Hillary a Shoo-in for POTUS? Not So Fast
June 24, 2014 - 2:58 AM
So far, many have given Hillary a pass on her enabling her husband's serial mistreatment of women in his personal life. She was complicit every step of the way, yet many view her as the victim rather than a co-conspirator.
She also seems to have avoided the Obamacare taint, even though her Hillarycare was its bastard forerunner, but it's doubtful that will continue if she runs for president. Even if you buy into the false narrative — as even many conservatives have — that Bill Clinton was ultimately a moderate, Hillary has radical roots that remain with her today. It's doubtful she'll receive virtual immunity for those the same way Obama has.
But for a Republican candidate to defeat Hillary — assuming she gets that far, what with rumors about her health issues on top of everything else — he will have to be unafraid to expose her record, not just on policy but on character, including the reprehensibly pitiless behavior she displayed in representing the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl.
Her callousness in laughing about her client's passing a polygraph test was not an isolated occurrence. You will recall her indignant response in congressional testimony to questions on Benghazi, Libya: "At this point, what difference does it make?" Hillary's defenders have insisted her statement was out of context, but we knew better then, and we certainly know better now.
For as it turns out, we learn from Edward Klein's new book, "Blood Feud," that Hillary supposedly bristled at Obama's suggestion that the attack on our consulate had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an anti-Islam video.
Now let's stop right here and soak in the multifaceted significance of this revelation. In the first place, it shows that Obama, not any of his subordinates, including Susan Rice, was behind this abominable deception. In addition, the reported exchange leaves no room for doubt that Hillary also knew it was a lie and objected to advancing it.
But she didn't object to putting forth this false story on ethical grounds. Rather, she reportedly told Obama that the story wasn't credible because, among other things, it ignored the fact that the attack had occurred on Sept. 11. Obama was unbending, ordering her to put out a State Department release as soon as possible because the election was in two months and he had still been pushing the fiction that he had al-Qaida on the run.
What did Hillary do? She didn't resign in protest. She did her duty, not to the United States of America, whose highest office she craves, but to President Obama and to her own presidential ambitions. Shortly after 10 p.m. on Sept. 11, she released an official statement blaming the attack on an "inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet."
So please don't twist this report into some perverse positive for Hillary Clinton. She completely rolled over to Obama's dictates and, with him, attempted to deceive the American people she has the audacity to claim she serves. The media then dutifully presented the story as if it were credible — and darn near got away with it, which shows just how low they've sunk.
Hillary has more recently made headlines with an absurd offhanded comment concerning her and Bill's relative wealth. When The Guardian asked her whether voters would see her as credible on the issue of income inequality — given her vast personal wealth — she replied, "We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well-off — not to name names — and we've done it through dint of hard work."
Arrogant, self-serving and hypocritical don't do that justice. Is she implying that many others deserve to be punished if they haven't worked so hard as she has? I thought she was a champion of those who don't work that hard. This liberal idea that there's something immoral about people earning money from their investments is just outrageous. Liberals never bother to mention that these people have already paid taxes on the income used to acquire the assets now producing capital gains.
What this illustrates is the unstated liberal credo that liberals demand to be judged on their policy advocacy rather than on their personal behavior. It doesn't matter that Hillary is rich and attacks the wealthy, that Al Gore rails against carbon footprints while making full-fledged body prints of his own, that Barack Obama does the same — luxuriating in Air Force One while excoriating private jet owners and playing golf while people are suffering — or that Bill Clinton serially abused women and Hillary handled the "bimbo eruptions" while crusading for "women's rights." Judge them not by their behavior but by their ideology and party identification.
Hillary is doubtlessly a very smart woman who talks a good game about her passion for liberal causes and her compassion for the downtrodden, but her personal life contradicts her public stances and reveals her lack of empathy for those she claims to represent.
Should Hillary get her party's nomination, I believe she will not be nearly so formidable as Beltway elites would have us believe, because her lack of genuineness is rather easy to demonstrate, as is her joinder at the hip with the worst president in American history — and I'm not referring to Bill Clinton.