By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Critics of Hillary Clinton have been focusing of late on the evidence that came to light in her testimony before the U.S. House committee on Benghazi, especially the email that documents her deception of the American people and the families of the men killed at the embassy about the role played in their deaths by the anti-Islamic YouTube video. And rightly so.
We now know that Hillary was aware that the raid on the embassy was not the result of a spontaneous demonstration over the video, but a planned terrorist attack, in spite of what she and her supporters said in public. It is hard for an honest observer to come to any other conclusion than that the deception was concocted to cover up the failure of Hillary’s policies in Libya.
Yet the evidence of Hillary’s dishonesty has made little difference in her poll numbers; at least so far. Her supporters in the media appear to have successfully spread the line that “there is no smoking gun here. All politicians spin the news for political advantage”; and that Hillary “was presidential” in the way she outmaneuvered the House panel interrogating her.
The truth seems irrelevant. Just as the country was sold the notion that “everyone lies about sex” when the evidence of Monica’s blue dress became known, many are now accepting the notion that “everyone in politics spins the truth.” Most of these people did not think this way before the Clinton team went to work defending Hillary.
I would argue, though, that there is something else that reveals even more convincingly the seamy side to Hillary’s character. It deserves more attention. I have in mind the cast of characters she employs to slander and defame those who speak out against her: Sidney Blumenthal, David Brock, and Lanny Davis. It says a lot about Hillary that she employs men like this to maneuver behind the scenes to ruin the reputations of those who oppose her.
Brock is the onetime right-wing author who first came to the public’s attention because of articles he wrote for The American Spectator documenting Bill Clinton’s womanizing while governor of Arkansas. Liberals attacked him as a ruthless scandal-monger at that time.
The liberals changed their mind when Brock suddenly reversed himself in 1997 to become an ardent Clinton apologist, first with a book sympathetic to Hillary Clinton, then with an Esquire magazine piece titled “Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man.” Brock is now head of Media Matters, the left-wing group funded by George Soros to dig up dirt on conservatives in government and the media, especially when defaming them can do some good for the Clintons. Does this flip-flop make Brock a dishonest opportunist? We can’t read his mind. Perhaps he experienced a genuine life-changing revelation when Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency. Put me down as a skeptic. It seems clear to me that what we saw was Brock’s willingness to say whatever it takes to curry favor with those in power. Conservatives who have been attacked by Brock complain about his dishonest methods and disregard for the truth in pursuit of his political ends.
Fox News commentators Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity can provide convincing evidence of how Brock’s organization took their words out of context to misrepresent what they said. Would it be unfair to speculate that Brock’s slash and burn tactics and willingness to distort the truth are what attracts Hillary Clinton to him? Not if you ask me.
Why do I say that? Because those character traits also seem to be what attracted Hillary to Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s rumor-mongering and penchant for character assassination are so well-known that the Obama administration refused to permit Hillary to make him an official member of the State Department team. Blumenthal has been criticized for his ruthless and unprincipled methods even by liberals in the media. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times informs us that Blumenthal’s fondness for spreading conspiracy theories earned him the nickname “G.K.” — for grassy knoll.
Blumenthal, you may recall, was the hit-man used by the Clintons to destroy the reputation of Monica Lewinsky — before the blue dress surfaced to corroborate her story. Blumenthal was reported to have come up with the story that Lewinsky was a “stalker” who could not be trusted with her account of what took place. Jonah Goldberg describes him as a “Clinton enabler,” a “rumor-mongering Wormtongue.” This is the man who sent 600 emails to Hillary Clinton, including many about how to handle the situation in Libya after the overthrow of Muammar Qadhafi. He is a highly paid employee of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Some might think it unfair to put Lanny Davis in the same category as Blumenthal and Brock. He comes across as reasonable and fair-minded in his many appearances defending the Clintons on the talk shows. But there are other ways to play the role of a hatchet man besides Brock’s and Blumenthal’s cutthroat tactics. Davis would be a perfect candidate to play “Uriah Heep” if someone were making a new film of Dickens’ classic David Copperfield. You remember Heep: the insincere yes-man, feigning humility in order to achieve his ends.
Have you ever wondered why Hillary sends Davis to the talk shows to make the case for her? Listen to some of Davis’ email comments to her found among the glut of emails released by the State Department from Hillary’s private email server.
While making a request for a favor from Hillary, he writes, “Please, please, please, do not be bashful or concerned about saying no to my request. I wasn’t even going to ask you, since I didn’t want you to feel badly if you have to say no. The honest to goodness truth is that, aside from Carolyn [Davis’ wife], my four children, and my immediate family, I consider you to be the best friend and the best person I have met in my long life. You know that from the dedication and appreciation of you I have always felt and expressed to you over four decades.”
He goes on to refer to Hillary as “my friend the great former Junior Senator from New York . . . whom my friend Lindsey Graham once told me was the nicest and most effective person in the U.S. Senate.”
What is the right word? Cloying? Oleaginous? Yucky?
Why is Hillary drawn to such characters? Birds of a feather? A pragmatic decision to employ people without character to do her dirty work? Or perhaps it is a belief that using guttersnipes to achieve political success is one of the weapons used by “grown-ups” who understand what it takes to succeed in the “rough and tumble” world of politics?
One of my favorite novels as a young man was Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men, a fictional account of the career of Depression Era Louisiana politician Huey Long. Frequently in the book, “Willie Stark,” the character representing Long, will meet with seedy characters he employs to find some weakness in his opponents that he can use to blackmail them. In one scene when Willie is informed that no dirt could be turned up on an opponent, he tells his accomplices to keep digging: “There’s always something.”
Willie’s defense in one out-of-character pensive moment: “You got to make good out of bad.” Perhaps this is what Hillary tells herself when she gets off the phone with her hired mudslingers. I can picture Bill and Hillary absorbed by Robert Penn Warren’s book in their youthful counterculture days.
Or maybe there is another inspiration. Willie Stark is not the only person in history who excused himself in this way. Hillary’s old mentor Saul Alinsky taught his own, more circumspect, version of the notion that “you got to make good out of bad.” Perhaps Hillary is convinced that winning her presidency would be such a good thing for the world that achieving it excuses even lies and character assassination.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress