Skip to main content

Hillary’s Traction

We often say here in America that politicians with a past are carrying a lot of baggage into office with them. Hillary Clinton’s baggage, as everyone who has not slept through the past two decades may have realized, is husband Bill. And no, I am not referring to what the press used to call in Bill’s Monica Period the president’s sexual “peccadilloes.” We like to turn our pages on our pasts, and America is after all the land of second chances. Most Americans were quite willing to forgive Bill his “indiscretions” about five minutes after the cigar incident. The few women in Bill’s past who were crying “infidelity” – and in at least one case “rape” – were dismissed, even by the feminists, as implausible publicity hounds.

No, all that lies in a past that, despite William Faulkner’s misgivings, is over. Faulkner said the past was not over, “It is not even past.”

Hillary’s big problem is with husband Bill’s warmongering.

In a review of two recent books on Hillary, “Hillary Clinton: Her Way” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. and “A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Bernstein, Christopher Hitchens briefly remarks on the problem.

“The candidate herself seems determined to redisprove Scott Fitzgerald’s much-exploded dictum that there are no second acts in American lives. Unfortunately for her, this involves both taking the credit for her husband’s administration, while avoiding the less adorable aspects of the couple’s political and personal relationship. Thus, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta suggest – correctly in my view – that her relatively hawkish position on Iraq is to be explained by the fairly hard line that Clinton and Al Gore (then) took on Saddam Hussein…”

Hillary cannot quite denounce President George Bush in the tone used by his most virulent opponents without also throwing a brick at husband Bill. How to defend Bill’s hawkish analysis of Middle Eastern jihadists, and even the incorrigible Saddam Hussein, while denouncing Bush is a conundrum that other politicians running for the presidency have settled by making the requisite public confession, which begins with “Regrettably, I voted for the legislative bill that gave George Bush authority to prosecute the Iraq war,” contains a grudging admission of fallibility, “But I was wrong,” and proceeds to the now ritualistic denouement, “Therefore I propose a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by…,” and here it is best to leave the date of surrender hanging upon some reasonable condition – just in case.

This now well worn path has been trodden by lesser presidential luminaries such as Chris Dodd and others, but Hillary has refused to join in the fun, some suppose, because Bill’s and her own past -- she was, after all, the co-president -- is standing in the way of her ambition.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e