Why not the worst?

Considering the Democratic presidential nominees since 1992 — Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton — we find a parade of repugnant characters. What a crew. Who is the most repugnant of them all?

We can be overwhelmed by the present. At the time I thought Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily bad man, but Barack Obama has helped me understand how good we had it with Bill Clinton. Not to say that Clinton isn’t the most repugnant, but we now have a larger context within which to judge him. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will lend a similar context to our judgment of Obama. Ah, the uses of history.

Have the Democrats ever nominated a more repugnant human being for president than Hillary Clinton? Now that is a difficult question. The questions comes to mind in connection with her seven-minute interview with Chuck Todd about her session with the FBI yesterday (summary and video accessible here). She had graciously consented to give Todd five minutes. She told NBC’s Todd she was “eager” for the meeting and “pleased to have the opportunity to assist the department [sic] in bringing its review to a conclusion.” It was a historic occasion; she is the first presidential candidate to be summoned by the FBI to give evidence as the subject of a pending criminal investigation.

The question also comes to mind in connection with the release of the House Benghazi Committee report last week. The supplemental report by Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo does an excellent job of setting forth Madam Hillary’s duplicity on the Benghazi attack. Steve Hayes takes up this aspect of the supplemental report in “The Benghazi lie in black and white.” Like her husband, Clinton is a sickening liar. And that may not be her worst trait!