Democrats were less willing to abandon Bill. You still hear “all he did was get a blow job” from folks. But Clinton did likely cost Gore a decisive victory...which allowed W to weasel in. I’m not certain why Dems continue to fawn over Clinton who was in many ways a DINO whose Blue Dog ways are way less appealing in hindsight.
Bill Clinton is interesting to me, partly because of the changes in my political philosophy that occurred over his tenure. When he was running (and we had Perot on the radio all the time with his charts I never could really understand) and Mr. Thousand Points of Light, I was still an independent voter who lined up best with moderate (think Western WA) republicans, with some Libertarian tendencies, particularly on the social side, and allowing for strong, steady international policy and defense, so not really Libertarian. (not really the full picture, I was truly independent, but that was the best I can describe it. I had a hard time finding candidates I liked.) Bill seemed slick to me. And as I son of a Navy man, Bush didn't seem so bad, with his previous military background. One thing that bugged me over Clinton's tenure was Ms. Clinton's advocacy and causes. I kept thinking and saying that no one voted for her, and that if first spouses were also policy making officials, then they should be vetted in the same way the candidates are themselves. This can look pretty sexist, I know. But my defense is that I was looking at it from the fact that in the debates and other information available to voters, information was not presented about the first spouse, and that Bill should at least have to make her a Cabinet member with that vetting if she was going to be helping to make policy. At the time, I was still brainwashed by my surgeon grandfather that any sort of "socialized" medicine was horrible for the country and would bring on armaggedon in health care. Also, I had just come out of being an econ major in the 80's.
But over the course of the 90's, after having clerked at appellate courts and having had my first real jobs in a town that had 5 superfund sites and a lot of homeless and addicted, and the devastation of the forests and salmon runs in Western WA under Reagan and Watts, I moved away from my previous free market tendencies in many areas and saw a lot of good stuff Clinton was doing. I had switched horses and voted for him over Dole in '96.
SO, when the whole Lewinsky thing came up, I did not care that much that he had gotten a blow job at the white house (my views regarding people in power and what is appropriate in terms of sexual advances, whether or not you might have an open marriage have changed this, especially now in recent months. If one has power in the workplace, you gotta keep your pants zipped and not make any advances on anyone subordinate). Though I did think Bush (the first) had better character in that regard by comparison. But I was pissed that when he was starting to get some headway and some things done, particularly regarding health care, he squandered his power, effectiveness and the trust of those who had voted for him. I was disgusted by the rise of talk radio and those that turned the whole government into an impeachment process over sophomoric, sexist, frat boy behavior rather than deal with real issues. At that point, the environment was becoming a much bigger concern for me, and the rise of the religious right had poisoned the well of my childhood (through my parents) political affiliations. Yet, here was Bill, making a mess by not being able to keep his pants zipped. He had become, along with Ms. Clinton's help which I had accepted by that time, effective. Yet he then blew it.
so yeah. I didn't completely abandon him. But I was pissed at him.
