She has been saddled with her husband’s sins for 40 years, so it was no surprise to see Hillary Rodham Clinton — clad in a striking blue outfit — hauled before the House Oversight Committee. Never mind that she never met Epstein nor visited his island nor set foot on his plane dubbed the “Lolita Express.”
She was obviously furious, and took it out on overmatched conspiracy theorists from the House Republican Caucus. It had nothing to do with legislating, but everything to do with protecting Trump in a presidency notable for its corruption and ethical emptiness.
Clinton answered questions with no effort to conceal her contempt. It conjured up memories of her “vast right wing conspiracy” appearance on the Today Show shortly before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
The past ten years have been a decade of bad presidencies, dispite some productive legislating under Joe Biden. Opportunity to lead has been lost, civic life largely disregarded, the planet dangerously warming. We’ve experienced a succession of billion dollar climate disasters.
Hillary Clinton can be forgiven her hyperbole. She would have made a better president than her spouse. She had the opportunity to shatter the glass ceiling. She could have addressed climate change and income inequality, two vexing crises that have gotten worse in the past decade.
The House hearing drove home a point: It would have been a Clinton presidency without the nonsense. One need only look at the U.S. Senate, where women — save for MAGA toady Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee — are paradigms of adult behavior. Just look at the legislating of our own Sen. Maria Cantwell, from tax breaks on wind energy to subsidies for manufacture of computer chips.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, is likewise someone fully competent to shatter the ceiling, a progressive but strong on America’s place in the world. Thwarted in 2020, she has maintained a pleasant veneer while building a case against all things Trump. She has been forced to cool her heels while he plays the role of Godzilla in American politics.
Can we catch up with a decade that has eluded us? I hope so. The Democrats’ bench is full of potential presidents, of both genders. Health care costs are out of control. The earth is demanding attention in the form of multiple disasters. The glass ceiling displays multiple cracks.
The D’s need to choose a direction. Their divisions can be witnessed in Washington’s — and Seattle’s — delegation. Rep. Jayapal demands sweeping change that is hard to swallow and digest given the country’s center-right majority The down-to-earth Adam Smith is an apostle of incrementalism and step-by-step reforms .
Shortly before the assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., published a book entitled Why We Can’t Wait, a definitive rap on race in America. With its help, we can map out recovery from the lost decade. Carbon dioxide emissions must be curbed. We must not retreat into a new Gilded Age. We should not soak the rich, but require that they rinse regularly.
Hilllary Clinton is not one to suffer fools but was forced to do just that before the House Ethics panel. Bill Clinton was correct in his determination to pick a mate he could “grow old with,” and it showed in her congressional testimony.
The past half-century has shown that our Founders have left foundations capable of withstanding bad presidents. But that will not last forever. It’s time for the American people to take back their country. As well, the arc of history moves slowly, enough that we can and must do some catching up.
This article also appears in Cascadia Advocate.
—
Discover more from Post Alley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good article. Thank you Joel.
early indications are that people are growing fed up with Trump’s recklessness, cruelty. Do you think the midterms will turn the tide on Trump 2.0? It appears the Democrats could win the Senate and House in November with a stable of center leaning candidates.
Hear, Hear! Excellent commentary. We need people like Hilary in government, especially now, more than ever.
Hear Hear indeed. I agree with Lloyd Weller
Hillary would have made a good president — if she had also possessed the qualities necessary to get elected. But she was, at best, a mediocre political candidate.
And that is one of the bugs in the system. The qualities and talents that are useful and effective in getting you elected are not the exact same qualities and talents that you will need to function well in the office once you secure it. Bill Clinton had a sufficient quantity of both. Hillary did not.
Our present incumbent is the opposite of Hillary. He has what it takes to get people to vote for him — and nothing more. That’s why his incumbency is forced to try to maintain an ongoing campaign style of emotional atmosphere. It’s all he’s got.
You opine that HRC would have been a better president her “esteemed” husband. Easy one there, but she would’ve been better than the presidents that followed, or even Bush the senior. She loved policy and clearly took pride in it for its’ own sake.
I’m tempted to “cliché” and say HRC was a tragic/comic figure – but there’s nothing really funny about arc of her career and the forces that shaped it. In a letter to a Wellesley College classmate, she labelled herself a “misanthrope” and wondered aloud if that left her any capacity for compassion. By nature, maybe she was ill-equipped to deal with the nonsense and subterfuge she’d inevitably face as a political figure.
HRC shouldn’t be given demerits for that honesty, but her opponents recognized she was testy/thin skinned and took full advantage. She spearheaded the first attempt at universal health care. HRC was dedicated, passionate, and (I think) looked forward to an honest debate on its’ merits. Instead, (in a world-class display of misogyny) Republicans humiliated her with the “Who elected her?” response. HRC took the bait with her angry (but not ill-intentioned) “well I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies” response.
The damage was done; the subsequent and ongoing narrative unfairly became about HRC and her “likability.” Obama and HRC even (tried to) joke about it during their first presidential debate. You describe HRC’s anger as a byproduct of her doofus husband’s chronic misdeeds, but it’s more than that. She was eviscerated for an honest attempt to create a better healthcare system. From that point forward HRC became more guarded, cynical and suspicious. Was she inherently predisposed to such paranoia anyway? Maybe, but she was never given the chance to prove otherwise.
HRC deserved better.
The Benghazi hearings ruined Hilary Clinton’s chances to be elected President, with a cherry on top provided at the last minute by Comey. I appreciate both the thoughts and the writing in the above column. Thanks.
This was clearly one of the best of your commentaries. Sock it to ’em Joel