Initially, Clinton denied the allegations presented before him regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, later stating that he wanted to protect his wife, Hilary, and daughter, Chelsea. It was likely he admitted zero wrongdoing at an attempt to save face, thus protecting his image and legacy. Although he was nearing the end of his second term as president, protecting his image would have been of benefit to the Democratic Party, as well as assisting with getting more of his public policies through the House. After the Supreme Court hearing, Clinton did come clean and was honest regarding his ongoing relationship with Lewinsky; unfortunately, it was too late and the damage had been done. In the past, when political leaders had faced similar or worse allegations, those who admitted the lapse in judgment or err in their ways from the beginning, were typically forgiven and did not suffer the long-term effects of their poor choices.
Had Clinton admitted his affair, when he was initially questioned, the likelihood of his impeachment and other negative long-term would have been relatively low. Clinton later did admit the truth and apologize, but this was after there was ample enough
…show more content…
Researchers McCombs and Shaw developed the agenda setting theory in 1971, after studying the Presidential Election of 1968, after their analysis showed that voters in Chapel Hill, NC held very similar views to the news and media coverage during that time. The same can be said during the OJ Simpson trial, Casey Anthony trial in 2008, and the attempted impeachment of President Bill