In an interview with "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday, Hillary
Clinton actually said something that is undeniably true: "I
often feel like there's the Hillary standard, and then there's
the standard for everybody else." By that, Clinton meant to say
that she often gets treated unfairly. Which is also true.
But then Clinton went on to claim that by "Hillary standard,"
she meant that she is uniquely singled out for "unfounded,
inaccurate, mean-spirited attacks with no basis in truth." That
should have elicited a laugh from CBS News' Scott Pelley, but
instead he asked this tough follow-up question: "Why do you put
yourself through it?"
Anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship can see that there is,
and has been, a Hillary standard. But not one in which Hillary
is the victim. It's one in which she, because of her party
affiliation and gender, is held unaccountable for any wrongdoing
that would doom mere mortals.
We don't need to run through the familiar litany in detail, but
suffice it to say that if a Republican had been secretary of
state when a U.S. ambassador was killed by terrorists in a
country that the secretary's own policies had destabilized, that
person would unlikely be the party's nominee.
If anyone but Hillary Clinton had set up a private foundation
that took money from government officials who were at the same
time seeking favors from the federal government, she'd never
have survived the scandal.
And if anyone but Hillary had set up a private email server
while secretary of state, for the express purpose of protecting
her correspondence from Freedom of Information Act requests,
well, first of all, the press would likely have exposed it while
she was secretary of state.
Once the email scandal did come to light, her blatantly obvious
and yet endlessly repeated lies would have sunk any other
candidate a long time ago. It's also unlikely that the FBI would
have concluded -- after amply demonstrated that she was grossly
negligent in handling national security information -- that no
"reasonable" prosecutor would want to try Clinton for her
crimes. If it weren't for the Hillary standard, there would be
"reasonable" prosecutors lined up around the block eager to try
this case, if for no other reason that to show that no one is
above the law.
Finally, if anyone but Hillary had been so greedy as to make
half a million in one day giving speeches, and more than $21
million over the course of two years, to major corporations and
special interests, no one would ever take her seriously when she
complains about "greed."
To be sure, the "Hillary standard" isn't entirely unique to
Hillary. It's more like the "Democratic standard," whereby
Democrats generally are treated differently than Republicans.
Democrats can lie, cheat, viciously attack opponents, be as
corrupt as the day is long, and the press will play it down,
ignore it, or make excuses, all while sending armies of angry
reporters chasing after even the slightest perceived GOP
Clinton is like Nietzsche's "Ubermensch," except in Nietzsche's
version, the Ubermensch didn't whine about being above the law.