Hillary missed “Mister Soldier” moment

I was struck to read this piece from Richard Cohen, a good writer who is by no means a “wingnut conservative,” passionately taking on the MoveOn.org ad from last week. The ad managed to smear Gen. David Petraeus, show us what a few presidential candidates are made of, and apparently give America its first hard look at an organization which pours enormous money into Democrat coffers, and for that reason nearly owns leading Democrats.

Cohen writes and leaves a mark:

If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than “the politics of personal destruction,” it does not come to mind…”the politics of personal destruction” is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly — so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as “General Betray Us,” Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.
[…]
Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. “I don’t buy into that,” he said. “This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth.” But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman…and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.
[…]
It is an odd standard Clinton has when it comes to smears. When the entertainment mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter, called both Bill and Hillary liars, Hillary not only decried the remark as a particularly vivid example of the “politics of personal destruction,” but she demanded that Barack Obama do the same — and return a $2,300 donation Geffen had given him [link mine – admin]. Yet when Clinton herself was asked to repudiate the abuse of Petraeus, she either saw no reason to do so or, much more likely, was afraid to alienate an important constituency, the 3.3 million members of MoveOn.org, who stand symbolically at the frontiers of New Hampshire and Iowa. She would, it seems, rather be president than right.

Cohen is surprisingly rough on Mrs. Clinton in this piece – but he is right to be rough. She is the presumed Democrat nominee and possibly our next president and Commander-in-Chief. As such, she should be capable of defending an honorable soldier who has spent his lifetime training for and persuing the defense of his nation. That she could not do so, not on the fly, not without a script, not even from some instinctive place within herself, speaks volumes about Mrs. Clinton, and none of it is inspirational or impressive.

Last week, Mrs. Clinton could have had a “Mister Soldier” moment to rival Bill Clinton’s Sister Souljah moment, and she took a pass. Too much money to be lost. To much risk involved in defending a good man from the insidious reflex toward political assassination and absurdist theater that currently defines our national politics.

There will be a Sister Souljah moment for Hillary before the ’08 elections, depend upon it – because she needs one – but such a moment will be carefully timed (Tom Maguire says it will be in the springtime) carefully crafted, scripted, wardrobed and softly lit…guaranteed to yield the most political profit possible without offending the people with the money.

UPDATE: Really, for someone who seems to want civility in politics (and that would be something worth applauding) this is infantile and beneath her. Not impressive.