“As I say, I suspect that her tears were genuine. After all, she cried not because of some real or imagined affront to herself, to her family, or to a favored political group; nor did she cry over any of her failures. Instead, Sen. Clinton cried over her own lust for power. Her emotion was sparked by her self-admiration. She got all choked up when she suggested how indispensable she is to America and when she reflected upon - perhaps a better phrase is “wallowed in” - her own magnanimity at being willing to endure the awful hardship of being President of the United States….Sen. Clinton “never cried over the betrayal in her marriage but what made her cry was the possibility that she would lose power.”" — Don Boudreaux
Search
I don’t think I’ll ever understand the Hillary hatred over the last 15 years. It seems so irrational.
Let’s re-cap: Hillary was First Lady for 8 years - during which time she took an active role in only one major policy inititative that was ultimately unsuccessful. Then she was a Senator for six years - during which time I’m not aware of any successful leglislation she has championed that Republicans object to strongly. So why do they hate her? In what way do the Hillary-haters believe she has damaged the country?
Consider John McCain: McCain sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. If you hate that law I can certainly see why you would hate McCain. Likewise if you hate Iraq War, I can see why you might hate Bush. If you hate NAFTA, I can see why you might hate Bill Clinton. And so on.
But which of her policies makes a person hate Hillary Clinton? Does anyone hate Laura Bush?
I’m not currently supporting Hillary, I may if the Democrats give her the party’s nod. I definitely do not hate her. Nevertheless, the above quote captures exactly what I felt when I saw her cry. If you have great ideas for the country, ok, get frustrated, but find whatever way you can to make your plans real. Tearing up because you might not get to fulfill the plans with the title “President,” just seems odd. It seemed as though she teared up because she wasn’t going to get her presidency entitlement and that would keep her from bringing her ideas to light. She’s a senator. She’s a former first lady. She is extremely well-connected. All this means, that if what she really cares about is making her ideas a reality, she has the resources to do so. If, however, she cares more about making her ideas a reality under the title “President,” that’s another story–and that’s the sentiment this quote captures.
BOOM HEADSHOT!
I never thought I would say it… but I actually completely agree with this quote.
I mean, we don’t see her crying over the Katrina victims or soldiers returning from Iraq in coffins. And I have never seen her show any emotion over Bill.
She cried being asked how difficult it was to be on the road campaigning. I think that many Americans would love to trade places for a few days and experience being catered to while at work.
So to recap:
Normally Hillary Clinton is cold and calculating, but when she breaks down and shows her emotions, she’s cold and calculating.
Ok. Whatever.
One of the most overlooked aspects of the whole Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal was the role of the US Secret Service while Clinton was president. Just like the Arkansas State troopers who had been assigned to guard then-Arkansas Governor Clinton, the Secret Service was severely compromised by having to protect a president who was a serial philander.
Let me state at the outset that I have great respect for the Secret Service as an agency. During my DEA career, I had occasions to work with some of them. (Aside from their protection duties, they also have jurisdiction for enforcing counterfeit crimes.) When I was stationed in Milan at the US Consulate in the 1980s, the USSS also had an office in the consulate because there was a lot of traffic in US counterfeit currency in Italy. When I left Milan to return to the US in 1987, the head of the office presented me with a certificate of appreciation signed by their director. To this day, it hangs proudly on my wall, as does a (facsimile) signed portrait of Ronald Reagan, which was a gift from the agency.
Yet, regrettably, I think it is obvious that the agency was compromised greatly during the Clinton Administration by a president who could not control his womanizing impulses. I don’t have any inside Clinton stories provided by USSS contacts, but common sense tells me that it is impossible for any woman to gain access to the President of the United States without getting past the Secret Service Protection Detail. Such was the case in the Kennedy Administration, and it was obviously no different in the Clinton Administration. Any fling that Clinton had while in office-or after, for that matter, has to be known to his guards.
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, we learned that on one occasion after she had been reassigned to the Pentagon, Lewinsky came to the front gate of the White House attempting to gain entry to see Clinton. While at the guard booth, she became unruly and began shouting that she knew Clinton was being visited by some other woman-all this in public view.
We also know that the then-director of the USSS, Lewis Merletti, whom Clinton had appointed to the position, made a strong legal effort to preclude any of his agents and officers from having to testify before the Grand Jury as to what they knew about Clinton and Lewinsky, citing presidential-security privilege. That,of course, was a dubious claim as there is no legal precedent for this kind of legal privilege (such as doctor-patient, husband-wife or minister-penitent). If a Secret Service agent saw or heard something that was a crime or evidence of a crime by the president, he/she would be obligated to reveal that knowledge. In the case of Lewinsky, it is obvious that there were Secret Service personnel who had personal and direct knowledge of the relationship. Once Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in trying to conceal that relationship, the knowledge of the agents would have been pertinent to the investigation. To take this to its extreme, what if the Secret Service had walked into a room and found a president committing a rape-or murder? Would their testimony have been precluded? Clearly not.
The Secret Service does have an agency code of conduct to the effect that agents will not publicly speak about their intimate knowledge or observations of the president and his family. That is laudable, but it has no basis in law. (Within the USSS and federal law enforcement circles, such stories do get around. The Secret Service stories about Lyndon Johnson were legendary.) In my view, Merletti’s attempt to create a firewall between the Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr and his agents was reprehensible and a disservice to his agency.
This is a problem that will arise any time we have a president who is engaged in this kind of activity. It cannot possibly be carried off without the knowledge, indeed, the acquiescence of the Secret Service. Thus, the agency is automatically placed in a compromising position that it does not deserve to be placed in.
For those who continue to argue that Clinton (and Kennedy’s) presidential philandering was of no consequence to the public, they might want to ponder if they really want the Secret Service placed in a position of being nothing more than a palace guard. It is the duty of the USSS to protect the president, not help cover up his indiscretions-or crimes. There is no doubt in my mind that the members of this agency feel the same way.
Should the Secret Service agents publicly reveal affairs and other indiscretions by a president? No. That is against their professional code of conduct. Once it crosses the line into illegal behavior, that is entirely different.
gary fouse
fousesquawk