By the beginning of 1995, Bill Clinton was no longer governing the Washington he had entered two years earlier.<\/p>\n
Everything had changed.<\/p>\n
Republicans controlled the House.<\/p>\n
Republicans controlled the Senate.<\/p>\n
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.<\/p>\n
Clinton’s health-care initiative had collapsed.<\/p>\n
Democrats had suffered a historic defeat in the 1994 midterm elections.<\/p>\n
And across Washington, one enormous question hung over the White House:<\/p>\n
Could Bill Clinton recover?<\/strong><\/p>\n For another president, the answer might have depended on ideology alone.<\/p>\n For Clinton, it depended on something that had followed him throughout his political life.<\/p>\n Adaptation.<\/p>\n He had already experienced political defeat in Arkansas.<\/p>\n He had lost the governorship.<\/p>\n He had returned.<\/p>\n Now he faced a similar challenge on a national scale.<\/p>\n But there was one enormous difference.<\/p>\n This time, the entire country was watching.<\/p>\n And the confrontation that followed would shut down parts of the federal government twice, reshape Clinton’s political strategy, and help define the road to the 1996 presidential election.<\/p>\n The 104th Congress began with Republicans holding 230 House seats, compared with 204 Democrats and one independent.<\/p>\n Republicans also controlled the Senate.<\/p>\n For the first time in forty years, the Republican Party controlled both chambers of Congress.<\/p>\n That changed the balance of power immediately.<\/p>\n Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans had campaigned on the “Contract with America,” promising votes on a series of conservative proposals involving taxes, spending, regulation, government reform and other issues.<\/p>\n The message from the 1994 election seemed unmistakable:<\/p>\n Voters wanted something different.<\/p>\n But exactly what they wanted remained open to interpretation.<\/p>\n Republicans viewed their victory as a mandate for significant changes in government.<\/p>\n Clinton had to determine how much of that agenda he would accept\u2014and where he would fight.<\/p>\n The president still possessed one of the most powerful tools in Washington.<\/p>\n The veto.<\/p>\n Congress could pass legislation.<\/p>\n But unless Republicans had enough votes to override him, Clinton could refuse to sign it.<\/p>\n That meant neither side could completely control what happened next.<\/p>\n And that created the conditions for confrontation.<\/p>\n The political Clinton of 1995 did not sound exactly like the candidate of 1992.<\/p>\n The 1994 election had sent a warning.<\/p>\n Americans were frustrated with Washington.<\/p>\n Many believed government was too complicated, too expensive or too distant from ordinary people.<\/p>\n Clinton responded by emphasizing efforts to make the federal government smaller and more efficient.<\/p>\n This wasn’t entirely new.<\/p>\n Vice President Al Gore had already been leading the administration’s “reinventing government” initiative since 1993.<\/p>\n But after the Republican victory, themes of efficiency, responsibility and smaller government became even more politically important.<\/p>\n In February 1995, Clinton argued that Americans needed a government that produced results rather than simply more rules.<\/p>\n The administration continued efforts to reduce federal staffing, eliminate unnecessary regulations and modernize government operations.<\/p>\n Clinton was repositioning himself.<\/p>\n Not as a traditional big-government liberal.<\/p>\n Not as a Republican.<\/p>\n But increasingly as a Democrat attempting to occupy political territory between the two parties.<\/p>\n That strategy would eventually become closely associated with the term “triangulation.”<\/p>\n The basic political idea was simple.<\/p>\n Do not allow the debate to become:<\/p>\n Republicans versus Clinton defending everything Democrats had traditionally done.<\/p>\n Instead, sometimes offer a third position.<\/p>\n Accept parts of Republican arguments.<\/p>\n Reject others.<\/p>\n Then present a different combination.<\/p>\n It could frustrate liberals.<\/p>\n It could frustrate conservatives.<\/p>\n But politically, it could appeal to voters who didn’t feel completely represented by either side.<\/p>\n Clinton was beginning to move toward that space.<\/p>\n Then, in April 1995, politics suddenly became secondary to tragedy.<\/p>\n On April 19, 1995, a bombing destroyed much of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.<\/p>\n The attack killed 168 people, including children.<\/p>\n It was one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism in American history.<\/p>\n The country was shocked.<\/p>\n The Clinton Presidential Library preserves records and video from the president and First Lady’s visit to Oklahoma City days later, where they met officials, rescue personnel and families affected by the attack.<\/p>\n For Clinton, this was not a normal political challenge.<\/p>\n There was no legislative victory to claim.<\/p>\n No partisan argument to win.<\/p>\n The president’s responsibility was to respond to a grieving country.<\/p>\n His public role during the aftermath reminded Americans that the presidency involves something beyond policy.<\/p>\n Presidents are expected to speak for the nation during moments of collective shock.<\/p>\n They have to acknowledge grief without pretending words can erase it.<\/p>\n They have to reassure people without minimizing what happened.<\/p>\n And they have to help a country understand how to move forward.<\/p>\n The Oklahoma City bombing temporarily cut through Washington’s daily partisan conflict.<\/p>\n But the political battles did not disappear.<\/p>\n By the second half of 1995, they were becoming even more intense.<\/p>\n Republicans wanted to balance the federal budget.<\/p>\n Clinton also increasingly embraced the goal of a balanced budget.<\/p>\n But agreement on the destination did not mean agreement on the route.<\/p>\n How quickly should balance be achieved?<\/p>\n How much should domestic programs be reduced?<\/p>\n What assumptions should be used about future economic growth?<\/p>\n What should happen to Medicare?<\/p>\n Medicaid?<\/p>\n Education?<\/p>\n Environmental programs?<\/p>\n Taxes?<\/p>\n Every number represented a political choice.<\/p>\n Republicans believed the 1994 election gave them authority to pursue significant reductions in federal spending.<\/p>\n Clinton argued that some of their proposed reductions went too far or targeted priorities he wanted to protect.<\/p>\n Negotiations continued.<\/p>\n Deadlines approached.<\/p>\n Neither side backed down enough.<\/p>\n And eventually Washington reached the point everyone had been threatening.<\/p>\n Funding expired.<\/p>\n Parts of the United States federal government shut down.<\/p>\n The first shutdown lasted from November 14 through November 19, 1995.<\/p>\n Six days.<\/p>\n For Americans accustomed to thinking of the federal government as something permanent, a shutdown can sound strange.<\/p>\n The United States did not cease functioning.<\/p>\n The military did not disappear.<\/p>\n The president remained president.<\/p>\n Congress remained Congress.<\/p>\n Essential government functions continued.<\/p>\n But many federal activities were disrupted.<\/p>\n Employees considered nonessential for shutdown purposes could be furloughed.<\/p>\n Some offices and services stopped operating normally.<\/p>\n The political argument suddenly had visible consequences.<\/p>\n This wasn’t theoretical anymore.<\/p>\n And each side faced the same dangerous question:<\/p>\n Who would the public blame?<\/strong><\/p>\n Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich became the faces of the confrontation.<\/p>\n The differences between them made the conflict even more compelling politically.<\/p>\n Clinton was a Southern Democrat from Arkansas.<\/p>\n Gingrich was a Republican congressman from Georgia who had helped engineer his party’s congressional revolution.<\/p>\n Both were highly political.<\/p>\n Both understood television.<\/p>\n Both believed ideas mattered.<\/p>\n Both also understood power.<\/p>\n And neither wanted the other side to define the meaning of the 1994 election.<\/p>\n Republicans argued that voters had demanded a change in Washington’s fiscal direction.<\/p>\n Clinton argued that balancing the budget should not require accepting cuts he considered harmful.<\/p>\n Negotiations involved other major figures as well, including Senate Republican leader Bob Dole, Vice President Al Gore, Democratic congressional leaders and administration officials.<\/p>\n The Clinton Library’s archival collections contain roughly 1,805 photographs related to shutdown-era meetings involving Clinton, Gore, Dole, Gingrich and others.<\/p>\n Behind the public speeches were meetings.<\/p>\n Documents.<\/p>\n Budget tables.<\/p>\n Phone calls.<\/p>\n Offers.<\/p>\n Counteroffers.<\/p>\n And political calculations.<\/p>\n Eventually, temporary funding reopened the government.<\/p>\n The first shutdown ended on November 19.<\/p>\n But the fundamental dispute had not been solved.<\/p>\n Washington had merely bought time.<\/p>\n Less than a month later, it happened again.<\/p>\n The second shutdown began December 16.<\/p>\n This time, it would last much longer.<\/p>\n The federal government remained partially shut down through January 6, 1996.<\/p>\n Twenty-one days.<\/p>\n Christmas passed during the standoff.<\/p>\n Then New Year’s.<\/p>\n Still no complete agreement.<\/p>\n The political consequences grew.<\/p>\n Federal workers waited.<\/p>\n Government operations were disrupted.<\/p>\n Americans watched politicians blame one another.<\/p>\n Republicans blamed Clinton.<\/p>\n Clinton blamed Republicans.<\/p>\n Each side tried to explain that it was defending responsible government while the other was being unreasonable.<\/p>\n But politics does not always reward whichever side believes its spreadsheet is strongest.<\/p>\n Politics is also about perception.<\/p>\n Who appears reasonable?<\/p>\n Who appears extreme?<\/p>\n Who appears willing to negotiate?<\/p>\n Who appears responsible for disruption?<\/p>\n Those questions began shaping the larger battle.<\/p>\n When Republicans won Congress in 1994, Clinton looked politically weakened.<\/p>\n But the shutdown confrontation created an opportunity for him to redefine the argument.<\/p>\n Instead of defending every aspect of federal spending, Clinton increasingly accepted the broad idea of balancing the budget.<\/p>\n His argument focused more on how<\/em> it should be done.<\/p>\n He presented himself as willing to reduce deficits while protecting priorities such as education, Medicare and the environment.<\/p>\n That distinction mattered.<\/p>\n The president was no longer simply fighting against a Republican objective.<\/p>\n He was attempting to claim part of that objective while rejecting the Republican method.<\/p>\n This was Clinton’s political adaptation in action.<\/p>\n Republicans had changed the debate.<\/p>\n Clinton changed with it.<\/p>\n Not completely.<\/p>\n But enough.<\/p>\n And then came one of the most memorable statements of his presidency.<\/p>\n On January 23, 1996, only weeks after the second shutdown ended, Clinton delivered his State of the Union address before the Republican-controlled Congress.<\/p>\n He declared:<\/p>\n “The era of big government is over.”<\/strong><\/p>\n The line was remarkable coming from a Democratic president.<\/p>\n But Clinton did not follow it by arguing that government was unnecessary.<\/p>\n Instead, he argued for government that was smaller and more effective while still helping people meet major national challenges.<\/p>\n The Clinton Library notes that the address came just days after the three-week budget standoff and that Clinton acknowledged the importance of balancing the budget while also discussing education, crime, economic opportunity, environmental protection and government reform.<\/p>\n This was the new political landscape.<\/p>\n Clinton wasn’t surrendering the presidency to Gingrich.<\/p>\n He was trying to absorb some of the political energy that had helped Gingrich rise.<\/p>\n That approach would shape 1996.<\/p>\n And 1996 was an election year.<\/p>\n The Republican Party needed someone to challenge Clinton.<\/p>\n The eventual nominee was one of Washington’s most experienced politicians:<\/p>\n Bob Dole.<\/p>\n Dole had served for decades in Congress and was the Senate majority leader.<\/p>\n His biography was very different from Clinton’s.<\/p>\n He had served in World War II and suffered severe injuries.<\/p>\n He had built a long legislative career.<\/p>\n He had run for national office before.<\/p>\n He represented experience, discipline and an older generation of Republican leadership.<\/p>\n Clinton represented a younger generation and was already president.<\/p>\n Ross Perot also returned as a candidate, this time running under the Reform Party banner.<\/p>\n The 1996 election therefore offered Americans another three-way presidential contest.<\/p>\n But before voters made their choice, Clinton still had major legislation to confront.<\/p>\n And one issue was about to produce one of the most consequential and controversial decisions of his presidency.<\/p>\n Welfare policy had been a major political issue for years.<\/p>\n Clinton had campaigned in 1992 on changing the welfare system.<\/p>\n Republicans also strongly supported restructuring federal welfare programs.<\/p>\n But once again, agreement that reform was needed did not mean agreement on the details.<\/p>\n Congress sent Clinton welfare legislation.<\/p>\n He vetoed earlier versions.<\/p>\n Negotiations continued.<\/p>\n Then, in the summer of 1996, another version reached him.<\/p>\n The legislation was called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.<\/p>\n It fundamentally changed the federal welfare system.<\/p>\n One major change replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, shifting toward block grants to states and imposing work-related requirements and time limits.<\/p>\n Clinton signed the law on August 22, 1996.<\/p>\n Politically, it fulfilled his campaign promise to change welfare.<\/p>\n But the decision divided Democrats.<\/p>\n Some administration officials and anti-poverty advocates believed the legislation threatened vulnerable families.<\/p>\n Several senior officials resigned in protest over the law.<\/p>\n Supporters argued that the old welfare system discouraged work and created long-term dependency.<\/p>\n Critics argued that the new structure reduced the federal safety net and exposed poor families to greater hardship, particularly during economic downturns.<\/p>\n The debate over the law’s effects would continue for decades.<\/p>\n But politically, the decision revealed Clinton’s strategy clearly.<\/p>\n He was willing to sign legislation strongly associated with a Republican Congress when he believed he could accept the final compromise.<\/p>\n It was triangulation made real.<\/p>\n And the election was getting closer.<\/p>\n In April 1996, Clinton also signed the Line Item Veto Act.<\/p>\n The legislation gave the president a new mechanism for canceling certain individual spending and tax provisions after signing broader legislation.<\/p>\n Clinton supported the idea and later used the authority.<\/p>\n But the Supreme Court eventually ruled the law unconstitutional in 1998.<\/p>\n Again, Clinton’s presidency demonstrated how American government actually works.<\/p>\n Congress passes a law.<\/p>\n The president signs it.<\/p>\n The president uses it.<\/p>\n Then the courts may determine whether the law itself is constitutional.<\/p>\n Power is divided.<\/p>\n No branch always gets the final word immediately.<\/p>\n Politics wasn’t occurring in isolation.<\/p>\n By 1996, the United States economy was in an extended expansion.<\/p>\n Unemployment had declined from its early-1990s levels.<\/p>\n Inflation remained relatively restrained.<\/p>\n Technology investment was increasing.<\/p>\n Businesses connected to computers and the emerging internet were attracting greater attention.<\/p>\n The federal deficit was also shrinking substantially from earlier levels.<\/p>\n Republicans and Democrats disagreed over who deserved credit.<\/p>\n Clinton pointed to his 1993 economic program and deficit reduction.<\/p>\n Republicans argued that congressional pressure for spending restraint and broader market forces mattered.<\/p>\n Economists could debate the relative contributions of fiscal policy, monetary policy, productivity, private-sector investment and the normal business cycle.<\/p>\n But politically, the most important fact was simpler:<\/p>\n Clinton entered the 1996 election in a much stronger environment than the one that had helped defeat George H. W. Bush four years earlier.<\/p>\n The economy had been a vulnerability for the incumbent party in 1992.<\/p>\n By 1996, Clinton could point to economic improvement as part of his case for reelection.<\/p>\n In 1992, Clinton had run as the candidate of change.<\/p>\n In 1996, he was the incumbent.<\/p>\n That required a different message.<\/p>\n His campaign talked about building a “bridge to the 21st century.”<\/p>\n The phrase fit the moment.<\/p>\n The millennium was approaching.<\/p>\n The internet was expanding.<\/p>\n Technology was changing workplaces.<\/p>\n Global trade was reshaping business.<\/p>\n The Cold War had ended.<\/p>\n America was trying to understand what its role would be in a new era.<\/p>\n Clinton’s campaign argued that the country should prepare for that future through education, economic opportunity and targeted government action.<\/p>\n Dole and Republicans offered their own vision, emphasizing tax reductions, limited government and conservative priorities.<\/p>\n Voters had a genuine ideological choice.<\/p>\n But presidential elections are never only about policy.<\/p>\n They are also about personality.<\/p>\n Age.<\/p>\n Communication.<\/p>\n Leadership.<\/p>\n Trust.<\/p>\n And the question every incumbent must answer:<\/p>\n Are Americans better off giving this president another four years?<\/strong><\/p>\n Clinton turned fifty in August 1996.<\/p>\n Bob Dole was seventy-three.<\/p>\n The age difference became part of the campaign’s public image.<\/p>\n Dole’s long experience could be presented as strength.<\/p>\n But Clinton’s campaign emphasized energy and the future.<\/p>\n One of the memorable moments came during an October presidential debate when Dole joked that he did not make Clinton’s youth and inexperience an issue.<\/p>\n Clinton responded that he could only admire the wisdom of Dole’s age.<\/p>\n The exchange drew laughter.<\/p>\n Neither man needed to explain the underlying contrast.<\/p>\n America could see it.<\/p>\n The contest was partly between generations.<\/p>\n While Clinton campaigned for reelection, investigations connected to Whitewater continued.<\/p>\n The investigation had expanded under independent counsel Kenneth Starr.<\/p>\n Questions involving the Clintons’ Arkansas years, financial dealings and associated individuals remained active.<\/p>\n Most Americans watching campaign advertisements in 1996 could not know where those investigations would eventually lead.<\/p>\n Neither could many people inside Washington.<\/p>\n Because the investigation that began with complicated questions about Arkansas financial transactions would eventually intersect with a completely different matter.<\/p>\n A civil lawsuit.<\/p>\n A deposition.<\/p>\n A young White House intern.<\/p>\n And allegations about the president’s personal conduct.<\/p>\n But none of that had yet exploded into the national crisis it would become.<\/p>\n In 1996, Clinton’s immediate goal was reelection.<\/p>\n And on November 5, Americans voted.<\/p>\n Bill Clinton won a second term.<\/p>\n He defeated Bob Dole and Ross Perot.<\/p>\n Clinton received 379 electoral votes.<\/p>\n Four years earlier, he had won 370.<\/p>\n Now he had improved his Electoral College total.<\/p>\n The political transformation was striking.<\/p>\n Think back only two years.<\/p>\n November 1994:<\/p>\n Democrats lose Congress.<\/p>\n Health reform dead.<\/p>\n Republicans triumphant.<\/p>\n Questions about whether Clinton’s presidency had lost its direction.<\/p>\n Then:<\/p>\n Budget confrontation.<\/p>\n Government shutdowns.<\/p>\n Political repositioning.<\/p>\n Welfare reform.<\/p>\n Economic improvement.<\/p>\n A new campaign message.<\/p>\n November 1996:<\/p>\n Clinton reelected.<\/p>\n Once again, the comeback pattern had appeared.<\/p>\n But there was an important complication.<\/p>\n Republicans retained control of Congress.<\/p>\n Clinton had won another four years.<\/p>\n He had not restored Democratic dominance in Washington.<\/p>\n The divided government of the mid-1990s would continue.<\/p>\n And that meant compromise\u2014or confrontation\u2014would remain necessary.<\/p>\n For Clinton, reelection meant something personally significant.<\/p>\n Only sixteen men before him had been elected to two full presidential terms.<\/p>\n And for Democrats, the result carried another historical importance.<\/p>\n Clinton became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win reelection to a second full term.<\/p>\n The boy from Hope had not merely reached the White House.<\/p>\n He had convinced Americans to keep him there.<\/p>\n Yet reelection can create a strange moment for a president.<\/p>\n The first term is often dominated by the question:<\/p>\n Can I win again?<\/p>\n Once the second term begins, that question disappears.<\/p>\n The Constitution prevents another presidential campaign.<\/p>\n There will be no third term.<\/p>\n Suddenly, time becomes finite.<\/p>\n Legacy becomes more important.<\/p>\n What will history remember?<\/p>\n What unfinished goals can still be achieved?<\/p>\n What international agreements can be reached?<\/p>\n What domestic problems remain?<\/p>\n How should the economy be managed?<\/p>\n How should the United States use its power overseas?<\/p>\n And eventually:<\/p>\n Who comes next?<\/p>\n For Clinton, those questions would become increasingly important.<\/p>\n But the second term would not unfold the way anyone expected.<\/p>\n Political adaptation helped Clinton survive.<\/p>\n But it also created tensions inside his own coalition.<\/p>\n Some Democrats believed he had moved too far toward Republican positions.<\/p>\n Welfare reform was the clearest example.<\/p>\n Labor groups remained unhappy about trade policy.<\/p>\n Civil-liberties advocates criticized aspects of crime legislation.<\/p>\n Other Democrats believed Clinton’s centrist strategy was precisely why he had survived the Republican wave.<\/p>\n This debate became part of Clinton’s political legacy.<\/p>\n Was he modernizing the Democratic Party for a changing electorate?<\/p>\n Or conceding too much to conservative ideas?<\/p>\n Different Democrats answered differently.<\/p>\n Republicans had their own disagreement.<\/p>\n Some believed Clinton had effectively adopted parts of their agenda and then claimed political credit.<\/p>\n Others believed he remained fundamentally committed to policies they opposed.<\/p>\n Again, the same president could look completely different depending on where someone stood politically.<\/p>\n That complexity would only grow during his second term.<\/p>\n The 1995\u201396 shutdown battle also left lessons behind.<\/p>\n For Republicans, controlling Congress did not mean controlling Washington.<\/p>\n The president still mattered.<\/p>\n For Clinton, losing Congress did not mean losing political relevance.<\/p>\n The presidency still had enormous institutional and communication power.<\/p>\n For both sides, public opinion became an essential battlefield.<\/p>\n Future budget confrontations would be shaped partly by memories of what had happened.<\/p>\n But there was another consequence.<\/p>\n Clinton and congressional Republicans had discovered something surprising.<\/p>\n They could fight intensely…<\/p>\n and still sometimes make deals.<\/p>\n That would become increasingly important.<\/p>\n Because despite their hostility, divided government would soon produce major legislation.<\/p>\n And eventually, something even more surprising:<\/p>\n a federal budget surplus.<\/p>\n On January 20, 1997, Bill Clinton took the oath of office again.<\/p>\n Four years had passed since his first inauguration.<\/p>\n But politically, it could have been a different lifetime.<\/p>\n In 1993, Clinton arrived with Democratic control of Congress and enormous domestic ambitions.<\/p>\n In 1997, he began his second term facing a Republican Congress and carrying the lessons of four years of political warfare.<\/p>\n He was more experienced.<\/p>\n More cautious in some ways.<\/p>\n More confident in others.<\/p>\n His political survival was no longer in immediate doubt.<\/p>\n The economy was expanding.<\/p>\n The Cold War was over.<\/p>\n Technology was booming.<\/p>\n The United States appeared powerful internationally.<\/p>\n From the outside, the second Clinton term could have looked positioned for relative stability.<\/p>\n It would not be.<\/p>\n The second term initially produced important developments.<\/p>\n In 1997, Clinton and congressional Republicans reached a balanced-budget agreement.<\/p>\n That same year, Congress created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, commonly known as CHIP, to expand health coverage for children in families whose incomes were too high for traditional Medicaid eligibility but who still struggled to afford private insurance.<\/p>\n The comprehensive health-care revolution of 1993 had failed.<\/p>\n But smaller health-policy changes were still possible.<\/p>\n This became another feature of Clinton’s approach after 1994.<\/p>\n When the enormous reform couldn’t pass, pursue narrower reforms that could.<\/p>\n Politics had taught the administration to think differently about scale.<\/p>\n Something remarkable happened to the federal budget.<\/p>\n The large deficits that had dominated Washington debates earlier in the decade continued shrinking.<\/p>\n Then, in fiscal year 1998, the federal government recorded a budget surplus.<\/p>\n More surpluses followed through the end of Clinton’s presidency.<\/p>\n The causes were debated.<\/p>\n The 1993 deficit-reduction legislation mattered.<\/p>\n Spending restraint mattered.<\/p>\n The strong economy mattered.<\/p>\n Rising incomes and capital gains increased federal revenue.<\/p>\n The technology boom mattered.<\/p>\n Political cooperation and conflict both played roles.<\/p>\n No single person could credibly claim responsibility for every economic force involved.<\/p>\n But politically, the transformation was extraordinary.<\/p>\n Only a few years earlier, Clinton and Gingrich had been shutting down parts of the government while fighting over how to eliminate deficits.<\/p>\n Now Washington was beginning to argue about what to do with surpluses.<\/p>\n Should the money reduce national debt?<\/p>\n Strengthen Social Security?<\/p>\n Cut taxes?<\/p>\n Expand programs?<\/p>\n The fiscal debate had changed.<\/p>\n And Clinton’s legacy appeared to be moving in a much more favorable direction.<\/p>\n Then came January 1998.<\/p>\n The second term was supposed to be about legacy.<\/p>\n The economy.<\/p>\n Peace negotiations.<\/p>\n Social Security.<\/p>\n Education.<\/p>\n Technology.<\/p>\n Preparing America for the new millennium.<\/p>\n Instead, one of the most consuming political stories in modern presidential history erupted.<\/p>\n A relationship involving President Clinton and a former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky became public.<\/p>\n Questions quickly emerged about what Clinton had said under oath in a separate civil case.<\/p>\n Independent counsel Kenneth Starr became involved.<\/p>\n The investigation intensified.<\/p>\n Television coverage became relentless.<\/p>\n Washington became consumed by questions about sex, truthfulness, presidential conduct, legal definitions and constitutional accountability.<\/p>\n Clinton publicly denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.<\/p>\n Months later, he acknowledged an inappropriate relationship.<\/p>\n By then, the controversy had moved far beyond private behavior.<\/p>\n The central constitutional question became whether the president had committed offenses serious enough to justify impeachment.<\/p>\n The same Bill Clinton who had survived losing the governorship…<\/p>\n survived the 1994 Republican Revolution…<\/p>\n survived the shutdown…<\/p>\n and won reelection…<\/p>\n was about to face the most dangerous political and legal crisis of his career.<\/p>\n This time, winning an election would not save him.<\/p>\n The voters had already given him a second term.<\/p>\n The question was whether Congress would allow him to finish it.<\/p>\n This is where Bill Clinton’s story becomes especially difficult to reduce to a simple narrative.<\/p>\n At the same time the American economy was performing strongly, the president was entering an extraordinary personal and constitutional crisis.<\/p>\n At the same time federal finances were improving, Washington politics were becoming consumed by scandal.<\/p>\n At the same time Clinton was working on international diplomacy, investigators and lawyers were examining his testimony and personal conduct.<\/p>\n Two completely different presidencies seemed to exist simultaneously.<\/p>\n One involved budgets, jobs, technology and foreign policy.<\/p>\n The other involved depositions, subpoenas, grand juries and eventually impeachment.<\/p>\n That contradiction is essential to understanding the late 1990s.<\/p>\n Because Clinton did not simply stop being president while the scandal unfolded.<\/p>\n He continued governing.<\/p>\n The economy continued operating.<\/p>\n International crises continued happening.<\/p>\n Congress continued legislating.<\/p>\n American families continued living ordinary lives.<\/p>\n But over everything hung the question:<\/p>\n Could a president continue effectively governing while facing impeachment?<\/strong><\/p>\n America was about to find out.<\/p>\n Looking back, the period between the 1994 midterms and Clinton’s 1996 reelection can seem like preparation for what followed.<\/p>\n Clinton learned how to survive political defeat.<\/p>\n He learned how to govern with an opposition Congress.<\/p>\n He learned how to reposition himself.<\/p>\n He learned when to veto.<\/p>\n When to negotiate.<\/p>\n When to compromise.<\/p>\n When to adopt part of an opponent’s argument.<\/p>\n And when to take his case directly to the public.<\/p>\n Those skills helped produce one of the most dramatic political recoveries of his generation.<\/p>\n But political skill has limits.<\/p>\n The crisis that began in 1998 wasn’t primarily created by disagreement over taxes or spending.<\/p>\n It grew from Clinton’s own conduct and what he subsequently said about it.<\/p>\n And that changed the nature of the fight completely.<\/p>\n Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans were still part of the story.<\/p>\n Kenneth Starr would become part of it.<\/p>\n Hillary Clinton would become part of it.<\/p>\n Monica Lewinsky would become part of it.<\/p>\n Lawyers would become part of it.<\/p>\n A grand jury would become part of it.<\/p>\n Eventually, every member of the House and Senate would be forced to confront a constitutional question few lawmakers ever expected to face personally.<\/p>\n Should the president of the United States be removed from office?<\/p>\n In January 1995, Bill Clinton looked politically wounded.<\/p>\n By January 1997, he had been reelected.<\/p>\n The comeback was real.<\/p>\n But history wasn’t finished with him.<\/p>\n In fact, the chapter most Americans would remember most vividly was only beginning.<\/p>\n For the first time since Andrew Johnson in 1868, the House of Representatives would eventually impeach an elected president.<\/p>\n The country would divide bitterly over whether Clinton’s conduct justified removal.<\/p>\n His approval ratings and public attitudes toward impeachment would create a complicated political picture.<\/p>\n Republicans would face political consequences of their own.<\/p>\n And when everything was finally over, Bill Clinton would remain president.<\/p>\n But getting from January 1997 to that moment would require one of the most extraordinary political battles in modern American history.<\/p>\n And it began not with a government shutdown.<\/p>\n Not with an election.<\/p>\n Not with a speech.<\/p>\n But with a legal case that initially seemed separate from the central business of the presidency.<\/p>\n A case involving Paula Jones.<\/p>\n A deposition.<\/p>\n Questions asked under oath.<\/p>\n And eventually, a name that would become known around the world:<\/p>\n Monica Lewinsky.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\nJANUARY 1995: A NEW WASHINGTON<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nCLINTON BEGAN TO CHANGE HIS MESSAGE<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nAPRIL 19, 1995<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE BUDGET BECAME THE BATTLEFIELD<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nNOVEMBER 14, 1995<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nCLINTON VERSUS GINGRICH<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nDECEMBER 16, 1995<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE SHUTDOWN DIDN’T DESTROY CLINTON<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\n“THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER”<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nBOB DOLE<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nWELFARE REFORM<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nANOTHER PIECE OF THE POLITICAL PUZZLE<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE ECONOMY WAS BECOMING AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE STORY<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nCLINTON’S MESSAGE CHANGED TOO<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE AGE CONTRAST WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO MISS<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nBUT ANOTHER STORY WAS DEVELOPING QUIETLY<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nELECTION NIGHT 1996<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE NIGHT OF VICTORY<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE COMEBACK HAD A PRICE<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE SHUTDOWN HAD CHANGED BOTH SIDES<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE SECOND INAUGURATION<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nFIRST CAME POLICY<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHEN THE NUMBERS BEGAN TO CHANGE<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nONE STORY CHANGED EVERYTHING<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE STRANGE CONTRADICTION OF THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nBEFORE THE STORM<\/h1>\n
\n<\/div>\nTHE COMEBACK WAS COMPLETE\u2014BUT THE BIGGEST CRISIS WAS STILL AHEAD<\/h1>\n