On Thursday, citizens of the Internet had a good chuckle over Hillary Clinton’s meeting with local Democratic officials in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The video footage from after the meeting revealed the rather flagrant parking of her campaign van in a handicapped parking space, despite the availability of a regular spot immediately in front of it.
That particular misstep can probably be laid at the feet of the Secret Service agent who chauffeurs Clinton. Not so the many times in Clinton’s career in public life where she has similarly displayed the attitude that rules are for little people, and not herself or her family.
One of the more important reminders of this came earlier this year, when it was revealed that Clinton had shielded work emails at the State Department from public records requests throughout her tenure by using a secret, private email address on a server in her own home. Such behavior would get most public employees fired, and it actually did play a role in the firing of one of Clinton’s ambassadors during her time as secretary of State.
That was just one of many examples, past and present, of the Clinton sense of entitlement.
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Clinton’s non-profit organizations — the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative — will continue to take money from foreign governments even as she stumps for the presidency. Only six countries will be permitted to contribute to the former organization — all represent friendly nations but are also governments for whom trade and other issues could well come before the next U.S. president. In the case of the Global Initiative, any and all foreign governments will be permitted to keep making contributions.
Amazingly, as the Journal puts it, this policy is “designed to address growing concern that the donations would present a conflict of interest for a Hillary Clinton presidency.” If anything, it should do exactly the opposite. Both institutions and their work at least bolster the Clintons’ reputation, even if they are now wealthy beyond the point of being able to care about money. They could also be used legally to fund foreign initiatives of which Congress disapproves, offering a potential avenue for a future president to circumvent federal law in a way that benefits donor-governments.
Most people in public life feel a need at least to keep up appearances — to avoid destroying voters’ trust in them at a time when cynicism about the political system is so rampant. The Clintons feel no such need. And why should they, after two decades of being let off the hook for behavior that would have broken most lesser mortal politicians?
The news media surely share some blame here, having given the Clinton spin doctors free rein throughout President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office — from Gennifer Flowers to Marc Rich. But no amount of sympathetic press coverage can on its own carry a politician who carries so much baggage. The politician in question must also have little or no shame about things for which shame is appropriate.
The former secretary of State has made a calculation that voters will not notice or care about the influence that foreign governments can buy by funding the Clinton organizations; and to the extent that they do, they will write off the concerns as some kind of Republican witch-hunt. It is a gamble both risky and cynical.
