As much as us moderate types love to embrace the idea of Bill Clinton, reality tells a different story. Agree with him on policy, but recognize the guy's a political snake never shackled by principle. A skilled duplicity binds the Clintons, as evidenced by Hillary's shameful behavior in leading opposition to the Dubai ports deal.
No doubt they'll try, but Clinton apologists will have a hard time skewering the facts laid out by columnist David Brooks in today's New York Times (no link, "membership" required):
Clinton didn't seem to mind when officials of the United Arab Emirates kicked in up to a million dollars into her husband's presidential library. She didn't seem alarmed when Dubai poured at least $450,000 into her family bank accounts through her husband's speaking business. She didn't object when the Clinton administration approved a deal for a Chinese government firm to run the Port of Long Beach. But when the Dubai ports deal set off Know-Nothing mobs, she made sure she had the biggest pitchfork.
"The White House is trying to hand over U.S. ports," Clinton charged.
"We cannot afford to surrender our port operations to foreign governments," she roared.
"We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports," she insisted.
All of these statements were deliberately misleading, since there was never any question of ceding sovereignty or security. They played to the rawest form of xenophobia.
We can all dream of a world without Clintons, and Bushes. Political dynasties are downright un-American, and, without fail, they rot through time (i.e.: the Kennedys). And as Brooks points out, a Hillary presidency would continue to sever our current political divide. Clinton and Bush supporters have one thing in common: an unyielding zeal undaunted by facts.
(I)f Clinton is elected, American politics over the next years will be as brutal and stagnant as now. The 1960s Bush-Clinton psychodrama would go on and on.
Wake me when it's over.