Everyone, with the possible exception of Mark Penn, must realize that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is hanging on the precipice. Her opponent Senator Barrack Obama has more money and a better organization; he has won more states and built more momentum – last night’s Wisconsin win makes nine in a row. Even James Carville has admitted that she is losing and needs to win Ohio and Texas if she expects to continue.
Remarkably, however, the candidate herself refuses to admit this obvious fact. In a recent interview with the Columbus Dispatch she denied that Ohio was a must win state. Some might view this as typical political spin, but anyone familiar with Hillary’s history will recognize this as yet another example of her unique blend of arrogance and stubbornness.
Hillary has a long history of refusing to acknowledge obvious truths and stubbornly clinging to her own version of events. This pattern can be found in the scandals and failures of her husband’s administration and in her presidential campaign. It is a constant in any even perfunctory review of her public life.
Bill and Hillary’s time in Arkansas, and in the White House, were - at the very least - filled with questionable judgment and a refusal to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. But criticisms were immediately branded as personal attacks and illegitimate. When questions arose Hillary’s first response was always to stonewall and deny. She would then move on to deceptively incomplete responses, if not outright lies. Any release of information, when it did come, came grudgingly and always as a last resort.
When her attempt at health care reform failed miserably she again blamed “powerful interests” rather than her own leadership failure; despite ample evidence that many stakeholders and politicians were interested in compromise but were arrogantly, and often rudely, rebuffed. Her game plan remained the same: refuse to compromise and demonize your opponents.
Likewise, any criticism of Bill’s often shameful personal actions were immediately derided as politically or financially motivated The first response was always attack, attack, attack.