Several documents pertaining to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton surfaced this week, bringing topics, from her husband’s health care policy to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, back into the public spotlight. The documents, which include interviews, journal entries and personal correspondence, were kept by University of Arkansas political science professor Diane Blair, a close friend of Clinton’s who passed away in 2000. Blair’s records date from the 1970s to the year of her death and they depict Clinton as a brashly ambitious first lady. The papers that discuss Clinton’s reaction to her husband’s infidelity and subsequent impeachment have received special attention, reviving discussions about the presumed 2016 presidential candidate’s role in the affair. In light of this association, questions have been raised about whether Americans’ familiarity with Clinton may prove fatal to her political aspirations.
These recently released documents have been used by some as an instrument to discredit Clinton’s political prospects. Citizens United President David Bossie painted Clinton as a “ruthless political operative” — a sentiment which he intended to be derogatory. This statement is not the first time Clinton has been described as ruthless. In the ’90s, Republican strategist Edward Rollins dismissed her as “the most ruthless and ambitious person I’ve met.” Clinton as a first lady earned this title for her strong forthright tone — a quality which is praised in men yet criticized when found in women. Clinton’s long career in the public limelight, particularly her unusual proactivity as first lady, makes her vulnerable to these negative characterizations.
To use Clinton’s remarks in these papers against her campaign would be inappropriate. A candidate’s private life should be kept out of politics and should not interfere with his or her campaign. It is unfair for Clinton to be haunted by what happened in the late ’90s because it has nothing to do with her political capability. Whether Lewinsky was a “narcissistic loony toon” or not, that does not determine if Clinton would be unable to handle White House responsibilities. The way Clinton dealt with the indiscretions reflects her as a wife, not a politician. In short, the Lewinsky scandal is a matter that should be the Clintons’ concern, not the public’s.
If anything is going to be held against Clinton in her campaign, it should be a poor political decision she has made, such as her vote to authorize military action in Iraq or her handling of Benghazi, Libya. Her reaction to her husband’s wandering eye should be completely removed from the equation.
A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, Feb. 12 print edition. Email the WSN Editorial Board at [email protected].