Let\’s start with the end of the blog. Yes, of course it is.
The issue is not whether Hillary Clinton\’s past is fair game. The issue is what parts of her past are most and least relevant, and what parts would be most and least effective if used against her in a political campaign.
Days ago, I wrote a blog suggesting that it would be a major mistake for Republicans to go after Ms. Clinton by rehashing Bill Clinton\’s sexual escapades – in no small part because, just as it was turned against his opponents 20 years ago, it would be turned against her opponents now…and, in addition, would also be called “old news, which has nothing to do with anything”.
Clinton detractors can gnash their teeth all they want at how unfair this is. But we\’re not talking fair, we\’re talking politics.
The four most pathetic words ever said about a campaign that was lost through poor strategy are “It should have worked”.
Brent Bozell has just put out an excellent column detailing how conservative women\’s personal lives – both real and fantasized by their left wing opponents – have aggressively been used by mainstream media. He, of course, is correct.
But being correct and being elected are two different things. If a candidate features “correct but damaging” stands on issues, that is a matter of principle and is understandable. I respect people who win or lose based on their true beliefs. But if the candidate\’s strategy features “correct but damaging” stands on strategy, that is just plain dumb.
In the past I have put out summaries of Hillary Clinton\’s political past, which is certainly fair game for her opponents and certainly beneficial as a campaign tool (it has to be, since she has virtually no positive accomplishments, but a raft of major negative ones. )
I think it\’s time to post them again. They include:
-Her time on the Watergate committee, which resulted in Chief Counsel, (Democrat) Jerome Zeifman, tossing her over without a recommendation on the grounds that her work was shoddy and dishonest;
-Her appointment (by hubby/Governor Bill Clinton) to the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, which resulted in no educational gain for the state;
-Her appointment (by hubby/President Bill Clinton) to head the Task Force on Health Care Reform, which resulted not only in no Health care plan, but caused iconic Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan to say “anyone who thinks (the Clinton plan) can work in the real world as presently written, isn\’t living in it.”;
-Her eight years in the US Senate, in which she neither kept her promise of helping the upstate New York economy, nor saw any major legislation through to passage and enactment;
-Her 2008 Presidential campaign in which Barack Obama showed her up as a pathetic serial liar and blew right past her supposedly inevitable candidacy to become the Democrat candidate instead;
-And, most recently, her stint as Secretary of State, during which Hosni Mubarak was ousted in Egypt, which now is ruled by the (terrorist) Muslim brotherhood, the Benghazi massacre took place because State did not adequately protect the facility and did not send help when it came under attack….and, now, the uncovering of numbers of scandals by CBS News.
Is this who you want in charge of the government of the United States? Probably not. And you\’re not alone, I assure you.
The way to go after Hillary Clinton, therefore, is to talk about those parts of her past…and pepper them with the campaign statements made against her by then-candidate Barack Obama and his supporters as well, so it is clear that the disgust with Ms. Clinton is bipartisan. An opponent does that, and he/she might wind up a winner.
But go after Ms. Clinton by trying to tie her to Hubby Bubba\’s sex life, and say goodbye to four more years. Maybe eight.
