Replies

" Nah, don’t take the bait. Notice that it is mostly liberals who float around this issue? I don’t think impeaching him would do any good for us. It’ll just make him a martyr; look at how it worked for Clinton. We need to reverse his policies and take away his ability to make new dangerous policies by de-fund. Another way perhaps to push for stronger BC requirements. "

BS.... it didn't help the Democrats or Clinton at all, there was a Republican President who won in 2000...
The Republicans only lost 2 seats in the House in 2000, and the Democrats only gained 1 seat in the House....
The reason why Republicans in Congress didn't do well in 2000 had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's impeachment, besides, Bill Clinton could not run again in 2000 anyway, so ? how could that have helped Bill Clinton ? ...
The Democrats didn't win the Presidency until 8 years later, 2008... and the Democrats didn't take back Congress until 2006, where as ? the Republicans themselves where to blame for the lose, not Bill Clinton's impeachment.

The difference was because Clinton could not run again, while 0bama still can, and it might help him.

The Clinton impeachment processes started in early 1998 with Ken Starr's investigations. The official recommendation by the House Judiciary Committee was voted on early October, and the full . In November, instead of winning additional seats like many people projected earlier, the Republican lost 5 seats in the House, and didn't gain anything in the Senate. The first time in many decades a party not in the WH failed to gain in the House. Probably learning from the election results, in early 1999 the Senate acquitted Clinton, with 10 Republican Senators voted for 'no'.

By 2000, people wanted to forget about the impeachment process. Gore was, well, Gore. Mr. Stiffed and know-it-all. In the Senate, the Democrats picked up 4 seats, and as you have mentioned, the Republicans lost 2 seats in the House despite winning the highest ticket.