Log in

No account? Create an account

Hillary and her critics (and new found friends)

Hillary Clinton and her henchman Bill have always had passionate enemies and equally passionate defenders. The latest recomposition of the two camps is surprising to even as  ardent  a Clinton-watcher as myself.
Long time supporter David Geffen has become a critic. In a recent interview with NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd,  he called Bill Clinton a "reckless guy " and said that “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

I have been saying the same thing for years, back when Geffen was making pilgrimages to the Clinton White House to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. I feel vindicated. Sort of. I want to see if he backs away (and how fast) if Hillary gets the nomination.

Some say that Geffen is angry because Bil Clinton pardoned financier Marc Rich but not AIM activist and accused murderer Leonard Peltier. I can understand this. Peltier's innocence is debatable, but what's not debatable is that Marc Rich was a fugitive from justice at the time of Clinton's pardon (which was an unprecedented circumstance), and Peltier had already served many years in prison. There's plenty of better reasons to be pissed off at the Clintons, but Geffen didn't pick a bad one.

The Clinton campaign then demanded that Barrack Obama return a $2300 donation Geffen had made.This response was absurd but completely predictable. You return campaign contributions because the donor is a shady character (such as Larry Flynt or corrupt union leader Arthur Coia), or if donation was illegal. But not because the donor said something negative about your opponent. That's what campaign donations are supposed to fund.

But as I said, it wasn't really surprising. In Hillary's hierarchy of values, criticizing her is the worst sin, far worse than being a pornographer or mobbed-up union boss.

There is a parallel universe version of the Geffen story. Apparently long time Clinton critics
Chris Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife have softened in their views on the Clintons. Chris Ruddy wrote a lot of the early stories questioning the official story on the death of Clinton White House counsel Vincent Foster. John Podhoretz said in a New York post column that their turnaround was as bizarre as a giant Marshmallow man invading New York.

I don't agree with everything in Podhoretz's column. In particular, I think Ruddy was right to say that Ken Starr was not aggressive enough. Yes he was "perceived" as too aggressive, but perception is not always reality. And the reality is that the Clintons came out of the Starr investigation smelling like roses.

My opinion of the Clintons has changed very little over the years. I have long believed both of them are sociopaths and I've seen no compelling evidence to change that belief.

But in light of recent events, I do feel like I am living in Bizarro world. And I am keeping an eye out for the giant marshmallow man.