Hillary Clinton might want to brush up on the life of Woodrow Wilson. The two have a lot in common now that the tectonic plates are shifting under them.
Wilson is the former president of the United States and of Princeton University and now a poster child for historic revision. His racist policies were popular a century ago, and were dismissed by most historians as footnotes to his otherwise progressive politics.
But a new generation of liberals is rewriting the standards, and after demands from some students and faculty, Princeton might remove Wilson’s name from its public policy school.
Clinton, meanwhile, finds herself in a similar pickle over how she defended her husband for years against sexual allegations. The new climate, especially the heightened focus on campus sexual violence, makes Hillary’s past conduct look positively anti-feminist.
She called the world’s most famous intern, Monica Lewinsky, “a narcissistic loony toon” and defended her husband by calling the charges the fruit of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Lewinsky later denounced Hillary’s “impulse to blame the woman.”
Others who had affairs with Bill Clinton, or accused him of unwanted advances, also criticized Hillary for defending him. That she would stand by her man to save their marriage and careers was never appealing, but it was more widely acceptable then than now.
These days, Bill Clinton’s conduct would get him booted by any large corporation or organization, a reality that changes the way many people now see the Clintons. Somewhat like Woodrow Wilson, or maybe Bill Cosby, they resemble people from another era who behaved in ways now regarded as primitive and outrageous.
One result is that the past is popping up on the campaign trail, with both Clintons confronted by voters and journalists. It’s an ominous sign for her candidacy, one she can’t wave away by blaming Donald Trump.
Sure, Trump got the ball rolling when, after Hillary charged him with having a “penchant for sexism,” he hit back with typical ferocity. “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong,” Trump said. He called Bill Clinton “fair game,” and the idea caught fire.
The Washington Post ran a remarkable “fact-checker” column headlined “A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing.” The paper named five women who said they had consensual affairs with Clinton during his marriage to Hillary, including Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.
It also named three other women who charged him with an “unwanted sexual encounter,” including Paula Jones, who claimed Clinton exposed himself when he was governor of Arkansas. As the Post helpfully noted, “She later filed a sexual-harassment suit, and it was during a deposition in that suit that Clinton initially denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky.”
Clinton, impeached by the House, later settled Jones’ suit for $850,000 and was disbarred by Arkansas and the Supreme Court for lying under oath.
Yet the list was incomplete, and the online version of the Post’s “Fact Checker” includes an update. It notes that “many many readers have also urged us to include a reference to Clinton’s post-presidential travels on aircraft owned by convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.” The update cites a trip that included a pornography actress who gave massages, and says that neither the actress nor Bill Clinton would comment.
None of this is to suggest that Hillary’s campaign is doomed, but the sordid past can’t help her in a general election that probably won’t have much room for error. Under most scenarios, she needs young voters, especially women, to turn out in numbers similar to what they did for President Obama. That was a heavy lift even before a new generation of voters got a free history lesson.
The bigger problem is that her past reinforces contemporary doubts about her integrity.
With 60 percent of voters in swing states saying she is not trustworthy because of email scandals and other revelations, the last thing she needs is for the public to be reminded that dishonesty is a Clinton family tradition.
Nothing to boast about
Congratulations to the NYPD for the slight reduction of 1.7 percent in major crimes last year. But Mayor Bill de Blasio spoils the mood by tooting his own horn, claiming the stats prove “we could have a safer city and a fairer city at the same time.”
Not true, because three of the seven serious-crime categories showed increases. Murders were up by 5.1 percent, rapes by 6.3 percent and robberies by 2.1 percent. The significant declines were in burglary, down 10.4 percent, and car thefts, down 4.1 percent.
Times’ Vegas crap game
The New York Times is wetting itself with concern that new owner Sheldon Adelson will turn the Las Vegas Review-Journal into a Republican newspaper. That got me wondering when The Times last endorsed a GOP candidate for president.
Try Dwight Eisenhower, in 1956.
Nothing says nonpartisan and balanced like endorsing every Democrat from JFK on, including George McGovern, Jimmy Carter (twice), Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.
Bam is allying with dogs
There is much smart analysis about how President Obama is losing Saudi Arabia as a front-line ally because of his tilt toward Iran, but it is missing a piece of the puzzle: the impact of Obama’s harsh treatment of Israel.
Long before he caved to Iran on the nuclear deal, Obama stiff-armed Israel to court radical Palestinians and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. He continued to spy on Israeli officials, including when they talked to members of Congress and private Americans.
Seeing that pattern over years, imagine what Arab leaders must say among themselves: If Obama would batter Israel and treat Benjamin Netanyahu like dirt, what wouldn’t he do to us?
The Saudis are now getting their answer — as the bus rolls over them again. After the Sunni monarchy executed 47 prisoners, including a Shia cleric who urged insurrection, Iran’s government promoted riots that set fire to the Saudi Embassy in Tehran.
And still the US came down squarely on Iran’s side, first accusing the Saudis of “exacerbating sectarian tensions,” then having Secretary of State John Kerry call only the Iranians to urge calm.
Obama, of course, has staked his legacy on bringing Iran in from the cold, but never honestly explained that he was making a trade. Shia Iran would get a seat at the table, while Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim allies would get standing-room-only tickets.
The trade looks especially awful in light of Iran’s menacing behavior. It is test-firing long-range missiles, intervening throughout the region, and threatens to scuttle the nuclear deal if it is punished, which causes Obama to cave repeatedly.
No surprise, then, that even the Israelis, along with the Saudis and Egyptians, are making nice to Vladimir Putin. Abandoned by America, they’re all looking for a new best friend. Who can blame them?