A tale of two Monicas

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

This is one of the offensive and illegal questions that former Justice Department employee Monica Goodling asked job applicants before she made the decision to hire or not hire them.

There are others, according to the just released investigation by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General."

In addition to discussing the applicants' views of gay marriage and abortion, Goodling asked:

"Why are you a Republican?"

"Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican."

"Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."

It is, of course illegal to politicize the Justice Department and to hire employees based on political philosophy, but the first question of Monica Goodling not only show that she violated the law, it shows she is a moronic sycophant, a Republican Monica Lewinsky (how interesting that they share the same name), ready to serve the president and demanding that anyone she hires serve him as well.

The first part of the question: "What is it about George W. Bush" implies that the job applicant is only there to be a toady of the president, that he or she only applied for the job because he or she is as enthralled, enchanted, and infatuated by the president as she is. Isn't it possible that someone wants the job because they want the experience, they believe in justice and the Constitutution, or that it is a step to something grander? Why must it be something about George W. Bush that has brought them to apply for a job? Because Monica Goodling has stars in her eyes, hero worships this inadequate man and thinks that must be what everyone else thinks?

The second part of the question "that makes you want to serve him" also smacks of hero worship. People don't work at the Justice Department to "serve the president." These were not, I believe, presidential appointments where one "seves at the pleasure of the president." They were career department positions, which should have nothing to do with one's political affiliation or even loyalty to any single president. As career appointees they would serve under many presidents, of both parties, which is why politics should never enter into their hiring.

Career employees serve at the Justice Department in order to preserve the Constitution and carry out its laws to the best of their ability. This nation, as is often said, is a nation of laws, not of men, and nowhere is this a more important principle than in the Justice Department, where those laws are enforced.

The fact that someone who worked for George W. Bush could be as sycophantic, as empty-headed and ignorant, as this woman is simply another reflection of the man she "serves." The fact that she would "serve him" by breaking the law so casually, so willingly, only shows us one more example of how much damage to the Constitution and to the rule of law this administration has done.

Monica Goodling is worse than another young woman, with the same first name, who used to fawn over a president. Monica Goodling is even more contemptible than Monica Lewinsky. At least Bill Clinton was smart enough not to give her the task of hiring anyone. And at least she didn't subvert the Constitution.

It all depends on what the meaning of "Sniper Fire" is

Last week on at least two occasions Hillary Clinton said the following regarding a trip she took to Bosnia as First Lady:

“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Then, several youtube videos appeared contradicting Mrs. Clinton's remarks, showing her and her daughter being met at the airport by a greeting party that included a young girl who read a poem for her. There was no running with heads down, and indeed as good a mother as she seems to be I cannot imagine she would take Chelsea with her should she think she might be subjected to sniper fire.

Today the Clinton campaign said she "misspoke." These two - Bill and Hillary - really are two identical peas in a pod. But then I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "sniper fire" is.

Serial apologizer

Michael Moore pegged it four years ago: the Democrats have "battered wife syndrome." No matter how many times George W. Bush - or the their own candidates - knock them around, they keep coming back for more.

And so, once again, we see the spectre of Bill Clinton apologizing for treating one of his wife's constituencies terribly. His many admirers simply can't accept what he really is, a politician who will stop at nothing to get the Clinton duo back in the White House, regardless of who it hurts. And so instead of divorcing him and moving to a new candidate, they fall for it again, until the next time he hurts them, when they will probably forgive him again, giving him permission to do it all over again.

Is anyone else as tired of Bill Clinton's lame and politically motivated apologies as I am?

Do we really want to spend the next four years waiting for Bill Clinton's next apology?

Restoring dignity to the Clinton campaign

It's about time!

Rahm Emmanuel and Ted Kennedy have advised Bill Clinton to stop the attacks on Obama, indicating this is not an appropriate role for a former president.

Behind the smears: what's really at stake for Hillary Clinton

Apparently, Obama isn't the only one to speak positively of Ronald Reagan. Hillary and Bill have too. Yet now they are attacking Obama for what he said about the similarity between this election and the election in which Reagan came to power, and using it against him.

What is becoming clear to me regarding these petty personal attacks, including taking things out of context, overreacting, and deliberately misinterpreting (dare we say spinning?) things the other candidates say, is happening because the three candidates still in the running are basically all proposing the same types of policies. (Kucinich, who is also still in the running is proposing quite different policies and he is therefore simply ignored.) Because there is so little of substance that is really different between them, they must find other reasons to get people to vote for them. And since the stakes are so high, every word, every phrase of each of the candidates is under intense scrutiny by each of the other candidates.

The biggest offender here, although they all participate to some extent, is Senator Clinton. She, her campaign surrogates, and her husband, are all using every opportunity they can to attack Obama because they have the most to lose. Obama has a real chance to get the nominiation which makes him their biggest threat, the one who could take away their dream of re-occupying the White House, which is why they attack him far more than they attack Edwards.

There is so much for them to lose, so much that they have been counting on for nearly eight years: a chance to vindicate the former president, a chance to get even with their enemies by once again wielding power, a chance to implement all the ideas they couldn't implement in the nineties because they were under attack the whole time, a chance to rewrite their legacies. For Hillary, it is also a chance to show the country and indeed the entire world that she is not a victim, but instead the most powerful person in the world.

This is heady stuff, and the thought of achieving it so intoxicating that it seems to have caused her and her husband to lose all objectivity and, in the case of the former president, a great deal of dignity.

Hillary says she is running for president because she cares about the country. I don't doubt her sincerity in saying this as I think she actually believes it. But as a psychotherapist, I know that the real reasons people do things are often below their full awareness. We know that was true of George W. Bush, not only in his desire to run for president, but in his decision to go to war against a country that was not an immediate threat. And now, I fear, Hillary and Bill are attempting to bring their unfinished psychological business to the White House.

This is why you see so many underhanded attacks against Obama, and so much anger on the part of the former president, anger we were told about but didn't really see in his own campaigns, nor in his time in the White House. The years of planning for this potential victory, including victory over their adversaries, the ultimate payback, was within their grasp when this young (though slightly older than Bill Clinton when he ran for president in 1992) upstart dared to challenge them. At first, they didn't realize how much he would appeal to the nation, yes in much the same way that Ronald Reagan appealed to the nation. This is one reason why they are pouncing on the Reagan comments. It isn't just that they want to attack the bogeyman of progressives; it's that they can't let the story line be about a transformative election.

You can see their frustration and anger in their words and their tactics. They simply can't let Obama win. To have their long dreamed of vindication and a return to power stolen from them by this young charismatic candidate is unthinkable. The humiliation would be unbearable.

There is more at stake here than most people realize, and the Clintons are fighters. Anyone who doubts that ought to look back at the impeachment fiasco. Any other president would probably have resigned. Not Bill Clinton.

Any other first lady would have been mortified and gone into retirement. Not Hillary. She imediately began plans to run for the Senate, and now she wants the most powerful job in the world.

If Obama wins in Nevada or South Carolina, expect the smears and attacks to escalate. These people are not quitters, and they have no intention of being losers.

Try to remember...

If you have forgotten how many scandals have erupted during the Bush administration, check out Hugh's list. The list is incredibly long, and curiously few of these scandals seem to have caused George Walker Bush much trouble. The media either ignores them, superficially covers them, or accepts the Bush administration excuses or rationalizations as adequate explanations for whatever has occurred.

Just for fun, then, imagine the kind of media attention these scandals would be getting if the president in whose administration they occurred was named William Jefferson Clinton.