Clinton nostalgia is being replaced by Clinton neuralgia.
Why is it that America's roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around. The Clintons' neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they're entitled to everyone's money.
Are we about to put the “For Rent” sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom? If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.
They have a Wile E. Coyote problem; something is always blowing up. Just when the Clintons are supposed to be floating above it all, on a dignified cloud of do-gooding leading into 2016, pop-pop-pop, little explosions go off everywhere, reminding us of the troubling connections and values they drag around.
There's the continuing grotesque spectacle of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin. And there's the sketchy involvement of the Clintons' most prolific fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, and Hillary's brother Tony Rodham in a venture, GreenTech Automotive; it's under federal investigation and causing fireworks in Virginia, where McAuliffe is running for governor.
Many Israelis were disgusted to learn that Bill Clinton was originally scheduled to scarf up $500,000 to speak at Israeli President Shimon Peres' 90th birthday festivities in June. I guess being good friends with Peres and brokering the accord that won Peres the Nobel Peace Prize were not reasons enough for Bill to celebrate. The Israeli branch of the Jewish National Fund had agreed to donate half a mil to the Clinton foundation. Isn't the JNF “supposed to plant trees with donor cash?” Haaretz chided before the fund pulled back. “I guess money does grow on trees.”