Hard choices or simple lies?
Good thing Hillary Clinton isn’t running for president again. If she were, say, using this latest book tour to promote her candidacy — which of course she isn’t — she’d have to declare Pinocchio as her running mate.
So let me be the first to say that the accusations about Hillary being a liar are clearly just a vast rightwing conspiracy. Hillary’s merely misinformed about her own life. We all know her solid record of honesty — no matter how painful the truth is. To others.
Take that narcissistic Looney Tune, Monica Lewinsky. She’s been the brunt of all that truth for years now.
And yes, in the past there was the ducking-bullets-in-Bosnia-thing and the negotiating-peace-in-Northern-Ireland-thing, but let’s not go there. Instead, let’s tackle the latest lying-accusation-thing.
I, for one, believe Hillary was not lying about how dead broke she and Bill were right out of the White House. What she meant to say was they actually earned about $12 million that year. Just not on the first day.
And she’s so honest that she now even admits that they still aren’t doing too well, despite the $100-$200 million they reportedly have.
Why, she even told The Guardian that they pay ordinary taxes, “unlike a lot of people who are truly well-off.” Like? Like their friends who have billions as opposed to mere hundreds of millions?
No, of course not. Hillary knows what it is to be poor. She was once the first lady of Arkansas, the second-poorest state in the nation, and even adopted a rural southern accent to be one with her people.
And like Sir Edmund Hillary, for whom she was so proudly named, Hillary climbed the highest mountain and reached the highest summit. Oh, wait, what did you say? She admitted that wasn’t true? Can’t be. Why, even Sir Edmund told that story.
OK, again, a silly mistake. Hey, I used to think I was named after the East German secret police.
Just when you think things couldn’t get worse, the ridiculous story has just resurfaced about how in 1975 Hillary successfully defended an accused child rapist and then joked about it years later.
Just because she laughed in an audio tape about how the perp unbelievably passed a lie detector test, and just because the then-12-yearold victim says Hillary painted her as a liar who went for older men, and just because she wrote in “Living History” that she only took the case because she was appointed by a criminal court judge, even though she had earlier said (in that same hilarious rape tape) that she’d been asked to take the case by a prosecutor, doesn’t make her a liar.
Does it? Truly?