Clinton doesn’t need a ‘reintroduction’


I am skeptical of political operatives who say they want to “reintroduce” their candidate to the American public.

What’s more, I am extremely skeptical — dubious, even — of efforts to reintroduce arguably the nation’s most recognizable woman to Americans whose votes she is seeking.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on or near the national stage for nearly a quarter century. She stood by her man — pardon the pun — when he ran for president in 1992; she weathered the storm of Bill Clinton’s impeachment involving that disgraceful relationship he had with the White House intern; she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and served for eight years with many of the same individuals who voted to toss her husband out of office; she then served for four years as secretary of state.

Is a reintroduction necessary? Hardly.

I believe the term “reintroduction” is a sort of code for “extreme political makeover,” which the Democratic presidential nominee’s handlers believe is necessary, given the incessant pounding she’s been getting for, oh, the past 25 years.

I’m sure you’ve seen — or perhaps even used — some of the hideous perversions of her very name when referring to her.

If the Democrats’ candidate for president has demonstrated anything she has shown herself to be filled with an iron will and an emotional constitution that defies most of our understanding. I am one who has trouble grasping just how she has endured this withering fire.

But she has. As for the “reintroduction,” it’s not necessary.

She’s been called a liar and a crook. She’s been tarred by accusations that she and her husband are actual murderers; do you remember the “Clinton Chronicles,” a video produced by none other than the late Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and a “Christian pastor”? Lately, she’s been labeled a traitor who should be executed.

It’s all phony.

A reintroduction — if that’s what you want to call it — is going to require some serious marketing.

Leave a Reply