and not about her bill this time...but a more important bill...
This summer reading season is seeing a crop of new books about Senator Clinton. Some of them positive, some of them negative. Most of which, even the ones that don't paint the forcmer 1st lady in a positive light, aren't kind about their marriage. Unfortunately, that's not much of a bombshell. Real news might be if we found out they had a great marriage.
But more disturbing are Senator Clinton's past actions, or inactions in regards to the biggest issue of our times, the war on terror. At least one book notes that Hillary never read the NIE (National Intel Est.) before casting her vote to invade Iraq. This is more of a revalation than anything about Bill's womanizing and possibly wanting to leave Hillary for another woman way back when. This is certainly a claim that she must speak about and explain.
Not that Hillary is the only one guilty of not reading legislation before voting on it. Sometimes it's expected and accepted. But when it comes to matters like this, reading the "evidence" for oneself is kind of necessary. Especially if someone is going to go round for ovre 4 years claiming that "with the information that she had" she could only vote "yes" on an Iraq invasion. If the charges hold true, then "the only information she had" was polls apparantly and not any evaluation of any actual intelligence or information that was available. 23 other Senators managed to sift thru the evidence and view the risk as being an ill advised choice, and so should have Mrs. Clinton.
That is specifically what she and other members of Congress were sent there to do. To represent us and our interests. Not her re-election interests or Presidential ambitions. I think most Americans can deal with someone getting a summary from a staffer on a small highway bill or other minor, everyday legislation. But when it comes to this, and things like it, it is the Senator's sworn duty to actually have a look at the evidence.
This desertion of duty is the kind of thing that needs to be examined more than anything having to do with the Lewinski affair. As I and others have said before, a woman scorned can do some wild stuff. Now some might try to conflate that with some "fitness" for office. As in some "wink & nod" exercize in the back room of the "good ol boys club" where things like that and what does she do when "that time of the month" comes, are typical fodder.
But men have their moments of vengence, dictatorial "bitchiness" and taking things way too personally as well. Men can do things out of embarrassment or shame just like a gal can.
But casting the most important vote of the 2002 Congress based on political positioning while not unique is not a trait I look for in a President.
And she'll need to explain that before ever earning my vote.