Looking back over the post WW2 years, I have noticed a qualitative difference between Republican and Democratic Presidential scandals: In almost every case, Republican scandals involved ideological motives, whereas most Democratic scandals involved personal or political gain.
For example, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal involved trying to assist the Nicaraguan Contras rather than the President himself. Nixon's Watergate scandal was the worst, although his impeachment offenses seem almost laughable by today"s standards. (The back story on the break in itself was to search for alleged campaign contributions from Cuba.) Obstruction of Justice is now the norm at the Attorney General's office.
By contrast, almost every Democratic scandal involved personal or political gain for the President himself: JFK's vote fraud, Clinton's foreign campaign contributions, cattle commodities payola and pay-for-pardon, and Obama's IRS manipulations and Benghazi coverup prior to his reelection.
Given her involvement in many of these (and her own) scandals, should I be astonished that Hillary Clinton is still considered a viable Presidential candidate?
For example, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal involved trying to assist the Nicaraguan Contras rather than the President himself. Nixon's Watergate scandal was the worst, although his impeachment offenses seem almost laughable by today"s standards. (The back story on the break in itself was to search for alleged campaign contributions from Cuba.) Obstruction of Justice is now the norm at the Attorney General's office.
By contrast, almost every Democratic scandal involved personal or political gain for the President himself: JFK's vote fraud, Clinton's foreign campaign contributions, cattle commodities payola and pay-for-pardon, and Obama's IRS manipulations and Benghazi coverup prior to his reelection.
Given her involvement in many of these (and her own) scandals, should I be astonished that Hillary Clinton is still considered a viable Presidential candidate?
