Editing Clinton–Lewinsky scandal (section)

===Effect on 2000 presidential election===

The scandal arguably affected the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 U.S. presidential election]] in two quite different ways. [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] candidate and sitting vice president [[Al Gore]] said that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, and had the effect of reducing Democratic votes. Clinton said the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in [[United States presidential election in Arkansas, 2000|Arkansas]] and [[United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2000|New Hampshire]], either state would have delivered Gore's needed [[electoral votes]] regardless of the effects of the [[2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida|Florida recount controversy]].<ref>{{cite news| title= Bill Clinton on Lewinsky Affair: 'I Cracked' | first= Brian |last= Montopoli| work=Political Hotsheet |publisher= CBS News |date= September 21, 2009 |url= http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5327644.shtml |access-date= September 21, 2009}}</ref>

Political analysts have supported both views. Before and after the 2000 election, John Cochran of [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] connected the Lewinsky scandal with a voter phenomenon he called "Clinton fatigue".<ref>{{cite book |title=Missed opportunity: Gore, incumbency and television in election 2000 |first=Edwin D. |last=Dover |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-275-97638-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/missedopportunit00eddo/page/130 130] |quote=John Cochran on ABC described this phenomenon as "Clinton fatigue." He said voters were happy with the policy agenda and direction of the country but were tired of Clinton and wanted to forget him. Casting their votes for Bush and not for Clinton's surrogate, Gore, was one way to bring about this preferred change, Cochran concluded. |url=https://archive.org/details/missedopportunit00eddo/page/130 }}</ref> Polling showed that the scandal continued to affect Clinton's low ''personal approval'' ratings through the election,<ref>{{cite book| title= The 2000 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective | series= Volume 2000, Part 3 |first= Robert E. Jr. |last= Denton |publisher= Greenwood Publishing Group |year= 2002 |isbn= 978-0-275-97107-6| pages=92, 98 }}</ref> and analysts such as [[Vanderbilt University]]'s John G. Geer later concluded "Clinton fatigue or a kind of moral retrospective voting had a significant impact on Gore's chances".<ref>{{cite book| title= Public opinion and polling around the world: a historical encyclopedia| volume= 1 |first=John Gray |last= Geer |publisher= ABC-CLIO |year= 2004 |isbn= 978-1-57607-911-9 | page= 138}}</ref> Other analysts sided with Clinton's argument, and argued that Gore's refusal to have Clinton campaign with him damaged his appeal.<ref>{{cite journal| url= http://www.greens.org/s-r/25/25-03.html | journal= [[Synthesis/Regeneration]] |number= 25 |date=Summer 2001 | title= Gore's Defeat: Don't Blame Nader | first= Manning| last= Marable |access-date= May 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.slate.com/id/1006450/ |title= Why Gore (Probably) Lost |first= Jacob |last= Weisberg |work= Slate |date= November 8, 2000 | access-date= May 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2001-4-page-10.htm Beyond the Recounts: Trends in the 2000 US Presidential Election], Cairn.info</ref>