According to Anna Quindlen, the reason “the right wing and the media” are so hard on her is that “she couldn’t hide the fact that she was smarter and more ambitious than most people.” Funny, I don’t remember “the right wing” holding that against Margaret Thatcher. Quindlen continues, “In distress Hillary has soldiered on, damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t, like most powerful women. . . . If she’d failed to write about l’affaire Lewinsky, she would have been accused of shortchanging the reader and the publisher. Because she did address the matter in her memoir, it is considered unseemly or political.” I don’t think the major criticism of Clinton’s treatment of the Lewinsky scandal is that it is “unseemly or political”; it’s that it is untrue.
David Brock made the same point on Friday on MSNBC: Sen. Clinton is criticized when she is “guarded,” but also criticized when she opens up about these painful personal matters. What an awful double standard: She’s criticized when she stonewalls and when she lies. Excellent point, Anna and David!