I'm asking. Does Hillary Clinton feel any shame at all? She was just on the Leno show to publicly announce--again--that she had a "lapse" and that was the reason she repeatedly lied in stump speeches about running from sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia. Obviously, the point of her appearance was to offset the political nightmare that ensued after the print media (including Frank Rich's great column)/TV/Internet pandemonium--the almost 2,000,000 views of this video--that forced her hand.
So the way she and her staff cleverly addressed this fabrication and others--like her non-support of NAFTA--was by lying again? Hillary walked on Leno's set and sat down in his chair. She was laughing while she dismissed herself from responsibility. She looked down instead of facing the audience, which she seemed unable to do (not a good sign in the truth department, if you ask me, but might show a smidgeon of shame), while she repeated her dog-ate-my-homework excuse. Hillary: "It's such a mismatch of words and actions...I wrote about this in my book, and I obviously just had a lapse...."
Uh-huh. Well, she's having another one now. We might say that Hillary is "prevaricating," since this word's meaning is all about trying to dodge the bullet or confuse the issue. Certainly, she has "rationalized" through her whole campaign--including about having 35 years of experience. We have gotten enough confirmation to ascertain that she didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland as she had claimed. And she did this pointedly without shame?
We can solidly say Hillary was "misleading" the American public about her Bosnia escapade, although the videotape and other first person accounts of Sinbad and some journalists who were with Hillary in Tuzla definitely support the notion that she told a "bold-faced lie" about it. In Wikipedia:
A bold-faced (or barefaced) lie is a lie told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, the child with chocolate all over her face who denies having eaten the cake is a bold-faced liar. The adjective "bold-faced" indicates that no attempt has been made to hide the fact that it is a lie.
"Why Did It Take Sinbad to Expose Hillary Clintons' Misstatement?," as Eric Deggans wrote in this blog. The answer appears to be because the American media--even the journalists who had been with Hillary--didn't bother to either research/write/talk/blog it. And so what is with the big whine from Hillary and Bill that the press is so unfair to her? Seems like they've given her an almost free ride in plenty of important areas. Not surprisingly, after being accused of this unfairness the traditional press then worked up enough shame to condemn themselves and turn on Obama. But as George W. proved, it is easy enough to lead them around like they have rings in their noses.
A friend once told me she'd given up guilt. I was shocked (and envious), but I believed her. She is one of a handful of people I know who live their lives without pretense. She is enormously intelligent and routinely makes straightforward decisions, then makes no apologies for what they are. She is honest to a T and always was--even with her children. Many of my friends regularly chose to lie to their kids (even when they were almost adults) about things they thought their children shouldn't know about the world, them, and even about their true beliefs--and some continued when it was no longer necessary, if it ever was.
Where does Hillary fall on this spectrum? Did Chelsea learn that lying is wrong when it appears to have been such a regular occurrence in the Clinton household? Or did she learn politicians get a pass where honesty is concerned? Where does Bill Clinton come down on this issue? Oh, yes. It was the reason he got impeached. There are "little white lies" and "whoppers." Since Hillary's experience, which she lied about, is a cornerstone of her campaign, where does this leave her integrity? Is absence of shame the trait of a good liar?
Is Hillary the kind of leader we want answering the phone at 3 A.M., since she has "lapses" and lies about unimportant issues? What would she do about the critical ones? We already have a disreputable president whose administration lied to the public in the most important moment of his two terms, and his name is George W. Bush. Our country has suffered for it. Or, is lying a necessary part of our president's job and ego?
One might think the Clinton shenanigans were on some juicy or low-rent reality TV show or in an addicting drama like the "House of Cards" on the BBC to which I was glued. In the series, the question was which one was more corrupt--the eventual Prime Minister, Francis Urquhart, or his wife? I'll not tell here.
The global community has seen that Hillary lies to us to get herself elected --and so what will she misrepresent to them? The Bosnian girl who recited her poem to Hillary is said to be shocked by her misstatement in this article by the New York Post. Other Bosnians are angry about Hillary's characterization of her visit, while still others are laughing.
I have always believed in secrets and lies being powerful destroyers of families. Now, we can also say they are the destroyers of the reputations of nations as well as nations themselves. Look what George W. and Dick have done to ours.
Here's what Dr. Joyce Brothers said about shame in an article in Parade magazine:
In the past, we may have allowed ourselves to be burdened too much by shame. Today, it's lack of shame that appears to be the burden. Maybe it's time to invite the useful aspects of shame back into our culture. Shame is, after all, ultimately related to virtue, a word that also is not used much anymore but continues to have meaning."The only shame is to have none," wrote the philosopher Blaise Pascal centuries ago. We ought to keep his words in mind.
Hillary, do you have any shame left?
Follow Beth Arnold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BethArnold
