Well, we know the reasoning of the liberals for spin.
But the rest? They still live under the notion Clinton is a shrewd politician because they couldn't beat him 1992-2000.
He's not.
He doesn't have the self restraint to exercise the precise precision even some conservatives would like to attribute to him. If he did, Monica would have never happened.
Clinton has no self control, little restraint, and the only reason it hasn't been more apparent is that the MSM covers for him in the bulk of his interviews. It's time people accepted that. The reason conservatives couldn't defeat him was because a) the MSM had the advantage and b) we had lousy candidates and an angry or apathetic base. It's that simple. A candidate with Clinton's advantages couldn't score a majority of the vote. That doesn't validate the myth that surrounds him.
Ross Perot didn't help matters, either.
But he has succeeded in the political world to levels most can only dream about--by his uncanny ability to lie, and get away with it (the Jennifer Flowers question on '60 Minutes' with millions of people watching, using his police officers as 'pimps' for years with no repercussions, 'flashing' Paula Jones, 'groping' Kathleen Willey, probably 'raping' Juanita Broadrickk, abusing a superior/subordinate relationship with a low-level, fat, star-struck, flunkie, the age of his daughter).
His entire life, he has for the most past--just done 'whatever the heck he pleased'--and never been taken to task or never had to account for it.
Heck, not only does his wife 'look the other way, she even defends his conduct as 'sins of weakness, not of malice'. And people call her a strong woman? I wish my wife was that strong! Unfortunately my wife is NOT that strong...lol