We are about to be bombarded by the mercenaries of progressivism, who will harangue us to agree that all or part of Hillary Clinton's past has no bearing on what kind of president she would be.  To a lesser degree, some have offered a variation on this theme, suggesting that when weighing Mrs. Clinton's past, her husband's own history should not be a factor in that analysis.

Mrs. Clinton herself, if given the chance to dictate the review of her past, would doubtless say, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  And why shouldn't she pretend that all she has done, and that every awful, self-serving lie she has told, means nothing?  Look at the heights she and her husband have scaled by pretending to be sincere, competent, or ethical, while those who know otherwise protect them from themselves.  After all, such people as Mrs. Clinton bring about the social revolution that the left demands to wrest the assets and autonomy from a free people, and bestow them upon the self-righteous, and increasingly tyrannical, gods of men.

If the perpetuation of willful ignorance toward a politician's background seems familiar, that is because we were subjected to it only six years ago, and then again two years ago, including by Mr. Romney, one of the very people now suggesting that there should be a disconnect between Bill Clinton and his equally egotistical and megalomaniacal political consort.  Perhaps if Mr. Romney had been willing to enter the target-rich environment of his opponent's relevant and disturbing political and personal history, he would be sharing his thoughts from the Oval Office, rather than an interview room at the local Fox affiliate. 

We live now under the growing shadow of a man who owes every landmark event of his life to the progressive triumvirate of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition.  He shares this aspect of his résumé with Mrs. Clinton.  But for the profound psychological deformities of those who constitute his "base," upon which he relies for the illusion of validation, it would be impossible to escape exposure as a complete fraud.  Bill Clinton enjoyed similar support, and Mrs. Clinton fully expects that the left's loyal soldiers will lay themselves down for her.  It is her turn.  She really believes that they owe her this prize.

As she begins to assert her right of succession via surrogates, we are witnessing a resurgence of those who prey on the meekness and deference of a people chided not to exercise judgment or common sense.  Thought police have branded critical thinking as hate and reasoned questions as shameful ignorance.  Anything to conceal the truth.  It is for this reason, in part, that the Tea Party is hated by both the left and some on the right.  Not only do its members demand truth, but they know it ahead of time.  They are too informed and engaged to be discredited on policy grounds, so they must be branded and marginalized, lest they get too close to revealing the large truths on a large scale.  So they engage in invisible racism.  Some girls in Salem said so.

What then of the Clintons, since they are not practically divisible in any conceivable way?  Will it be relevant that Mrs. Clinton was the closest confidante and advisor to a president who thoroughly disgraced himself while in office?  Should it matter that her prints can be found on every shady, illegal practice in which the Clinton administration engaged for eight years, from illegally withholding documents to false testimony to illegal campaign contributions from China, to the illegal release of missile technology to that same country in exchange?  What about her faux victimhood when her philandering husband was caught, yet again, doing what he had done for decades?  Are we to believe she was actually surprised, or victimized, yet again? 

The obvious answer is "no," but doesn't her fake victimhood prompt questions of its own?  Exactly  how cold-blooded is a person that she would elect power over fidelity?  Just how manipulative is she prepared to be?  Does such a person have a moral compass, and does it point at anything but herself?  What else, or whom else, is she willing to sacrifice for her own ambition?  Perhaps Ambassador Stevens, an aide, and two SEALs are better persons to answer that, only her recklessness ensured that they can't, and her ambition demands that the truth died with them.

What about the insider trading, giant payoffs, and shady land deals, and the lies to cover those, or the innumerable ruined careers and lives?  Doesn't it matter that as first lady, she destroyed or tried to destroy everything and everyone who resisted her or her immoral political partner, blaming straw men and decent people alike when their crimes were exposed?  Doesn't the willful fraud in which a person has already engaged inform us of her future character?  After all, Mrs. Clinton is done forming.  Our future can be clearly seen in her past.

Indeed, her latest stint was in service to an administration that has consciously worked to undermine and damage our standing internationally, to which she readily devoted herself.  She took that post knowing better than anyone the losses that would result from the policies and decisions of a man whose ignorance and disinterest have diminished our ability to protect ourselves and our allies from attack and death.  Thanks to Mrs. Clinton's pursuit of the president's surrender, we are now as vulnerable from without as he has made us from within.

Finally, we would be foolish if we did not ask for what Ms. Clinton did all this.  She did it for herself, since only she has gained in the process.  Having experienced boundless narcissism, condescension, fraud, and lawlessness during the Clinton years, and eight more under Obama, we have a duty to raise every past event that exposes those qualities in the next applicant, especially if the only apparent difference is her gender or race.  After all, look what happened to our country the last time we elected a person based solely on what we saw, despite what we knew.