Commenting on Hillary’s performance in the Ohio debate last week, Michelle Malkin observed that the Democratic candidate for president looked “bitter, tired, angry.” This is not the first time a pundit has noted the former First Lady’s anger.
It does seem she has become increasingly irritated as the campaign for the Democratic nomination has failed to meet her expectation of the coronation she believes she deserved. On that score, her anger does not seem warranted in the least. No one is entitled to election or nomination just because he believes he is better suited for the office than others might be.
Yet, on another level, Mrs. Clinton’s anger does seem justified. While the media has been harsher on her than in years past (but not as harsh as they have been on Republican candidates), it has largely given her rival for the Democratic nomination a free pass.
For example, one has to turn to the blogs for questions about Senator Obama’s connections to real estate developer (and Democratic fundraiser) Tony Rezko who goes on trial tomorrow for corruption charges in the Illinois Senator’s adopted home town. (Glenn Reynolds has been doing a good job of linking posts on Rezko, e.g., here, here and here. Interestingly, most of his links are to non-traditional news sources.)
Perhaps, were Mrs. Clinton losing to a more accomplished politician, I might be less sympathetic to her bitterness. Much as I dislike and distrust the woman, I do have to admire her intelligence, her diligence and her perseverance. She has sacrificed much for her ambitions, having endured what has been (by many accounts) a difficult marriage at least in part (if not in entirety) to attach herself to one of the most gifted politicians on her side of the political aisle in the last few decades.