegations of sexual assault against President Trump, as well as other Republicans, including Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.
More than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual wrongdoing, while Moore is accused of molesting a 14-year-old and assaulting a 16-year-old.
“In the here and now, there is a Democratic Party that will not tolerate sexual harassers,” Roginsky said. “And on the other hand, you have Republicans who have certainly not said anything about the president of the United States being caught on tape saying awful and vile things … or about a man credibly accused of predatory behavior toward young teenage girls.”
Other Democrats were perplexed about what Clinton’s critics had in mind in concrete terms when they suggested a new reckoning.
Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign who spoke to The Hill in a personal capacity, suggested Clinton’s actions would be looked at afresh, but “as history.”
“The standards are changing for the good and they are changing very quickly,” Devine said. “I think people are going to look back on President Clinton and the events that led to his impeachment. But I don’t think they are going to force him to — I don’t know — leave the Democratic Party? I don’t even know what the remedy would be.”
Joe Trippi, who was the campaign manager for former Vermont Democratic Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, drew a parallel between how the atmosphere around sexual harassment is shifting now and how media coverage of politicians’ personal lives shifted when Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart’s extramarital affair with Donna Rice was uncovered in 1987.
“The day Gary Hart got caught with Donna Rice, there was a big sea-change in the way candidates’ private lives were covered — a defining moment, much as we’re seeing a defining moment right now,” Trippi said. “But the impact of that wasn’t that we went back and looked at JFK,” whose many reported affairs only became public knowledge years after his death.
The question of Clinton’s past conduct cannot be separated from the hyperpartisan politics of the moment.
One of last year’s presidential debates came just as Trump’s campaign against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton faced its biggest crisis — the release of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape in which he was heard boasting about grabbing women by the genitals.
At the time, many observers thought Trump’s campaign was doomed. But, seeking to blunt the impact of the tape, his campaign brought several of the women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual wrongdoing to the debate for a press conference.
Those kinds of tactics have left many Democrats raw about any mention of Bill Clinton’s past — and, relatedly, about what they see as Hillary Clinton being unfairly held responsible for the misdeeds of her husband.
That dynamic, in turn, has left some Democrats clearly unimpressed by Gillibrand’s recent comments about the former president.
One party strategist who asked for anonymity to talk candidly said that there were questions around whether Gillibrand was criticizing Bill Clinton “sincerely” or out of a desire to advance her own political ambitions.
“If the Democratic Party wants to relitigate Bill Clinton, we should do it honestly and openly,” this strategist said — “and then any Democrat who has ever taken money from Bill Clinton should return it.”
More broadly, there is an acknowledgment from many observers that the political and social climate is in a state of flux — and, right now, that it is difficult to precisely predict the consequences.
“With the passage of time, mores have changed, attitudes have changed,” said Roginsky. “Women who were previously not believed are now believed. … I’m telling you right now that the events of the last year, or year-and-a-half, have profoundly changed how people view these things.”
The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage, primarily focused on Donald Trump’s presidency.