It's interesting how you elect to name two presidents in an era that were democrats while conveniently omitting the republican president in between. With all his baggages, I find this quite convenient.
It's an interesting point. With Clinton, l'affaire de bj was a willful attempt to take the president's private life public as a means of congressional focus. It should be noted that until then, this was effectively off limits. It was an open secret in DC that his predecessor, Bush the 1st, kept a mistress for years and that was never discussed publicly.
In the case of Obama, the GOP noted that their top priority was to make him a 1-term president and that meant attempted sabotage of any legislation that might make him look good.
Neither man were perfect presidents, but compared to the current regime it is night and day.
The Lewinsky Affair got traction because Clinton used his position of power (literally in the Oval Office) to take advantage of a young subordinate, in a time when ‘sexual harassment’ was becoming a hot topic. Then lying about the affair made it much worse (as cover-ups often do). It was definitely used against Clinton by his opponents, but the way he abused his position, then perjured himself was truly shameful.
Clinton as a sex pest is a more recent narrative. At the time the media coverage was not about how he was abusing an intern. It was about how he was debasing the office and how Lewinsky wasn't even that hot. It was certainly not the narrative from the right that Clinton was an abuser.
I purposely avoided any comparison between Clinton and other presidents, as many have done bad things, and it is difficult to rank them all. I just wanted to address the parent comment's minimization of Clinton's wrong-doing, as evidenced by this quote: "l'affaire de bj was a willful attempt to take the president's private life public"
What Clinton did was absolutely wrong, but that was a personal affair.
In life and the law, intentions are foundational for evaluating people's actions.
The scandalizing of Clinton's behavior was only about political slander, mud slinging. Your pearl clutching is performative and partisan.
There's so much to not like about the Dems, and it's primarily in the fact that DNC leadership is corrupt and they are only interested in serving themselves and their patrons. But the party members as a whole do work on trying to do good governance. They often fail, but on the intentions front, it's not disagreable.
Counter this to the modern day GOP -- they've been coopted by the evangelicals and white nationalists, and the only thing they want to govern is demanding that their theology is the law of the land. No thank you.
I have respect for old-school conservatives who cared about limited government -- I totally agree with that concept but differ on how those limits are set.
I have no party affiliation and loath partisan politics, but with the two-party system one has to choose the least worst.
In the case of Obama, the GOP noted that their top priority was to make him a 1-term president and that meant attempted sabotage of any legislation that might make him look good.
Neither man were perfect presidents, but compared to the current regime it is night and day.