Reply to Lanny

My good friend Lanny Davis is apparently willing to defend Mrs. Clinton anywhere and under any circumstances in much the way, in an earlier incarnation, he focused his not inconsiderable rhetorical talents on defending whatever her husband chose to do in and out of the Oval Office.

Today he’s upset with the other Democratic contenders for their “personal” attacks on Hillary in the last Democratic debate. Such attacks are unfair to her and to the process because people ought to be able to disagree on issues without implying, inferring or charging that those with whom they disagree are lying. Nothing wrong with that position, unless the person on whom the charges, inferences and implications are focused is, well, lying.

If Obama and Edwards believe that Hillary has been less than truthful or has been talking out of both sides of her mouth, there is nothing wrong with pointing this out. Whether they are right is a question for the jury … in this case, for the voters. The problem with negative campaigning in general is that you have to be right or it backfires on you.

However, in reading Lanny’s post, I was drawn back to Mrs. Clinton’s charge in questioning Gen. David Petraeus that to believe his testimony would require a “suspension of disbelief.” The senator was, I think, not simply suggesting that the general was wrong or that she disagrees with him, but that he was lying.

Query: Is it OK for Mrs. Clinton to suggest Gen. Petraeus is a liar if she thinks he’s lying when others might conclude that she simply disagrees with him, but not OK for one who disagrees with her and actually believes she is lying to suggest that she is guilty of the same sin?

Or are all Clintons to benefit from a double standard?

Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union, whose website can be accessed here.