In what certainly must feel like a sucker punch, Hillary Clinton was the recipient of a scathing review by a source she previously had considered her bought and paid for advertising network… the New York Times.
Normally the New York Times could always be counted on to carry water for the former first lady by pushing stories of her scandals, temper tantrums and general bad behavior to the back section of their paper. However, with the primaries just around the corner, and no Republican contest to wring their hands over, the Times is doing something that would cause Vizzini from The Princess Bride to utter “Incontheivable!”
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
A very interesting read from an unlikely source.