The other night, my dear friend L. wrote:
Beth / You just have to begin reading Andrew Sullivan's blog regularly. He is obsessed by Hillary, having started, like you, as a Clinton fan. He writes brilliantly, and he is so angry! L.
Sullivan's current piece in The Times Online is a perfect example of how right he gets the political moment in which we're living.
And L. is right about me, too. For decades, I was a starry-eyed Clinton fan -- in Arkansas and after they moved to the White House, even when they started out making dumb mistakes once Bill was inaugurated -- like the gays in the military, for one example. Many Clinton supporters, especially gay ones, were mad at the time that they had been sandbagged with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Bill had promised in his campaign to allow all citizens, despite their sexual orientation, to serve openly in the military -- and then made this compromise in 1993 after he was elected. My late brother was gay, and I wasn't happy that my new and beloved Commander-in-Chief had sold out gay men and women. But I thought he was choosing bigger battles down the road. I figured he might need some of the clout he would've had to give up, and I forgave Bill for sacrificing the dignity and rights of gay Americans and for not living up to his promises. I thought he had to play the written-in-stone Washington games or his presidency could go the way of one-term Jimmy Carter, whom I happen to admire. But now I believe I was wrong not to hold Bill accountable.
We Clinton lovers were skipping down the yellow brick road with our young, dynamic president, even after the big (Hillary bungling health care reform) and small (Travel Gate) mistakes were made and all the scandals started. We were united against the right-wing Republicans who were on the attack. We cursed Kenneth Starr, as he took some good Americans and our country down his autocratic path. (Shame on you, Hillary, for allowing your campaign to compare Barack Obama with that man.) We fought for Bill and Hillary.
In the old days, I never thought the Clintons were greedy. But I've been disabused of this notion -- as well as many others concerning the former president and current senator. It seems apparent that their greed is more for power than money--though they have plenty of that now. According to a rather bizarre website called www.thememlingindex.com, they had $35,000,000 by 2006. Whether that particular number is accurate or not, they definitely have a hefty bank account, more than enough. And where did it all come from? Not just from Hillary's and Bill's enormous book advances.
Why don't the Clintons want to be transparent about their money trail? Unless they have something to hide, why shouldn't they be happy to come clean and give the press and public a look at their tax records -- as well as more of the documentation that hasn't been released from his library? Hillary is panting for presidential power. She can just taste it. Why not be -- startling, now, for a Clinton -- open?
But greed is not ever open. Greed is secretive, conniving, self-protective. Hillary has revealed herself willing to take down anyone who gets in her way now -- including the Democratic Party and the American people -- rather than lose to the gifted, capable, and charismatic Obama with his democratic grassroots support. In Hillary's Rovian speeches and commercials, she is spreading seeds of fear among the voters -- because of her own fear of losing this race. Unfortunately, what this highlights is a lack of integrity, vision, and leadership -- a Bush-like disrespect for the office she is trying to win.
When Bill Clinton was president, I took up for him and Hillary. I pointed my finger in Chris Matthews' face at a Town Hall Meeting in Little Rock, telling him that I was sick and tired of the press going after Bill Clinton and the down-and-dirtiness of Arkansas politics, when the shark-infested waters of Washington were far worse -- and he and every other Washington beat journalist knew that. They were all being disingenuous -- including about how shocked they were about the possibility of Clinton having had sex with Monica Lewinsky. They knew congressmen and senators having affairs was run of the mill on Capitol Hill -- and if they didn't, they were blind, deaf, and dumb. I looked Matthews in the eye and said that Washington journalists should have to live in Middle America six months of every year in order to qualify for the other six months in Washington. They were part of the problematic system. And about that, I'm still sure.
Now I feel the same way about the Clintons. Bill ought to try being more like Jimmy Carter. And Hillary? Hillary needs to lose her entourage and machine and go to some little village in Africa where nobody, gasp, knows who she is, and spend a few months helping some poor and/or battered people who need basic human rights or infrastructure help. Maybe she could remember that kernel of herself that wanted to make a difference more than grabbing the golden ring of power.
Has Hillary changed, or was this the way she always was, and I couldn't see it?
Yo, Andrew Sullivan, what do you think?