Redstate

Is Hillary's scandal filled past relevent?

By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Bill Clinton | Hillary Clinton — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

This is a question that has been nagging me for quite some time. Is there any way that Hillary's past ends up having a major impact on this campaign? Obviously, that past has already had an impact in that it has played a role in a certain segment of the population choosing not to vote for her; some indications are that it is a sizable and committed segment of voters.

But what I am getting at is whether that information is already "baked in" or whether there are voters considering voting for Hillary, or who are noncommittal, who could be reminded of the huge pile of baggage Hillary carries and change their minds.

The media focus on Hillary's release of her schedule this week is a perfect example. I understand the desire to find new information, to break a story, but there is so much information we already know about her that is less than flattering that I wonder if people think it is a legitimate subject of discussion.

Do Democrats simply not want to believe that Hillary played a role in all the scandals and problems of the Clinton White House? Does character and integrity not matter?

Read On.

She has a long history of everything from stonewalling the media, shading and hedging the truth in deceptive ways, to downright lying. She seems almost incapable of telling the whole truth in a forthright way.

It started from the very beginning. When her husband first faced questions about his infidelities Hillary acidly remarked that she wasn't just some women standing by her man like the Tammy Wynette song. But in fact that is exactly what she was doing and continued to do each and every time a "bimbo eruption" occured.

She stonewalled and lied about her investments in Arkansas; about her involvement in Whitewater and Castle Grande; about her role in Travelgate; and about the handling of the Rose Law firm billing papers; and about the Vince Foster's papers; etc. etc. etc.

This pattern continued in the campaign. She exaggerates her experience and denies any responsibility for the mistakes and scandals. She claimed she has always been against NAFTA despite having lobbied Congress for it on behalf of her husband. She takes credit for balancing the budget and welfare reform even though she opposed both at the time. Both Bill and Hillary constantly claim that they were guilty of nothing, that they have been exonerated from all guilt, just because they aren't in jail.

Is this the type of candidate Democrats want as their standard bearer? Do these ethical lapses and serial lies not mean anything to the blue collar types who seem to support her?

It seems to me that the Clintons have successfully pushed that baggage behind them and labeled it as old news. Hillary brags of being the most transparent figure in public life despite a career of deception, spin, and lies. Hillary is the real audacious one in my book.

What do you think? Do people care about Hillary's past? Or is that a creation of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and thus off limits for the Democrats? Will the average voter care about this past should Hillary somehow win the nomination?

A Hillary win seems far fetched for now, but we all know the Clintons will not go away with out a fight to the death. That is something Obama is thinking a lot about right now, I bet.

Cross posted at the Stop Her Now blog.