The latest in the effort to burnish Clinton as a victim of a troubled marriage, embraced by icons and glorious celebrities who comforted her in her time of need, is a picture painted by Lisa Bonos, who wants us to believe that Clinton “relied on a village of friends and political and spiritual leaders to move past her husband’s infidelity in the 1990s.” That’s right; we are supposed to envision Clinton crossing arms and holding hands while softly singing and gently swaying with no less than Nelson Mandela, Stevie Wonder and the Dalai Lama, as they and others encouraged forgiveness and stood by her side during the Monica Lewinsky episode.

All that love and support is a better image than what likely really happened: Hillary Clinton vindictively colluding with the likes of Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville, alternately laughing at and insulting Lewinsky and ultimately hatching a plan to defame and slime her like the other alleged abuse victims left in Bill Clinton’s wake. Not exactly the same as lighting a candle with the Dalai Lama.

AD

AD

Do you think Hillary Clinton ever confused the sentiments expressed by the Dalai Lama and Sidney Blumenthal about what she should do? Do you suppose she ever thought to herself, “Hmmm, who said we should trash Monica and make her look like the crazy one; was that the D.L. or Sidney? I can’t remember, but it is a good idea.”

Plus, a headline for a story by Matt Zapotosky says officials have found “scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent” in the handling of her emails, planting the suggestion that intent has to be “malicious” before there is a crime. It’s incredible. It seems the media are willing to accept that being a selfish, paranoid, sinister miscreant who thinks the rules don’t apply to her is insufficient to bring criminal charges — as long as that person’s name is Hillary Clinton. But jails are full of criminals whose crimes weren’t necessarily malicious.

As Paul Krugman points out in his piece for the New York Times, “A more important vice in political coverage, which we’ve seen all too often in previous elections — but will be far more damaging if it happens this time — is false equivalence.” Well, it seems the continuous portrayal of Clinton as rational and above the fray despite contradictory evidence is going to be a troubling vice in political coverage this time around.

AD

AD

Anyway, if there is anything useful about the Donald Trump candidacy, it is that he will call out these charades. It may not help Trump get any votes, but it could be soothing to Republicans, who are tired of all the passes the Clintons get, and his shouting might intimidate the Democrats, who want to rewrite history and silence their critics.