Michael Barone wonders if we really want to revisit the dirty laundry of the Clinton Administration when considering Hillary Clinton for president. I think we do. While not every personal foible is something to disqualify one from office (otherwise, none of us could run), a general pattern of ethical lapses or other signs of a weak character should be a factor in our choice. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal shows us such a pattern in Hillary’s character by reviewing her troubled relationship with the truth. Here’s an example:
Cattle futures. The New York Times revealed in March 1994 that in 1978, just before her husband became governor, Hillary had made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary’s first explanation (through aides) of this extraordinary windfall was that she had made the investment after "reading The Wall Street Journal" and placed all the trades herself after seeking advice from "numerous people." It was so preposterous that she soon had to abandon it. Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker.
In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of "any favorable treatment" by Blair. But the astronomical odds against any financial novice making a 10,000 percent profit without the game being rigged led many to believe that Blair, the outside counsel to Arkansas-based poultry giant Tyson Foods, must have put only profitable trades in Hillary’s account and absorbed her losses. The heavily regulated Tyson needed friends in high places, and Bill Clinton helped it pass a 1983 state law raising weight limits on chicken trucks.
Looking this over, it’s little wonder (and quite appropriate) that some are starting to compare her to Richard Nixon.
LINKS: Power Line compares Huckabee and the Clintons, damning Huckabee with faint praise.
UPDATE: And she’s doing it again, today. I wonder if she even knows when she’s lying anymore.