IF I READ any more excerpts from Hillary Clinton's new book or see any more of her interviews, I am going to throw up.
Yes, that's right, I will physically be sick. Not because I think she is overexposed and not because I have a particular dislike for the senator, but because it seems as though she's blatantly putting on a performance, and she expects the rest of the country to buy into it.
Clinton's book, "Living History," hit bookstores recently, billed as a memoir mainly focusing on her eight years in the White House. The book supposedly discusses her policies, her White House duties and her life as a student activist, a powerful lawyer, a first lady and a senator.
Please, let's be honest (a term not usually associated with the Clinton name). Clinton's book is selling mostly because the public wants to know what the wife of our pants-dropping former president has to say about a certain Monica Lewinsky. And she does indeed devote a few paragraphs to the incident, buried among long descriptions of foreign dignitaries and other stimulating matters.
Senator Clinton says in her book that she didn't know about her husband's relationship with Monica Lewinsky until just before the story broke and that she didn't believe it until President Bill Clinton confessed to her. Up until then, she believed it was "just another vicious scandal manufactured by political opponents."
Right. It's rather suspicious that Mrs. Clinton had such faith in her husband's fidelity, despite his dubious track record beginning far before he entered the White House. I suppose Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick were all just a part of the vast right wing conspiracy against her husband's presidency.
But let's not be too hard on the senator. She has been publicly humiliated by her husband's infidelity. And perhaps she really didn't believe all those nasty rumors. I personally don't buy that, but it's not her story itself that bothers me. It's the fact that she won't let anyone find out what the real story is.
Clinton agreed to a select few interviews to coincide with the release of "Living History." The most-watched interview was conducted by Barbara Walters, world-renowned television journalist.
Walters caught the senator with such hard-hitting questions as "Are you a saint?" and, oh, how could she work with the very same senators who voted to impeach her husband? It's around this point where I start to feel nauseous.
I can think of a few questions regarding several hushed-up scandals that no one ever asks Clinton. "So, Senator, since Paula Jones's lawsuit against your husband was dismissed, why did you pay her $850,000 to settle if he was so clearly innocent?"
"How exactly did those missing subpoenaed billing records from the Rose Law Firm mysteriously turn up months after the Rose Law scandal with your fingerprints all over them?"
"Why was your former chief of staff seen removing documents from Vince Foster's office after his suicide, before the police were allowed access to it?"
It's probable that most of us don't even know about or remember many of these incidents because Mrs. Clinton has done such a good job of avoiding the questions. And she's always been allowed to get away with it.
Senator Clinton must not think very highly of Americans if she expects us to not only ignore her highly questionable past, but also believe every sugar-coated sentence that comes out of her mouth. The fact remains that a woman who is so elusive about her own past is not readily trusted. The hype about "Living History" has lured the public into believing it actually delves into Clinton's elusive mind, when in fact it looks to be just another empty publicity stunt.
If you want to sell your "story," Senator, go ahead. Write a book. Just don't expect us to believe everything you say. We're not as dumb as you must think.
(Kristin Brown can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
