March 13^th

Hillary Clinton’s emails are getting a severe bashing today from Cal Thomas, another old white man pontificating for the right wing. At the end of his column he tells us why: “Without Hillary…as their nominee the Democrats have a weak bench. With her they may be more likely to lose the next election if lingering questions are not adequately answered.” Cal wants to make sure that the “lingering questions” remain at the forefront of everyone’s attention.

Thomas makes several points that have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s emails: they have to do with the Clinton’s “baggage” as he puts it. President Clinton has been out of office for close to fifteen years but Cal Thomas feels the need to remind everyone of Whitewater, cattle futures, Monica Lewinsky, and yada, yada. All of these questions are supposed to reflect unfavorably on Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. So how did they reflect on Bill Clinton’s Presidency? He, after all, was the target; so what was the result for him? He left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest approval rating of any departing President in the last fifty years. Cal Thomas neglects to mention that. Whatever happened to “fair and balanced?”

He also has to bring Lois Lerner’s emails into the picture. She was accused of targeting right –wing organization wanting tax exemptions; her boss said the emails were lost but then found out they weren’t. I’ve written about Lerner before. She refused to testify before Congress although she pleaded guilty to bias in administering her office and so, in the conservative tradition, was found guilty as accused and summarily kicked out of her job; literally escorted from her office under police guard. What that deplorable incident has to do with the Clintons Thomas doesn’t say. Give him time; he’ll find a link.

Then Cal Thomas asks why mid-east countries, not known for their favorable treatment of women, would contribute to the Clinton Foundation?  What would they expect in return?”  It’s clear that for those on the right, contributions to anything produce an expectation of a good return on your money. If Cal contributes to his church do you suppose that he expects salvation in return? Maybe the question about contributions to the Clinton Foundation was only designed to create a little more paranoia about the Clintons. That seems to be the only focus of this entire piece.