What evidence supports this view?
Frankly, it seems to me that this conclusion is arrived at by the same method as deciding Bush lied – a dislike for the person coloring the view of the actions. Bush is evil, so, naturally, he must have lied. Mrs. Clinton is evil, so, naturally, her actions are based on nothing but cold appraisal of appearances.
I’d prefer to look at the evidence. It’s absolutely unclear to me that Mr. Clinton’s adulterous actions should be imputed to the detriment of Mrs. Clinton. He was the cheater: how does that possibly make her the bad guy?
It’s true that she defended him and blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” instead of accepting the truth. But this makes her no different that the spouses of cheating partners throughout history who have accepted the lies, even after experience should have taught her better. The sheer weight of numbers goes to Mrs. Clinton’s side here. It’s not reasonable, but it happens – when you love someone and want the relationship to work, you blind yourself to the obvious. That’s all the inference that the facts support.
And as an aside – there WAS a vast, right-wing conspiracy. A peccadillo like Mr. Clinton’s, if committed by Joe Average, would never have been ferretted out by a grand jury. Hundreds of Joe Averages lie in depositions all the time, and opposing parties simply do not have the financial resources to expose the lies. The only reason Mr. Clinton’s lies came to light was the intense interest shown by the special prosecutor. It’s well to note that the vast, right-wing conspiracy (VRWC) did not manufacture the wrong-doing, but it’s equally true that the only reason it came to light was the VRWC. So blaming Mrs. Clinton for mentioning the VRWC seems a bit misplaced.
I’m sorry, but I don’t take Hillary Clinton at face value on anything. She seems to be one of those people who always have an angle behind everything they do. She’s too clever by half and she’s fooling no one…(well, some people maybe, but not me).
[/QUOTE]