I was just having thoughts in the shower about the 2016 US presidential election. Donald Trump is in the election and Bill Clinton, while he isn't in the election himself, plays a key role in the Clinton campaign.

Both of them have become the centre of controversy, but have taken two different approaches.

Bill Clinton's approach towards the Lewinsky scandal is to whitewash with his philanthropy, Hillary Clinton and the fact he was an American president. This can be described in the reversal of Law 5: So much depends on reputation.

Perhaps you have already stained your reputation, so that you are prevented from establishing a new one. In such cases it is wise to associate with someone whose image counteracts your own, using their good name to whitewash and elevate yours. It is hard, for example, to erase a reputation for dishonesty by yourself; but a paragon of honesty can help. When P. T. Barnum wanted to clean up a reputation for promoting vulgar entertainment, he brought the singer Jenny Lind over from Europe. She had a stellar, high-class reputation, and the American tour Barnum sponsored for her greatly enhanced his own image. Similarly the great robber barons of nineteenth-century America were long unable to rid themselves of a reputation for cruelty and mean-spirit. Only when they began collecting art, so that the names of Morgan and Frick became permanently associated with those of da Vinci and Rembrandt, were they able to soften their unpleasant image.

He whitewashed the Lewinsky scandal with the Clinton campaign and the fact he was the president of the United States. He remains revered today.

Donald Trump's approach to his countless harsh phrases is to own it. This can be found in Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions.

No smoke screen, red herring, false sincerity, or any other diversionary device will succeed in concealing your intentions if you already have an established reputation for deception. And as you get older and achieve success, it often becomes increasingly difficult to disguise your cunning. Everyone knows you practice deception; persist in playing naive and you run the risk of seeming the rankest hypocrite, which will severely limit your room for manoeuvre. In such cases, it is better to own up, to appear the honest rogue, or better, the repentant rogue. Not only will you be admired for your frankness, but, most wonderful and strange of all, you will be able to continue your stratagems.

Essentially, Bill Clinton whitewashes his shortcomings and Donald Trump owns them.

Why the difference?

Their political parties. Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others.

Bill Clinton is a Democrat. The Democrat view on women's issues is that they're a disadvantaged group, so it would be an unwise move to own the fact he cheats on and seduces women. This would only disadvantage him. On the other hand, the Republican view on women's issues is that women and men have equal opportunities and that feminists are irritating, so if Bill Clinton was a Republican it would be more advantageous to own it and anger the Republican's rivals.

Trump, on the other hand, is running for Republican. He is calling out all the people Republicans hate, so he owns it and Republicans love it. He is admired for his frankness.

This helps him stand out from the other Republicans who bow down to the media, and this puts him at a voting advantage. (Law 6: Court Attention at all Costs)

Just some thoughts I had in the shower. I welcome further thoughts or criticism.

TL;DR: Trump owns his harsh phrases because he bags on people Republicans hate, and it makes them love his honesty.

Bill Clinton whitewashes the fact he is a mass seducer and cheater with his the fact he was American president, philanthropy, and Hillary Clinton because Democrats are all about women's rights. He would have been better to own it if he was Republican, because it angers Republican's rivals like feminists.