Shouldn’t one’s history matter? What is it about the history of Bill and Hillary Clinton that would give anyone confidence in their character? I know some people will be upset with me for focusing on that. They will say that policies are what matter, not personal character. Well, I have a lot to say about the policies of both, but I won’t back down on the significance of personal character.
It was during Bill’s presidency that we heard the constant refrain from his backers that private character is not the same as public character, and that we should only look at what happens publicly in assessing someone. I respond that that is not the Christian way. What one is privately will ultimately bleed over into what one is publicly, and we need to be discerning.
We know, for a fact, that Bill Clinton did have sex with Monica Lewinsky, regardless of his protestations at the time. We also know this was not just a rumor fueled by some imagined “right-wing conspiracy,” as Hillary alleged. It was a revelation of the character of her husband. And frankly, I don’t see much difference between the two when it comes to character. Both can stand before cameras and tell blatant lies without blushing:
Some commentators, listening carefully to Hillary’s statements at her near-disastrous press conference last week, picked up on wording that was eerily familiar:
Sadly, this lack of character may not derail her from getting the Democrat nomination, despite the growing fears from some in her party:
Even those on her side of the political aisle are beginning to say she doesn’t have any better qualification for running for president other than being a woman. We recently chose another “first” as president. How is that working out? A candidate has to have more going for him/her than just identity politics. Might I suggest we take a long hard look at character? For some voters, that would be a “first.”