Hillary the Liar

Gosh, it's been a long enough time that some of us have forgotten all the evidence that Hillary Clinton is, as William Safire once called her, a "congenital liar." For those who have forgotten, or never knew, Stuart Taylor reminds us of some of the bigger whoppers from Hillary's past.

Instead, let's take a trip down memory lane -- from the tawdriness of the 1992 presidential campaign through the mendacity of the ensuing years -- to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary's first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie.

....Travelgate. The first Clinton scandal after Bill became president started in May 1993, when Chief of Staff Mack McLarty fired the seven employees in the White House office that arranges travel for the press corps. The White House cited gross financial mismanagement. (The charge was never substantiated.) The sudden firings created a media uproar, especially when the dismissed employees were quickly replaced by friends and relatives of the Clintons.

Hillary later told the General Accounting Office, in a document prepared by her attorney, that she had no role in the decision to fire the employees, did not know the "origin of the decision," and "did not direct that any action be taken by anyone" other than keeping her informed.

But her statements were contradicted by evidence, including a long-concealed memo to McLarty and a written chronology prepared by White House aide David Watkins that came to light years later. Hillary, Watkins wrote, had said that "we need those people out and we need our people in" and had made it clear that "there would be hell to pay" unless she got "immediate action." Another aide wrote that Hillary intimate Susan Thomases had said, "Hillary wants these people fired."

While saying that no provable crime had been committed, Robert Ray, who had succeeded Kenneth Starr as independent counsel, reported in October 2000 that Hillary's statements had been "factually false" and that there was "overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees."

Cattle futures. The New York Times revealed in March 1994 that in 1978, just before her husband became governor, Hillary had made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary's first explanation (through aides) of this extraordinary windfall was that she had made the investment after "reading The Wall Street Journal" and placed all the trades herself after seeking advice from "numerous people." It was so preposterous that she soon had to abandon it. Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker.

In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of "any favorable treatment" by Blair. But the astronomical odds against any financial novice making a 10,000 percent profit without the game being rigged led many to believe that Blair, the outside counsel to Arkansas-based poultry giant Tyson Foods, must have put only profitable trades in Hillary's account and absorbed her losses. The heavily regulated Tyson needed friends in high places, and Bill Clinton helped it pass a 1983 state law raising weight limits on chicken trucks.

Read the rest and see if you think that the American people really want a return to all those tawdry twists of the truth. Did the fact that her husband had publicly shamed their marriage really make her sympathethic enough for everyone to forget the tendency she has to cut corners and then lie when she got caught?

And do people really desire the double presidency that Sally Bedell Smith writes of today? I can just pictre the constant flow of stories from the White House hazarding guesses about what influence Bill had over his wife's presidential decisions. There would be two power sources in the White House and aides would constantly be wondering whose influence was the important one. Cabinet officers would know that there was always someone between them and the president. And Bill would constantly be talking or leaking stories to make sure that he looked good and that his legacy from his own presidency got burnished.

Mr. Clinton has said he would only sit in on cabinet meetings "if asked" to discuss "specific issues," and he has declared his intention to give his wife advice "privately most of the time."

But this is exactly the kind of hidden-hand role that caused confusion and resentment when Hillary Clinton was advising her husband in his administration. As first lady, she inhibited staff members and created what one top Clinton administration official called a "world of shadows on the wall."

Bill Clinton's mere presence in the West Wing would be intimidating and complicating. Given his unrivaled experience and huge personality, it's safe to assume that he would be no Denis Thatcher, walking two steps behind. Bill Clinton is "always evangelizing for the church of Bill," said Arkansas journalist Max Brantley. And even if the former president were to continue operating out of his office in New York City and home in Chappaqua, New York, the Clintons' ingrained habits would mean a continuing collaboration, albeit at a distance.
The concept of two presidents in the White House poses one of the biggest conundrums of this political season, and is an issue that can only grow during the general election campaign if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

No wonder the Democrats are taking a second look at picking Obama instead of Clinton. When Obama talks about being for change, I'm never sure what that means. It sounds good but lacks substance. But one thing is sure. He wouldn't be a Clinton and that would be a decent change.