Hit Pieces

First the New York Times ... see: New York Times Story, then the New York Magazine ... see: New York Magazine ... have written hit pieces on the Clinton's ... with the obvious intent of submarining Hillary's chances of being the Democrat candidate for president in 2016. There can be only a few motivations for such chicanery; either they are concerned that Hillary has so much smelly baggage that will come out during the actual campaign and cause a Republican to win the White House ... or they (read the Obama administration) would prefer a different candidate heading up the Democrat ticket ... say Elizabeth Warren. There is actually a third, far less likely motivation ... and that is to air these scandals early enough so that, come next year, they can be called "old news," But the current coverage is so vitriolic that this option seems far fetched.

If this controlling Democrat inner-circle gets its way and Elizabeth Warren eventually gets the nod, will they then be able to cover up her scandals too? Or perhaps the Clinton campaign might beat them to the punch?

Old News

There must be a half life to scandals … and so, the Clinton's just released, this past Friday night, a dump of many documents from the Clinton Library relating to their numerous sordid scandals … Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the pardoning of Mark Rich, Vince Foster, etc. … see: UK Telegraph Story and News10 Story. (The bigger the scandal, the longer must be the half-life ...) Many of these documents were heavily redacted and some were held back altogether. To use a tired old chestnut, this document dump was clearly and cynically meant to inoculate the Clinton's against further use of this information. In any future discussions they can, with a dismissive wave of the hand, offer the pusillanimous slight, “That’s old news!”

I find it very curious that good (or I might say evil) politicians seem to sense the exact timing of the aging process of scandalous stories in which they are involved. Thus, Hillary Clinton can put off any testimony about Benghazi until the American people (and the media) will dismiss any damaging revelations as “old news.” (Somehow Nixon never found the exact timing of this half-life process … although he surely tried.) I, on the other hand, react entirely the opposite way. Seeing politicians play this game of rope-a-dope just incites my outrage even more ... at this politician … and at the American people for allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated.

I guess I am forever cursed with my out-of-step mind.

And even more curious, after a sufficiently long delay (using some mysterious formula), the public may again have an appetite for the details of a particular scandal … the Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson affair comes to mind. How do I respond to such ancient revelations? My normal reaction is, “That’s old news!”