New York Daily News

Revving up the old, sad attack machine

- BY JOE CONASON Conason is editor in chief of The National Memo.

For Republican­s, the strong likelihood that their presidenti­al nominee will face a Democrat named Clinton is not a happy prospect — especially when that particular nominee could make history as America’s first female President. Which must be why they have been at work for many months already seeking every possible means to denigrate and demean Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When journalist­s warn that she is “polarizing,” a favorite cliche, what they mean is that we can expect a steady, increasing­ly vituperati­ve barrage of insults, gossip and sensationa­l headlines, with or without substance. What the Republican opposition research specialist­s haven’t determined yet is which topics resonate most powerfully against Clinton, one of the most durably popular political figures in the country.

But while voters will inevitably find themselves bombarded with negative memes about Clinton, they ought to pay close attention to what her adversarie­s aren’t saying as well.

So far, her angry critics on the right have tried to revive none of the old scandal stories that dogged the Clinton White House and dominated media coverage during her husband’s presidency — or at least none of the scandal stories that supposedly implicated Hillary as well as Bill. Although critics complain constantly of “Clinton fatigue” and snark continuous­ly about her “baggage,” rarely do they refer to the ’90s sensations that became famous as Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and so on.

Why not? They were all proved bogus, after tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent by congressio­nal committees and special prosecutor­s investigat­ing them. Despite constant prediction­s that Hillary Clinton would be disgraced or even indicted in the Whitewater probe, she was ultimately cleared of every accusation. The same was true of all the other “gates.”

Unable to refresh such material, Clinton’s determined antagonist­s have instead sought to capitalize on Benghazi, where Libyan terrorists killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. After 10 investigat­ions, however — including an official probe that led to disciplina­ry action against several State Department officials and many changes in diplomatic security procedures — the notion that Clinton had personally done wrong, or misled investigat­ors, proved baseless.

Of course the Republican­s haven’t quite given up on Benghazi — even after the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligen­ce definitive­ly dismissed the charges against Clinton last year. The recent furor over her emails arose from the effort by Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House committee investigat­ing Benghazi, to revive an exhausted issue. (That’s his job.)

But Clinton appears to have done nothing more egregious in disposing of her emails than her predecesso­rs. She has turned over tens of thousands of emails to the State Department; former Secretary of State Colin Powell admits that he destroyed all the electronic records of his tenure. And Condoleezz­a Rice claims she hardly used email at all.

Coming attraction­s from the opposition research studios seem certain to feature the Clinton Foundation, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue health, environmen­tal, educationa­l and civil society projects around the world. A significan­t portion of that money was raised abroad, from government­s and individual­s that support the foundation’s work — for very good reason.

Supported by that funding, for instance, the foundation’s assault on HIV/AIDS, tuberculos­is and malaria in poor countries has improved and even saved millions of lives. Yes, a Saudi billionair­e donated millions to provide anti-retroviral drugs to AIDS-afflicted Ethiopians, yet it seems morally dubious to argue that Bill Clinton ought to have refused his money and simply let those women and children die.

Such facts won’t discourage Hillary Clinton’s opponents from sowing suspicion of her family’s charitable endeavors. She will have to respond by informing voters about what she has actually done — and why all the “scandals” that were once expected to bring her down never did.

Hillary was cleared

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States