Originally posted on March 18, 2007.

^.^

At some point last week, I received an automated email from Newsmax with blurbs about some of the items in the news. The item leading the headlines was "Bill Clinton to N.Y. Times: Stop Picking on Hillary", and it was printed at Newsmax.com on March 16th.

The lead paragraph goes like this:

"Bill Clinton has lashed out against an old ally, the New York Times, saying the paper wasn’t giving his wife Hillary "a fair shake.”

The story then details that at a fund-raiser at the Trump Tower in New York, former President Bill Clinton spent most of two hours attacking the New York Times, because according to him, the Times was attacking Hillary for her vote in favor of the war in Iraq. According to another attendee, the former President noted that the Times did not go after Senator (and Presidental candidate) Barack Obama when he side-stepped the issue of whether he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war.

Please note that I have referred to Bill Clinton as a "former President" twice now in that last paragraph...it's kinda important.

Let me point out that on the one hand, I can certainly understand why Bill Clinton would be upset. We're talking about his wife after all, so there is the "don't pick on my wife" angle. There's also the fact that she's a woman, which as I said recently does not mean that she can not or should not run for President, but it does cause an almost automatic "don't pick on the girl" reaction from a lot of people. And of course, if the allegation, story, or whatever is outright WRONG, all sorts of other things come into play...but that's not the case here.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton, as a former President, should know EXACTLY what that job entails, and he should know EXACTLY how hard it is to get that job, and how much people are going to slam anyone who goes for this particular brass ring.

In case he's forgotten, people should remind Mr. Clinton that the office of President is not like running for dogcatcher, and we are not electing the leader of the Emerald City, or some other mythical place where there is not much in the way of violence or unpleasantness.

Mr. Clinton's major complaint with the Times is that it treats Hillary unfairly...well sir, I think the American people got out of the "fairness to our leaders" business about the time that President Johnson extended our involvement in Vietnam one time too many, and after President Nixon was found to be behind the break-in at the Watergate. Ever since 1975, the American people have looked somewhat suspiciously at their Presidents...and this does not count the fact that in most cases, their suspicion has been rewarded with at least the shadow of malfeasance. Can we say Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Monica-gate, and any number of the conspiracy theories that people accuse the Bush (43) administration of being involved in...

So YES, Americans might very well be unfair to our Presidents. How about the fact that the economy is doing decently, and the war in Iraq is actually producing good results, if you get past the Liberalista spin in the media... You don't see G.W. Bush getting credit for that. Unfairness works both ways.

And that's just on the home front. I don't think our allies will give us much grief about having a woman President, especially in the post-Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Corazon Aquino, etc world we are now in. However, I also don't buy the idea that our enemies will simply give Hillary a pass because she is a woman. While they might respect the United States because woman at the helm or not, we can still incinerate them off the face of the planet in a moment's notice, do you honestly think that the insane evil imp running Iran at the moment really cares about being fair to Hillary?

Hell no, folks! He's out to maintain or bolster his national interests, and he'd be stupid not to (just like everyone else in the world is out for their own national interests...hence keeping historians like me in business...).

Because the world is not Camelot, or Oz, we need to elect Presidents who have been toughened by the electoral experience. This is why Guido the Average Joe won't be running in 2012. This is why respected media types like Rush Limbaugh don't get in, even though they have excellent insight on things political, economic, and diplomatic...they realize that their lives might be ruined in the process.

Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly should be taken as part of the game, and it is good that WE treat her, and all of the other candidates as unfairly as we wish...because at least when we do it, no real harm comes to the country. ALL of the candidates had best get used to it, because when our leaders have to deal with the Evil Imp of Iran or one of the other mega-baddies on the world stage, there won't be time for a crash course in the real world of politics.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

BACK